We had 5 races and 14 classes in DOS2. BG2 had 7 races and 11 classes. Basing on that I doubt they will do worse with BG3.Why? How do you know this?There's absolutely no chance they won't have at least all the base classes and races.
Inb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmed
"We've done a lot more than people expect, I think," he continues. Still, cuts have to be made. "We made a list of everything that's in the Player's Handbook, and we coded it green, orange, red. Green, meaning [we can use it as-written]. Orange, needs change. Red, impossible—or maybe not impossible, but we'd have to make a completely new game just to support this feature."
Inb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmed
None of the other arguments are evidence for being absolutely no chance. So and so game had X and Y is completely irrelevant.
I can't wait until tomorrow. When all the people who don't even care about the game that much come into this thread and tell the actual fans who have been here the whole time what is and isn't a big deal.
Inb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmed
None of the other arguments are evidence for being absolutely no chance. So and so game had X and Y is completely irrelevant.
My only hope for the game is Mike Mearls / WotC holding their reins relatively tightly and the book being as faithful a digitization of the ruleset as possible, so I hope / like to think / believe that won't be the case.
What DnD video games adaptation?Inb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmed
None of the other arguments are evidence for being absolutely no chance. So and so game had X and Y is completely irrelevant.
My only hope for the game is Mike Mearls / WotC holding their reins relatively tightly and the book being as faithful a digitization of the ruleset as possible, so I hope / like to think / believe that won't be the case.
Because the DnD video games adaptation after Neverwinter Nights 2 had been faithful to the ruleset right?
Inb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmed
None of the other arguments are evidence for being absolutely no chance. So and so game had X and Y is completely irrelevant.
My only hope for the game is Mike Mearls / WotC holding their reins relatively tightly and the book being as faithful a digitization of the ruleset as possible, so I hope / like to think / believe that won't be the case.
Because the DnD video games adaptation after Neverwinter Nights 2 had been faithful to the ruleset right?
In one of the interviews with Sven andInb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmed
Is it hard evidence? No. But it's relevant as a point of reference for what we can reasonably expect from BG3.None of the other arguments are evidence for being absolutely no chance. So and so game had X and Y is completely irrelevant.
Motherfuckin' incline.Inb4 Swen makes it so you can only play as various subraces of Dwarf.
If Diablo was about tactical combat and strategic decision making, absolutely.
The encounters become "trash" when they're too repetitive and offer no real challenge and makes the player sleepwalk throughout the combat.RTwP will always be full of trash encounters and maybe a few memorable ones - it's just the only way to design these games.
In BG1 a big chunk of gameplay was exploration. A rtwp BG3 with fewer encounters but with more map exploration would be ideal.If you need a longer play time in RTwP, you need more encounters
A good designed game is the one that has a good ratio between memorable and not so memorable encounters. Wanting for all of them to be memorable is absurd.and there's no way you have the time to design all of them in a way that would allow them to be memorable.
I don't.I can still remember most encounters in D:OS1
And I forgot every encounter in Battle Brothers. Does that mean it is a bad game? Of course not.I forgot about pretty much every encounter in both PoE1 and 2...
Phase-based system. You lock in your actions and they play out in real-time 6s rounds. This is what I want.
SIMULTANEOUSPhase-based system. You lock in your actions and they play out in real-time 6s rounds. This is what I want.
TURN BASED
COMBAT
And the change are probally here: https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdfIn one of the interviews with Sven andInb4 Ranger is a sub-class of Rogue with the only difference being the pet. I am being overly apocalyptic, but I expect them to shit in my cornflakes.Ranger class is already confirmedthat guy from the WotCMike Mearls they admitted that the Ranger was lacking and as such he'll receive some changes for DnD, and they shared that with Larian, which implies they will also take that into consideration for BG3 (since it was Mike Mearls who had to ask Sven for a permission to talk about the Ranger class).
Larian has already achieved in making Baldur's Gate 3 entertaining by producing 298 pages of manchild tears before even revealing its first instance of gameplay.
I was thinking the same, and forgive me if this is a dumb question, but why doesn't this exist already?Phase-based system. You lock in your actions and they play out in real-time 6s rounds. This is what I want.