More like BG2 please

[Mayama]

 

Am I alone in having an opinion that goes something like: No way on this earth I would have backed any RPG tied to the awful, unbalanced and soul destroying systems of early D&D? I played that way for 24 years, lost potential players to the inherent and undecipherable class progression and balance differences and there's no way on this earth I'm going back to it, unless its the last game in town, which it won't be if I have any say in it whatsoever.

 

I would have backed it if the concept was good, but that would have been despite the D&D, not because of it.

 

I'm an enormous fan of the worlds of D&D--many of them, anyway--but not a fan of the systems and mechanics.

 

I played alot AD&D back when I was young but only because our dungeon master liked it so much. I still cant get behind the design decision to tie accuracy and damage to strength.

[Stun]

And this isn't a thread about early D&D anyway. It's about BG2. Trying to equate early D&D to the designs and systems that were actually implemented in BG2 is silly. It's like saying "No way in hell will I ever touch French Champaign if it's the last beverage on earth, Because when I was younger, I used to drink Bud Light and I couldn't stand it!"

[PrimeJunta]

I played alot AD&D back when I was young but only because our dungeon master liked it so much. I still cant get behind the design decision to tie accuracy and damage to strength.

 

:whispers: I houseruled that. Eventually.

 

For me at least, when I started RPG's D&D was the only game in town. Literally. I branched out to others, mostly for radically different settings--Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, Judge Dredd, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, Star Wars (two different editions), a stab at Warhammer but that didn't take for whatever reason, a stab at Rulemonster... ahem, Rulemaster, but that didn't take for obvious reasons. But I always kept coming back to D&D. It was because of that wonderful, magnificent multiverse system. My Al-Qadim campaign had forays into the Inner Planes; we met some old friends from there when we went Planescape; again with a completely different-flavored thing set in a fantasy version of Warring States China on this Prime Material plane or one very like it. There was a feel of "anything is possible" that nothing before or since could quite capture.

 

But those systems, man. AD&D was godawful in every way. :stops self before embarking on long rant:

[Mayama]

 

I played alot AD&D back when I was young but only because our dungeon master liked it so much. I still cant get behind the design decision to tie accuracy and damage to strength.

 

:whispers: I houseruled that. Eventually.

 

For me at least, when I started RPG's D&D was the only game in town. Literally. I branched out to others, mostly for radically different settings--Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, Judge Dredd, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, Star Wars (two different editions), a stab at Warhammer but that didn't take for whatever reason, a stab at Rulemonster... ahem, Rulemaster, but that didn't take for obvious reasons. But I always kept coming back to D&D. It was because of that wonderful, magnificent multiverse system. My Al-Qadim campaign had forays into the Inner Planes; we met some old friends from there when we went Planescape; again with a completely different-flavored thing set in a fantasy version of Warring States China on this Prime Material plane or one very like it. There was a feel of "anything is possible" that nothing before or since could quite capture.

 

But those systems, man. AD&D was godawful in every way. :stops self before embarking on long rant:

 

Imo D&D is something for young players that want to play something powerfull with a ruleset that supports it. Everything has a rule, the style of writing kinda suggests that rule > game master. Of course they write somewhere that the GM is always right but it kinda feels like it was made for people that want to play OP characters. Stuff like call of cthulhu, world of darkness, paranoia could be played without any rule and stats are kinda vague anyway.

[Darkpriest]

While we are it, remove any dialogue choice regarding stats and move the same dialogue choice to a serie of skills influenced by stats.

 

At the moment the main char must waste point in stats that influence only the conversation.

 

I would not call it a waste... it's your choice, if you'd rather have more dialog options or be more combat efficient...

[Ondb]

Is it possible to take Pathfinder RPG system? (and then change/modify it for your needs...)

I mean from the license point of view.

[Malekith]

 

Bullsh*t.

If we had a system like the one Namutree suggested (where 18 = 100% increase in the benefit and 3 = 100% penalty), and we made a rogue with 3 con and 3 might, it would be a bad build. Or more relevantly, it would be just as bad a build as a fighter in BG2 who dumped his Con and Strength all the way.

 

So you're against the idea, then?

 

Funny think is it won't be a bad built. It would suck at dealing damage and holding the line, but to have this two stats so low will mean that you will have other stats too high. Those points must have gone somewhere after all. And if every attribute is usefull, it means that your 3 might 3 constitution character would be supreme in something, like stunlock enemies or giving a crippling effect with his every attack and then avoid being hit in turn.

[PrimeJunta]

Is it possible to take Pathfinder RPG system? (and then change/modify it for your needs...)

I mean from the license point of view.

Not without a license, and not (directly) for cRPG's. Pathfinder is based on d20 which uses the Open Gaming License, which explicitly forbids computer games. Obs just announced their licensing agreement about Pathfinder games, but they're going to need new mechanics too. Not sure exactly who has the rights to license d20 for computer games, but it certainly can't be done just because you want to.

 

That said, you can't copyright game mechanics. I.e. you could take the d20 mechanics, remove all references to d20, rename possibly proprietary terms like "saving throw" and "armor class," and Bob's your uncle.

[Graham]

 

 

 

The changes to the attributes aren't inherently necessary to bring IE games to the modern age, but they, at least for now, get rid of all the cheese and meta-gaming that-for good and for bad- currently comes with playing those games.

 

You are talking about meta-gaming, but whole idea of Might stat for example is meta-game-based. Cause again, I can ingame descripe physically weak but powerfull wizard in old classic RPG system, but can't in this new one.

 

 

 

Taking meta out of the equation and just looking at the RPing side then, sure you can. Explicitly because Might does not use the word strength, Might can mean what you want. The might of his soul can translate into several things. Spellpower might, because his soul is 'mightier' than others. He can physically(soul-ly?) do more because of that.

 

 

I don't understand you, sorry. I want to have physically weak old, very old wizard that can blast mountains with his spells. Or I want to have weak willed charismatic bard. Try to stat them in this new system.

 

 

I also see this as a problem.

 

[Seari]

 

 

So instead of making different stats obvious dumps for different classes, they made it so Might will be basically maxed by every class?

Instead of making a system where certain stats can be dumped with no real penalty, they made a system where every stat is of use to every class. If you want to build a Barbarian that hits like a truck, you pump Might. Or you could boost Accuracy(Dexterity), Health and Stamina(Constitution), or AoE of Carnage and length of Rage(Intellect). Resolve and Perception are currently sub-optimal, but the devs acknowledged this before the release of the beta(and stated the desire to adjust it) and I think that with a more in depth explanation of Interrupt they may start seeing more use.

 

I don't know, these attributes just feel wrong to me. Also they feel really bland.

*shrug*

 

I don't see them as any more bland than IE attributes.

 

With the IE attributes I can at least make a character I want to roleplay without gimping him. I basically have to choose between spell damage or playing a schwarzenegger wizard.

 

Also doesn't an attribute that increases damage of both melee and spells make spellblades, clerics and such too strong?

 

Well the wording was a bit off there, what I meant to say was in PoE I have to to choose betweeen having spell damage and a ripped character, or not having spell damage since I don't want to have a schwarzenegger wizard.

[Lord Vicious]

This game definitely needs to follow more closely in BG's footsteps. So far there's an unfortunate tinge of "action-RPG"/MMORPG that needs to be stamped out. Otherwise it'll just be another clone and not the Classic CRPG Revival messiah we've been anticipating.

[Wintersong]

Well the wording was a bit off there, what I meant to say was in PoE I have to to choose betweeen having spell damage and a ripped character, or not having spell damage since I don't want to have a schwarzenegger wizard.

Might is not muscles for wizards. People love to assume that (we need heated topics to talk about!). People seem to hate the idea of not getting two attributes, one of which will be useless for each class, and that instead we got an abstract one that mechanically speaking works the same for both, eliminating trash attributes. You can roleplay your wizard as a Conan in robes if you want (much like the Human Wizard 3D model in Neverwinter Nights 2, even if the Strenght score was 3), or you can imagine that your wizard is anorexic. Or something in between.

 

It's a streamlining of what could be a more simulationist system. But being a video game, I can agree to a point. Having meaningful choices for everybody, no dump attributes (hello there, low Charisma for everybody except Faceman!) and stuff like that, doesn't seem bad to me.

[Seari]

Might is not muscles for wizards.

But then how does one play the fabled muscle wizard

[Longknife]

 

Might is not muscles for wizards.

But then how does one play the fabled muscle wizard

 

 

 

Muscle wizards assemble!!!

[Answermancer]

 

Might is not muscles for wizards.

But then how does one play the fabled muscle wizard

 

 

Very simple, really, I explained this in another thread, people are just confused by the names of the stats. Really for a muscle wizard you want Con, that's what really determines how strong your body is.

 

Here's the solution, super elegant and intuitive I think:

 

I think they just need to rename Might and Con and people will stop complaining about the whole "muscle wizard" intuitiveness.

 

Just do this:

Might = "Soul Power"

Con = "Beefiness"

 

Problem solved. Then nobody can argue that a "muscle wizard" makes no sense since clearly to make a muscle wizard you would pump Beefiness, whereas to make a glass cannon you would pump Soul Power.

 

Bam!

 

We can rename others too if they are too confusing, for instance Resolve could be "Don't-Give-A-****ness" (DGAFness for short).

Edited August 24, 2014 by Answermancer

[Shevek]

Ya, some stats need different names so people aren't so easily confused.

 

"Might" should be something like "Power" or "Potency"

"Intellect" should be "Cunning"

[Mrakvampire]

Not without a license, and not (directly) for cRPG's. Pathfinder is based on d20 which uses the Open Gaming License, which explicitly forbids computer games. Obs just announced their licensing agreement about Pathfinder games, but they're going to need new mechanics too. Not sure exactly who has the rights to license d20 for computer games, but it certainly can't be done just because you want to.

 

Yes, I know, I've said, that I decided to remove myself from this forum, but this post is very intersting. :3

 

Basically, my question is - are you 100% sure? I've read OGL, checked Paizo forums - nobody knows anything about restriction to use OGL in computer games.

[Seari]

 

 

Might is not muscles for wizards.

But then how does one play the fabled muscle wizard

 

 

Very simple, really, I explained this in another thread, people are just confused by the names of the stats. Really for a muscle wizard you want Con, that's what really determines how strong your body is.

 

Here's the solution, super elegant and intuitive I think:

 

I think they just need to rename Might and Con and people will stop complaining about the whole "muscle wizard" intuitiveness.

 

Just do this:

Might = "Soul Power"

Con = "Beefiness"

 

Problem solved. Then nobody can argue that a "muscle wizard" makes no sense since clearly to make a muscle wizard you would pump Beefiness, whereas to make a glass cannon you would pump Soul Power.

 

Bam!

 

We can rename others too if they are too confusing, for instance Resolve could be "Don't-Give-A-****ness" (DGAFness for short).

 

So you're saying being physically strong shouldn't affect the damage you do with the weapons you're swinging? Sounds confusing. Almost as confusing as every character having "soul power" which somehow affects the damage you do with weapons. Pumping soul power increases the damage of your spells/abilities, makes sense. The other part, not so much, unless every character in the PoE univerese uses telekinesis.

[Mayama]

So you're saying being physically strong shouldn't affect the damage you do with the weapons you're swinging? Sounds confusing. Almost as confusing as every character having "soul power" which somehow affects the damage you do with weapons. Pumping soul power increases the damage of your spells/abilities, makes sense. The other part, not so much, unless every character in the PoE univerese uses telekinesis.

 

 

Ever watched something like chinese ghost story? Thats how it works.

[PrimeJunta]

Sorry, my bad: I meant the d20 System Trademark License, not the OGL.

 

I.e., you can "clone" d20 if you remove all the trademarked elements, and make a computer game based on that. But you can't make a computer game and still use the trademarked elements of d20. 

[Answermancer]

 

 

 

Might is not muscles for wizards.

 

But then how does one play the fabled muscle wizard

 

Very simple, really, I explained this in another thread, people are just confused by the names of the stats. Really for a muscle wizard you want Con, that's what really determines how strong your body is.

 

Here's the solution, super elegant and intuitive I think:

 

I think they just need to rename Might and Con and people will stop complaining about the whole "muscle wizard" intuitiveness.

Just do this:

Might = "Soul Power"

Con = "Beefiness"

Problem solved. Then nobody can argue that a "muscle wizard" makes no sense since clearly to make a muscle wizard you would pump Beefiness, whereas to make a glass cannon you would pump Soul Power.

Bam!

We can rename others too if they are too confusing, for instance Resolve could be "Don't-Give-A-****ness" (DGAFness for short).

 

So you're saying being physically strong shouldn't affect the damage you do with the weapons you're swinging? Sounds confusing. Almost as confusing as every character having "soul power" which somehow affects the damage you do with weapons. Pumping soul power increases the damage of your spells/abilities, makes sense. The other part, not so much, unless every character in the PoE univerese uses telekinesis.

Well I wasn't exactly being serious

 

But on the other hand there's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. Even in AD&D some of the best martial fighters draw their strength from "soul power" (monks, kensai).

[Mrakvampire]

Sorry, my bad: I meant the d20 System Trademark License, not the OGL.

 

I.e., you can "clone" d20 if you remove all the trademarked elements, and make a computer game based on that. But you can't make a computer game and still use the trademarked elements of d20. 

 

Basically it means that you can have Pathfinder RPG rules in cRPG and can't use WOTC trademarks like beholders and mind flayers. 

[Gromnir]

am not gonna read a full 20 pages o' this stuff, so apologies if we repeat.

 

also, am gonna primarily do a bullet-points kinda thing as game is so buggy that we has difficulty generating coherent criticisms with any certitude-- am not sure if problems is mechanical or mistakes.

 

-- the last thing we want is d&d attributes. am thinking we mentioned elsewhere, multiple times, that ad&d made character development choices beyond first level largely inconsequential. once abilities, class, and *groan* kit were chosen, it were largely game-over for character development.  each class had a prime attribute or two, and drop rest attributes to 3 were making perfect sense... unless you really wanted your monk to abuse the keldorn armour bug. for a fighter, we needed as much strength as possible, and dex and con were good too. a sorcerer didn't need a damned thing, so unless you wanted to abuse limited wish spell, you could turn a sorcerer into a high con pack mule if you really wished to. etc. if we gave an equal number of points to 5 people playing a fighter character (am aware that with asinine rolling this wouldn't be possible) and told all 5 to build the most efficacious fighter they could with those points, we would end up with 5 largely identical fighters. stoopid. d&d class system with obvious dump stats were stoopid. d&d with only meaningful choices at level 1 were stoopid. thac0 and dual-class/multi-class, and the fact that by 12th level it didn't matter what stats you had anyways 'cause magic items determined your efficacy were all freaking stoopid.  ok, so we discussed more than attributes, with this point, but d&d attributes were stoopid.

 

-- bg2 benefited from being the... 5th ie game? yeah, fifth. bring up such stuff as diversity an number o' monster foes ignores the fact that black isle and bioware had worked for years to end up with the diversity and depth o' content you eventual saw in bg2. expecting a similar catalog o' monsters and spells n' such would be unrealistic and unfair. compare to bg1 instead wherein we fought the same hobgoblin, gnoll, and kobold ambushes innumerable times, and wherein ogre mages were stand-ins for demons.

