Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,157
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
See? They read us.
(We never will be happy with the game even if the game win game of the year. I’m sorry Swen).

-We're doing so much innovation!
-Like what?
-Well, we're turn based, and we have cinematics!
-Erm... okay. BTW do you have multiclassing?
-No, not at the moment

Classic D&D experience folks.
 

Nortar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,407
Pathfinder: Wrath
I'm not a game developer. What would take longer to implement. A boot throwing feature or a day/night cycle feature? Which would you prefer to be in the game?

Who the fuck cares about day-night cycle? Mah-immersun-tards?
If the only thing this cycle does is making me to play part of the time with shit visibility hurting my eyes, or forcing me to press "wait N hours" button
just too see an NPC I need, I will take boot-trowing feature or any other crap instead of it.
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,157
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
2,930
A dagger? Ok. An axe? Ok. A fire flask..ok...shoes? If somebody threw shoes and hit you from 30 feet away and you are wearing Armour they are doing no damage. Its dumb as hell. Not to mention unlacing you boots and throwing them should take at least 10 to 20 seconds. If they are a back pack item, okay, but still shoes are not doing any damage to anyone unless you are a roach or something.
Are you using realism argument? Here is the rule:

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes though, because I could at least throw it like a baseball and get some speed on it like 70 MPH. Shoes are going to tumble and have no force behind them at all.

There should be some semblance of reality, yes, or otherwise what are we doing? Why do we have the rules? You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,157
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
I'm not a game developer. What would take longer to implement. A boot throwing feature or a day/night cycle feature? Which would you prefer to be in the game?

Who the fuck cares about day-night cycle? Mah-immersun-tards?
If the only thing this cycle does is making me to play part of the time with shit visibility hurting my eyes, or forcing me to press "wait N hours" button
just too see an NPC I need, I will take boot-trowing feature or any other crap instead of it.
I like it how day-night cycles suddenly became unimportant, the minute we learned they won't be featured. :lol:
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
A dagger? Ok. An axe? Ok. A fire flask..ok...shoes? If somebody threw shoes and hit you from 30 feet away and you are wearing Armour they are doing no damage. Its dumb as hell. Not to mention unlacing you boots and throwing them should take at least 10 to 20 seconds. If they are a back pack item, okay, but still shoes are not doing any damage to anyone unless you are a roach or something.
Are you using realism argument? Here is the rule:

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes. There should be some semblance or reality, yes. You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
Getting mad at Larian for implementing the rules as written: the post
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
2,930
A dagger? Ok. An axe? Ok. A fire flask..ok...shoes? If somebody threw shoes and hit you from 30 feet away and you are wearing Armour they are doing no damage. Its dumb as hell. Not to mention unlacing you boots and throwing them should take at least 10 to 20 seconds. If they are a back pack item, okay, but still shoes are not doing any damage to anyone unless you are a roach or something.
Are you using realism argument? Here is the rule:

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes. There should be some semblance or reality, yes. You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
Getting mad at Larian for implementing the rules as written: the post
boot throwing is retarded as fuck. Don't care if they are in the rules. Its fucking dumb. What other items of clothing do damage? Does that mean my shirt also does 1d4 damage? My socks? Your bra?
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
A dagger? Ok. An axe? Ok. A fire flask..ok...shoes? If somebody threw shoes and hit you from 30 feet away and you are wearing Armour they are doing no damage. Its dumb as hell. Not to mention unlacing you boots and throwing them should take at least 10 to 20 seconds. If they are a back pack item, okay, but still shoes are not doing any damage to anyone unless you are a roach or something.
Are you using realism argument? Here is the rule:

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes. There should be some semblance or reality, yes. You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
Getting mad at Larian for implementing the rules as written: the post
boot throwing is retarded as fuck. Don't care if they are in the rules. Its fucking dumb. What other items of clothing do damage? Does that mean my shirt also does 1d4 damage? My socks? Your bra?
Go complain to wizards of the coast
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
2,930
A dagger? Ok. An axe? Ok. A fire flask..ok...shoes? If somebody threw shoes and hit you from 30 feet away and you are wearing Armour they are doing no damage. Its dumb as hell. Not to mention unlacing you boots and throwing them should take at least 10 to 20 seconds. If they are a back pack item, okay, but still shoes are not doing any damage to anyone unless you are a roach or something.
Are you using realism argument? Here is the rule:

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes. There should be some semblance or reality, yes. You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
Getting mad at Larian for implementing the rules as written: the post
boot throwing is retarded as fuck. Don't care if they are in the rules. Its fucking dumb. What other items of clothing do damage? Does that mean my shirt also does 1d4 damage? My socks? Your bra?
Go complain to wizards of the coast
Larian is making the game and they don't seem to have any trouble changing the rules, for instance making it more likely to hit, an adding their trademark barrels of acid, chemicals and oil stacked deep into the wilderness and unexplored dungeon areas of the world.

So, Wizards could change the rule, but it does not mean Larian would change it too. I get the feeling Larian loves the idea of boot throwing, its right up there with cheese jokes and skeleton romance. I think they would keep it no matter what wizards of the coast changed or did not change. Larian loves stupid shit, they can't help themselves, so complaining to them makes more sense even if its futile-- because ultimately they will do what they want no matter what the actual rules might be. The truth is its not changing, so just bitching about it is the best I can hope for.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
A dagger? Ok. An axe? Ok. A fire flask..ok...shoes? If somebody threw shoes and hit you from 30 feet away and you are wearing Armour they are doing no damage. Its dumb as hell. Not to mention unlacing you boots and throwing them should take at least 10 to 20 seconds. If they are a back pack item, okay, but still shoes are not doing any damage to anyone unless you are a roach or something.
Are you using realism argument? Here is the rule:

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes. There should be some semblance or reality, yes. You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
Getting mad at Larian for implementing the rules as written: the post
boot throwing is retarded as fuck. Don't care if they are in the rules. Its fucking dumb. What other items of clothing do damage? Does that mean my shirt also does 1d4 damage? My socks? Your bra?
Go complain to wizards of the coast
Larian is making the game and they don't seem to have any trouble changing the rules, for instance making it more likely to hit, an adding their trademark barrels of acid, chemicals and oil stacked deep into the wilderness and unexplored dungeon areas of the world.

