Company News Obsidian Almost Got To Make Baldur's Gate 3

[Major_Blackhart]

What do people think of Pathfinder then?

Pretty much everyone here loves Pathfinder.

I love it too. Is there a pathfinder appreciation thread around somewhere that I can spread the love?

 

[Moribund]

but most people seem to hate 4E, so maybe these problems weren't all that serious after all?

IMHO, the problem with 4E on this front was that they way it addressed the wizard problem was to spread alot of wizardesque powers around the other classes. I only played it a tiny bit, but all the classes felt very interchangeable in the way they played. There was different fluff for the powers, but it always boiled down to comparable variations on damage, buffs and healing.

Yes, the dragon age solution where any real differences in playing one class over another are cosmetic, and reading between the lines the Sawyer solution as well. And anyone with a brain will hate that.

 

[Jaesun]

Is there a pathfinder appreciation thread around somewhere that I can spread the love?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?forums/the-gazebo.58/

This is our PnP discussion forum I'm sure you can find something there.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yes, the dragon age solution where any real differences in playing one class over another are cosmetic, and reading between the lines the Sawyer solution as well. And anyone with a brain will hate that.

Hey, but it's balanced, right? What's this shit about some classes being weaker than others? Every class should have EXACTLY the same strength and equivalent abilities, down to decimal points. Then it would be so totally hard to choose, you'd be in agony!

 

[Volourn]

"ah, rogue has always been equal or superior to mage in PnP. It's just a bit harder to make that a reality in a crpg, and in IE especially thief is a bit gimped and mage has extreme cheating going on to make them harder.

Fighters with best kit are always better than mage anyway, arrows are just OP and can eliminate anything in any edition, and in newer editions you can make a fighter/barbarian that can get to and dismantle any mage in one round."

Are you insane? Rogues were never superior to mages in pnp nor should they be.

A fighter also is never equal to a mage thoguh obviously in straight up combat a fighter would win but a mage will never let it get that way. though, even if it does, a mage has spells that came him into just as good if not better fighter than the fighter is.

A decent mage should be able to LAUGH at missle weapons. Arrows are not over powered. But, keep thinking that a 1d8 arrow is more powerful than a fukkin' mage who can literally trap someone ina amze or even in solid rock with no fukkin' saving throw. or cast a spell that can take him from one spot in the world to another spot. Or fuck even travel to other planes. Missle wepaons? Total. fukkin'. immunity.

A rogue can detect traps? So can a fukkin' mage. A rogue can hide in shadows? Big fukkin' deal. A mage cna hide in the fukkin' open iduring the sunniest day of the fukkin' year and nobody would fukkin' kniow.

L0L Fighters and rogues equal or better than mages? ARE YOU FUKKIN' ON CRACK!?!

"I don't think Volourns comments are stupid, though, but it's influenced by cheating in BG to make mages more super and in crpg it's not going to have thief shine as much. But when people think thief is useless even in IE they are just hopeless, and in all editions it's been one of the best characters to play, but only if done intelligently. It's all about finesse, not brute force."

Your comment is stupid. Fuck BG. I was playing Dnd well before that piec eof shit game did stupid stuff. Mages were allways the most powerful class AS WELL THEY FUKKIN' SHOULD BE.

Rogues can be fun to play and they have a lot of good stuff to playing them but in terms of sheer power - either brute force or subtley? A mages win. LMAO Espicially in earlier editions when rogues... ie. thieves were nothing more than weak ass trap removers. But, even the cooler new age rogues don't match wizards. Rogues are good at persuading peeps to do what they want? BIG FUKKIN' DEAL. A mage can just cast charm.. or better yuet DOMINATE them. FFS

FFS The ignorance of bukllshitterz who know NOTHING about DnD.

 

[Volourn]

"IMHO, the problem with 4E on this front was that they way it addressed the wizard problem was to spread alot of wizardesque powers around the other classes. I only played it a tiny bit, but all the classes felt very interchangeable in the way they played. There was different fluff for the powers, but it always boiled down to comparable variations on damage, buffs and healing."

Yup. that's because if one's goal is to make classes equal that invariably means either dumbing down or wekaneing the mage in some way or basically giving other classes (not counting other spellcasters like clerics) mage like powers 9and thenc alling thems something else to pretend it's not magic. ie. Shadow FUKKIN' Dancer. L0L FUKKIN LOL

 

[thesheeep]

What an idiot. A mage is more powerful than a rogue. That's why. It's not arbitrary fucknutz.Rogues are not equally powerful to mages. never were never will be.

Yes, that was obviously the idea behind it. Too bad it's not even true. Yes, at some rather high level, mages become more powerful than all non-magic classes. But why push that point behind by adding additional required XP? I as a player don't want to wait longer to level up just because I used a certain class. I still play it because the other classes are boring (in BG). It would make more sense if the XP requirements were the same all over the place, while slowing down the spell-gain per level. Same result, but mages get to level as often. Problem solved.

Though they keep getting 'special' powers to try to make it so and all it does is make them more mage like.

Yes, and that is a general problem in DnD before 4th edition. With almost all classes.

Progression is not 'too slow' in BG. It's too fast. 2-3 hours? FFS You are a piece of shit.

I said it can take that long (especially if you are new), not that I take that long. Maybe I should write the important bits of information bold so you can keep up?

All those fancy combat feats in 3e are in 2e. BIO was too lazy to use them though. Called shots, disarm, etc. were there. FFS

Okay, that is something I didn't know. Why did they not implement it? FFS, indeed...

If you died multipel times to CK assasssins that's on you and your loserness not the game.

Play 100 Characters (mostly weak mages) and send them to fight against the assassins. Count how many die. Easy. You can do it!

It's interesting to note that these problems were sort of fixed in 4E (maybe that's what you meant, thesheep?) - but most people seem to hate 4E, so maybe these problems weren't all that serious after all?

The problem is that 4th edition solved most of the problems in DnD by making every class the same. Now every class is a mage, as every class has acces to Powers. A mage may have the description of a Fireball, while a Thief has some kind of bomb or whatnot, but in the end, it's just a power that does AoE damage. Also, almost every power does damage. There is no spell or something that just stuns people. Every class plays almost exactly the same. The Fighters just use they Powers from melee range.

 

[Volourn]

"Yes, that was obviously the idea behind it. Too bad it's not even true. Yes, at some rather high level, mages become more powerful than all non-magic classes. But why push that point behind by adding additional required XP? I as a player don't want to wait longer to level up just because I used a certain class. I still play it because the other classes are boring (in BG). It would make more sense if the XP requirements were the same all over the place, while slowing down the spell-gain per level. Same result, but mages get to level as often. Problem solved."

A level mage can beat any other character with exactly one spell that receives no saving throw, has a low casting time, and is unstoppable. Sorry, your llittle low level rogue has exactly one chance to kill the mage. Good luck with that. On top of that, a mage doesn't even need a spell to beat a level 1 rogue. A crossbow bolt to the face is that is needed (and vice versa). A mid or higher level mage = no contest as a a rogue is made useless versus a mage with two spells: protection from normal missles/weapons and protection from magic weapons. GAME OVER, MAN, GAME FUKKIN' OVER.


"Play 100 Characters (mostly weak mages) and send them to fight against the assassins. Count how many die. Easy. You can do it!"

I think i've died once maybe twice at max in CK b/c of unlucky crits. If you died a bunch of times youa re either very unlucky or very stupid.


Then again, you actually beleive your nonsense that rogues ar emore pwoerful than mages. Only a retart does that. The rogue has exactly one skill that a mage can't simply duplicate with a spell and that's a sneak attack but cosnideirng the damaging spells a mage has access to he doesn't need sneak attack. Sorry, dude, anyone who believes a rogue (who isn't given actual super powers to balance things out) is the equal or sueprior to a mage is retarted and knows nothing about DnD.

It's one thing to like rogues more but a whole 'nother to claim they are more powerful. That's plain bullshitz.

 

[Moribund]

There's also the idea of characters that start pretty weak then get very powerful later on. Wizard and monk work like that.

Idea that level one wizard will win falls apart when you realize strength or dexterity dictates how often you hit and dexterity affects your initiative. A level one mage is on par with a level one fighter or rogue with a longbow? lol. Your puny magic missle is not going to take down a character with decent constitution either, whoops. If you cast sleep, good luck killing them afterwards, you will probably miss until they wake up or hit them once and wake them. Whoops.

Protection from magic missile is one of the bullshit cheater spells in BG. Thief can't do its backstab alone very well either, and not at all without invis in IE. Classes work well together and play on each others' strength, what a concept.

It's like rock paper scissors, but more complex. Rock beats scissors but scissors beats paper and paper beats rock.

That's how it works in DnD too. When people make these dumb rants it only reflects on them, not DnD, because it's somewhat complex but not so complicated that you can't figure it out. I beat BG using this party build so this party build is the best!

 

[Roguey]

and reading between the lines the Sawyer solution as well.

"4E's classes are more homogenized than we will shoot for. I think our classes and level progression options will fall somewhere between 3.5E and 4E."

Every class should have EXACTLY the same strength and equivalent abilities, down to decimal points.

Ridiculous strawman. "Let me create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition, and refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"--you.

 

[Arkeus]

Yes, the dragon age solution where any real differences in playing one class over another are cosmetic, and reading between the lines the Sawyer solution as well. And anyone with a brain will hate that.

Ahahaahah, are you serious?
DA:O was such a clusterfuck where Mages >>>>>>> any other classes. And, guess what? the only class that had something that could be semi-interesting is rogue, because rogue actually have viable abilities (increased crit, increased backstab, very good hide, very good bardic songs) that the mage cannot copy.

DA:O classes were nothing alike, the problem was that mages could do everything that warrior could only better, and they had ridiculously overpowered spells to boot.

 

[Volourn]

"If you cast sleep, good luck killing them afterwards, you will probably miss until they wake up or hit them once and wake them. Whoops."

Death is automatic when sleeping and you are undefended. And, even when you are not, you get no ac bonus from dex,a re considered prone, and the attacker gets major bonuses (if not, outright auto hit). Nice try, though.

As for dex bonus, most fighetrs aren't gonna have super high dex, and even a high dex rogue isn't gonna be THAT much better. Plus, most mages tend to focus on dex as a secondary focused stat so tend to have 14 dex minimum in 3e while rogues would have 16-18.

But, yeah, a rogue or warrior can beat a mage at level 1 but it is no slam dunk. And, sleep in 2e = death. In 3e it's not a gimme but with the low will saves of rogues and warriors it almost iis. Heh.

Any class can beat any class under the 'right' circumstances; but the mage should always be the favorite abrring any cheap crap like giving special mage like pwoers to other classes ie L0L0L0L SHADOW DANCER LOL OR VORPAL SWORD OF ANTI MAGIC +10 TS IMMUNE TO ALL ELEMENTS R00FLALOGZ!

 

[l3loodAngel]

Do I seriously need to explain the differences between:

IE style PC only game

AAA title on xbox 360, PS3, and PC



Seriously? Here on the Codex? WTF guys, you used to be beautiful.

You do know that you are arguing with volourn?

 

[Volourn]

"You do know that you are arguing with volourn"

You do know that you are replying to Mr. Anthony DAVIS?

 

[crawlkill]

Rahdulan
That's not the same BG3 though.

sorry, I think the spergs have determined that there are NONE WAYS!! to make an BG3!!!!!s! obviously the Forgotten Realms are completely played out forever ever. ever.

It's like saying that 1990s people giving negative reviews to Doom64 is wrong, because it cuts hopes of Doom 3

except that Doom was not at the time a deeply dead and out-of-date franchise owned by who-knows-who, nor was it a particularly shining example of the genre it popularized. Doom 64 also didn't meaningfully move the game to a more pervasive platform, the way that iPad support for Baldur's Gate has (and will continue to as tablets continue to fall in price). good metaphor in concept, but not accurate, man. I have no problem with people criticizing the BGEE for being a buggy and more or less unnecessary piece of shit. I just hope that they'll simultaneously understand why it exists and why it's important.

do you people seriously not understand that beamdog would never, ever be awarded a BG3 contract? it would go to a big-name company and get big-name treatment. beamdog is motherfucking kidding themselves if they think their five-man-or-whatever renovation team is going to get a development contract. Trent's dreaming. but his product has a value to -us,- that is to say, -to people who like that kind of bullshit.- that value is in showing the out-of-touch holders of the pursestrings that there are enough people out there to make a dialogue-heavy RPG still a viable product, in the same way that Kickstarter does. the BGEE is NOT ABOUT YOU. it's about reestablishing a market. it's about making a franchize look appealing to people who only understand buzzwords like "mobile" and "low-risk." it's part of the ongoing revivification of the RPG. it's a piece of persuasion.

seriously though I'd love to keep hearing your idiot self-destructive shuttered-eyed bile it's kinda tangy

 

[crawlkill]

franchize

 

[Infinitron]

"Persuasion" of what? That RPGs can be made for tablets in addition to consoles?

You're fucking delusional, man.

 

[crawlkill]

"Persuasion" of what? That RPGs can be made for tablets in addition to consoles?

...that a rereleased Baldur's Gate can sell? and so that a new title in a similar style might also sell? how is this a hard concept. if you think a new Infinity Engine-style Forgotten Realms game hasn't been made because "nobody could has an good ideans," you...you what? it hasn't been made because the funding couldn't be produced, as -this very fucking thread has cited.-

those ten thousand posts you've made have done you a lot of good

 

[Infinitron]

...that a rereleased Baldur's Gate can sell? and so that a new title in a similar style might also sell?

Can sell...on tablets. And you know what, for the sequel we'll streamline the user interface to make it more tablet friendly.

BG:EE, meet Morrowind for XBox.

 

[crawlkill]

Can sell...on tablets. And you know what, for the sequel we'll streamline the user interface to make it more tablet friendly.

BG:EE, meet Morrowind for XBox.

are you comfortable with this not being about you yet, or are we going to have to keep repeating the concept?

 

[Infinitron]

are you comfortable with this not being about you yet, or are we going to have to keep repeating the concept?

Was Morrowind and KOTOR's success on consoles a good thing for the RPG genre and for "reestablishing the market"? Yes or no.

 

[crawlkill]

Was Morrowind and KOTOR's success on consoles a good thing for the RPG genre and for "reestablishing the market"? Yes or no.

uh, that wasn't the intent of either of them? and yes, they were good things? guess what: sales are everything. are you seriously trying to pull up some kind of SNES versus Sega Genesis conversation here? are you actually that seven years old circa 1993?

 

[Infinitron]

uh, that wasn't the intent of either of them?

Same difference. They opened up a huge new market for RPGs. Morrowind, man! Tons of dialogue, tons of text! A very monocled game indeed. Surely bringing that over to a "more pervasive platform" could only mean good things for that sort of game, amirite?

We all know how that ended.

Your desire for a successful tablet port for any RPG is a deathwish for the genre. What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[crawlkill]

Your desire for a successful tablet port for any RPG is a deathwish for the genre. What the hell is wrong with you?

I can honestly say that in a life wasted arguing with nerds on the internet I've never directly spoken with anyone as monomaniacal, zealous, self-absorbed and blind to the realities of business as you seem to be who also appeared to be of fuckable age. please tell me you're twelve and that your "console wars" fascination is a function of your parents being unwilling to unplug the Tivo to let you try out Steam Big Picture. I WILL NOT HAS AN NEW RPGS BECAUSE THE MENUS MIGHTE MAY BE BETTER FOR LOOKING AT ON CONSOUL!

 

[Infinitron]

Let's forget the tablet edition for a second. Surely good BG:EE sales on PC alone can signal to publishers that the genre is still viable, right?

Except the original Baldur's Gate has been on sale on GOG for a while now, and it's sold extremely well there.

Publishers? Hello? Publishers? Can I have my Baldur's Gate 3 now? It's totally viable! GOG proves it!

I can honestly say that in my entire life wasted arguing with nerds on the internet I've never met anyone as monomaniacal and zealous as you who also appeared to be of fuckable age. please tell me you're twelve and that your "console wars" fascination is a function of your parents being unwilling to unplug the Tivo to let you try out Steam Big Picture.

lol. I think this conversation now falls within the jurisdiction of our Codex Disciplinary Team.