 

-- from a tactical perspective, it also took 5 games to get to bg2 refinement. bg1 had us use 1 tactic for any and all combats. priest would summon as many skeletons as possible. when we saw enemies, our mage and priest/druid would then cast aoe such as web or entangle. depending on our mood, we would then have mage lob in a fireball and kill or cripple everything while the rest o' our party reduced any combined foe to kibble via ranged weapons. the skeletons would act as meat(less) shields for anything that got past grease, web, entangle. heck, if we were feeling particular impatient, we would add haste to our archers who probable had arrows o' piercing. spam monster summons, webs and fireballs while maintaining steady rain o' missiles. spells such as confusion or hold person/monster were overkill, but if we had 'em, why not use 'em?  it were serious moronic the way we could approach every combat exactly the same way. but again, it took 5 games to get to bg2 sophistication. 

 

-- thankfully, rolling for stats is an anachronism. obsidian developers state that they want to create a balanced system, and some yutz wants rolled stats? you don't see the problem? 

 

-- we loathed the saas bg2 portraits. in fact, when they were first revealed, the message boards had a collective fit o' apoplexy. minsc looked genuine mental deficient and all the pastels and smiles made 'em look positive cartoony. people asked for grittier portraits and more realism. so, saas adds piercings and scars.  we thought the new and improved portraits were meant as a joke. other than minsc, the portraits were the same, but with nose rings and poorly healed facial scars.  nevertheless, the fans approved and so we gets horrible bg2 stuff. 

 

am doubtful the current portraits is anywhere close to final spread. after all, we gots 3 nature godlike females, no? we is complete missing more than a few races and cultures. am suspecting we is only getting a sampling o' final portraits. that being said, personal Gromnir ain't all that concerned 'bout portraits as other than the more exotic godlike and fish-folk, we will use custom portraits. that being said, do not go bg2 route and add scars and piercings if fans ask for grittier and real.

 

-- character creation & bg2 in same sentence? human males had 4(?) paper dolls to choose from: fighter, priest, mage, and thief. change hair, skin and clothes color. am thinking we had a half dozen each male and female voice too. thus endith character creation customization options from bg2.  am not wanting a return to bg2. 

 

...

 

as an aside, am aware folks is mighty disappointed with ability scores and the lack o' impact they have. a 40% improvement between 3 and 18 seem small... though depends on how you read numbers. aoe size for 3 v 18 intellect, for example, represents a considerable increase in total area. some folks don't know their Archimedes it would seem. anyways, am s'posing we is far less concerned about ability scores as we realize that we has no real depth o' traits thus far. if abilities is half as impactful as some would wish, we can see traits as filling the void. in fact, we prefer if traits were as important if not more important than ability scores. might and intellect is chosen at level 1. traits is chosen throughout the game. we want customization to be better and more thoughtful than bg2 where everything important save weapon proficiency happened at level 1. if only half o' or important customization happens at level 1, and traits is equal or more important as we level, that is a Good thing and far better than the bg2 approach. 

 

*shrug*

 

we got more, but point is that as much as we enjoyed bg2, we don't want more bg2. we sure as hell don't want ad&d abilities and over importance o' level one customization and we don't expect bg2 spell or monster catalog... 'cause we is a reasonable person in spite o' what folks seem to believe. serious folks, bg2 were the 5th freaking ie game. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PrimeJunta]

Basically it means that you can have Pathfinder RPG rules in cRPG and can't use WOTC trademarks like beholders and mind flayers.

Nor call it Pathfinder (unless you have the license, as Obsidian does now), nor d20, nor -- unless you want to risk a lawsuit -- point out that your ruleset is, in fact, a clone.

 

But yes, other than that, you could. Which is what I've been saying all along.

[Cabamacadaf]

Fourth, actually. (Icewind Dale 2 was the fifth)