So, Wizards could change the rule, but it does not mean Larian would change it too. I get the feeling Larian loves the idea of boot throwing, its right up there with cheese jokes and skeleton romance. I think they would keep it no matter what wizards of the coast changed or did not change. Larian loves stupid shit, they can't help themselves, so complaining to them makes more sense even if its futile-- because ultimately they will do what they want no matter what the actual rules might be. The truth is its not changing, so just bitching about it is the best I can hope for.
I throw my boot at you
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
I like to play competitive aoe2. It's still kicking even though it's been around for a long time. At least the people in charge of that game know how to treat a series properly.
Check age of empire 3 and 4 before talking.
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
Can you fucking autists please stop? RTWP is good because when you watch Boromir and Aragorn defend the hobbits in Moria, the entire scene doesn't freeze so that Boromir can make his move, thwack an orc on the head and then freeze in turn.

Turd-based is for people who like numbers, not adventures, it's as simple as that.
You mean broromir don’t stand still while uruk hai spam arrows?
 

Ontopoly

Disco Hitler
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
2,993
Location
Fairy land
I like to play competitive aoe2. It's still kicking even though it's been around for a long time. At least the people in charge of that game know how to treat a series properly.
Check age of empire 3 and 4 before talking.
They came back around with the definitive edition. I believe all people are capable of redemption, no matter how low they've fallen.
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
Unrelated to the previous games in almost everything to the point it's a different franchise.

But Baldur's Gate 3 name sells more than Divinity Original Sin 3.

That's the reality, we all know that, regardless of Larian fanboysm or hate.
Is the reverse, Dos 2 name sell more than BG name.

the numbers are not even conparable.

the sales numbers of BG1/2 was good 20 years ago, now any random game pubblished on pc and consoles sell 10x BG numbers.
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
"It" in a sense whatever is being sold under BG trademark - of course not. Just like in Larian case. I'm very clear about what kind of "it" I want.

Sent from my NX551J using Tapatalk
That sound like you will never like it no matter what they do.
 
Last edited:

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
A proper BG3 si not a Beamdog's game using BG1 assets.

A proper Baldur's Gate 3 would have the overall aesthetic of BG1/2 with more or less subtle changes and visual elements that would make it recognizable by the fans of the franchise and would preserve the writing which is "distinctively non-modern in style and employs the vocabulary and tone characteristic of Forgotten Realms literature."
So show me your pathfinder pledge, both pathfinder games.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,691
shoes should do no damage. Can you throw an apple at a dragon and kill it? Honestly an apple would do more damage than shoes though, because I could at least throw it like a baseball and get some speed on it like 70 MPH. Shoes are going to tumble and have no force behind them at all.

There should be some semblance of reality, yes, or otherwise what are we doing? Why do we have the rules? You should not be able to sit down and unlace your shoes and then throw them and have them do as much damage as a combat dagger and have it take less time than it would to swing sword. otherwise, why have rules at all? Why not just say you pick up pebbles and throw them for 2d12? Whats the difference?
I understand your point (I like semi-realistic and simulationist aspects in games myself), but that's a very selective approach to take to a game that's about the rules. Holding against Larian the fact that they are actually implementing the rules very faithfully (all things considered) is nothing short of insane. It's like a child complaining "Maaaamaaa! I don't waaaannaaaa!".

It also shows how many people here simply have no idea what they're talking about. Probably because they didn't touch anything else than 3.5, so they are talking out of their asses like, uh... "resident authorities on everything rpg", rather than checking out if they are talking bullshit or not. That is pretty sad. I am all for criticizing Larian, but there should be a solid ground for that, in my opinion. Otherwise it's pointless.

By the way, do we know anything about modding the game for the singleplayer (it's mentioned that it's up to a DM to change the values for throwing objects)?
 

Elex

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,043
-We're doing so much innovation!
-Like what?
-Well, we're turn based, and we have cinematics!
-Erm... okay. BTW do you have multiclassing?
-No, not at the moment

Classic D&D experience folks.

well multi classing is a variant house rule, fuck you sorcadin players.
 

Anonona

Learned
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
528
Larian is making the game and they don't seem to have any trouble changing the rules, for instance making it more likely to hit, an adding their trademark barrels of acid, chemicals and oil stacked deep into the wilderness and unexplored dungeon areas of the world.

Where did this come from? As far as I'm aware, the chances of hit follows the rules of PnP but presents the info in percentiles for more clarity. You can see the real rolls on the logs. Also we still don't know how their encounters will really be designed.
 

NJClaw

OoOoOoOoOoh
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
7,513
Location
Pronouns: rusts/rusty
Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
This thread enlightened me: RTwP is the superior system because you can fight 400 gibberlings and get bored watching the same meaningless "sword swing" animations, periodically pausing to throw in the occasional fireball, and that's all I want from my rpgs.

This entire thread makes me wish Larian had gone with RTwP, just to avoid 200 pages of bullshit. I would still be excited for the game, because a well-developed RTwP D&D game is still better than no D&D game. But, apparently, for a lot of people no D&D game is still better than a well-developed TB D&D game and that's so retarded I can no longer process reality.

Can we at least agree that a TB D&D game is better than getting AIDS? Please, just give me this one
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom