Damn you, Interplay !

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Billy Yank" <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1BFBFDD683billyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11...
> Suddenly, Rich C. Velay, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
> and exclaimed:
>
> > Taking a few weeks off from being a fighter, just to gain the
> > ability to
> > use wands, and later being a priest and then a ....... well it isn't
> > what I consider "role playing", its "stat playing" or some such.
> >
> > No doubt lots of people like it, pimarily I would expect people
> > raised
> > on video games, but to an old dinosaur like myself, it sure doesn't
> > appeal....
> >
>
> I'm an old 1E/2E dinosaur myself, and I love it. I remember wheedling a
DM
> to let my cleric of Frey wield a big blue 2-handed sword (Frey's symbol),
> but the rules didn't allow for it.
>
> My favorite recent character was a cleric who took 1/4 of his levels in
> bard. It weakened the character from a powergaming standpoint, but it fit
> so well into his backstory and personality, I felt it was the thing to do.
> After all, he's a priest of the goddess of song and dance, he ought to be
> able to carry a tune and do the ol' soft shoe.

RCV: Yep, lots of freedom in the "old" rules with a good DM. One of my
favorite, and longest lasting, characters was a half-elven Cleric/Ranger
who used a bow and Bastard swords.... but wasn't able to turn undead nor use
Ranger spells. And he was limited to 7th level in Cleric [thanks to 6 mo
real time long quest and a number of wishes to get a 19 Wis...]
As long as the modification is reasonable and pays attention to game
balance, pretty much anything can at least be discussed.

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Troll" <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bxkhc.179828$Pk3.176591@pd7tw1no...

> Power gamers show up in every game - it's more a function of who you're
> playing with than the ruleset you use. Besides, watching the DM punish a
> powergamer by throwing monkey wrenches (repeatedly) into their
> strategies can be a lot of fun

RCV: I wouldn't know - I never played in a campaign with a "power gamer"
and none played in a campaign I DM'd. Well, not for long anyway - once they
see that I am not a "Monty Haul" DM any self respecting "power gamer" would
absent themselves pretty quick! [note that I have rarely allowed a
"seasoned" PC to enter any of my campaigns - if someone wants to come in,
they roll up a new character and get equipment appropriate to their class
and level as *I* see it. Certainly, no importing magic items from someone
elses campaign....If they are decent players, and they have a reasonable
characyter, I might not force them to roll a new one, but that would be as
far as I might go...]

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Troll <newstroll@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<YAkhc.193425$oR5.147475@pd7tw3no>...
> Htn963 wrote:

<snip>

> > Honestly, I wasn't even sure Interplay is still functioning.
>
> Probably just enough to keep potential buyers (of the company)
> interested.

New management can't make it much worse. Interplay is an
unreliable, third-grade company, despite being blessed with several
first-class game franchises; I've taken them with many grains of salt
ever since they rushed out Fallout 2 untested and grossly buggy, then
released a patch which wasn't compatible with the previous saved
games.

And when was their last ok game? Probably IWD2, which I'll dig
out of my box of unplayed games to test out since the current debate
on the 3rd rule set has perked my curiosity.

> Anyway, if Atari plans on making BG3 at some point, aren't
> they going to have to make some sort of deal with Interplay? I thought
> Interplay had some sort of rights to BG. Or did Bioware just have to
> work with them because they were the D&D licensee at the time?

You'd probably know more about it; but I'm sure if there was a
strong demand for it (which there isn't and likely won't ever be) it
would get made no matter how the rights were divvied up.

--
Ht

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd ed
> system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.

You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
intuitive?

1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.

2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.

I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?

Not to mention that even though I have a good understanding of the rules
as implemented in BG1/2, I still sometimes get confused because of the
pluses and minuses. You would think a 'bonus' would be a positive
number, but not in 2nd addition. My DEX bonus to AC is -4 (that's a good
thing), but I make a saving throw against a particular spell with a -4
penalty (a bad thing). Doesn't seem odd to you that the same number is
used for two different things? I much rather prefer that bonuses be +s
and penalties be -s.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4087ba18$0$16477$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> > worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd
ed
> > system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.
>
> You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
> intuitive?
>
> 1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>
> 2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
> Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.
>
> I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
> doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
> at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?

I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?

>
> Not to mention that even though I have a good understanding of the rules
> as implemented in BG1/2, I still sometimes get confused because of the
> pluses and minuses. You would think a 'bonus' would be a positive
> number, but not in 2nd addition. My DEX bonus to AC is -4 (that's a good
> thing), but I make a saving throw against a particular spell with a -4
> penalty (a bad thing). Doesn't seem odd to you that the same number is
> used for two different things? I much rather prefer that bonuses be +s
> and penalties be -s.

It doesn't seem logical at all, until you play a P&P game
and actually roll some dice. But I agree, some rules and
bonuses could be made more consistent with each other.

Wim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Wim Dekker wrote:

>>1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.

> I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
> that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
> your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
> skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?

You'd have to roll a 10 after modifiers have been added, but my point
was that it still seems easier just to add things together than do all
the weird math of 2nd ed. If you have an attack modifier of +3, then in
the above example you only need to roll a 7. This method seems more
intuitive to me than having to think about a THACO, and subtracting some
numbers and adding others, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4087ba18$0$16477$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
> > RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
> > worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd
ed
> > system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.
>
> You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
> intuitive?
>
> 1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>
> 2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
> Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.
>
> I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
> doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
> at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?

RCV: Both options weren't presented to me at the same time, qed.
Besides which, the idea of a Kobold and an Ancient Dragon both needing the
same to hit number strikes me as a bit odd.....

> Not to mention that even though I have a good understanding of the rules
> as implemented in BG1/2, I still sometimes get confused because of the
> pluses and minuses. You would think a 'bonus' would be a positive
> number, but not in 2nd addition. My DEX bonus to AC is -4 (that's a good
> thing), but I make a saving throw against a particular spell with a -4
> penalty (a bad thing). Doesn't seem odd to you that the same number is
> used for two different things? I much rather prefer that bonuses be +s
> and penalties be -s.

RCV: I won't argue that there was stuff that could have been cleaned up
in 1st and 2nd ed - that those mechanical changes could have been
implemented without changing the flavour and focus of the game is also
unarguable. "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
required non-rolled stats, free-form multiclassing or any of the other game
philosophy changes made in addition to cleaning up the rules.

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:


> Besides which, the idea of a Kobold and an Ancient Dragon both needing the
> same to hit number strikes me as a bit odd.....

I'm no rules expert, but I know that's accounted for. I could look
through my 3.5 book for you. Basically, my point is that the d20 system
seems so much cleaner and more logical.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Wim Dekker wrote:
> "John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4087ba18$0$16477$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
>>Rich C. Velay wrote:
>>
>>
>>> RCV: It's just personal opinion of course, but no; I don't see any
>>>worthwhile improvement in the AC system or THAC0. I have used the 2nd
>
> ed
>
>>>system for years and never had any difficulty with either component.
>>
>>You don't think one of the following situations is much easier and more
>>intuitive?
>>
>>1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>>
>>2. My AC is 10. Your THACO is 15. Subtract your AC from my THACO.
>>Therefore, you have to roll a 5 to hit me.
>>
>>I'd much rather deal with #1. I guess if you are used to #2, then it
>>doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you are presented with both options
>>at the same time, doesn't #1 seem like the way to go?
>
>
> I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
> that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
> your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
> skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?

In 3ed you have attack bonus rather than THAC0. So while a fifth level
2ed fighter with a +2 Strength bonus would have a THAC0 of 13, a fifth
level 3ed fighter with a +2 Strength bonus would have a melee attack
bonus of +7. Either one needs to roll a 3 to hit a character with an AC
of 10, but in 2ed that's:

Subtract his AC (10) from your THAC0 (13), roll 1d20, and hit that number.

In 3ed it's:

Roll 1d20+7 (your melee attack bonus) and hit 10 (his AC).

> It doesn't seem logical at all, until you play a P&P game
> and actually roll some dice.

I've known lots of people who hated it then, too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

John Salerno wrote:

> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
>
>> Besides which, the idea of a Kobold and an Ancient Dragon both needing
>> the
>> same to hit number strikes me as a bit odd.....
>
>
> I'm no rules expert, but I know that's accounted for. I could look
> through my 3.5 book for you.

(Example numbers, not looked up) The kobold will be rolling 1d20+1,
while the dragon will be rolling 1d20+18.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:

> (Example numbers, not looked up) The kobold will be rolling 1d20+1,
> while the dragon will be rolling 1d20+18.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. While it's likely that the kobold will
hit you, it's just about guaranteed the dragon will.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:

> "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
> required non-rolled stats

What do you mean?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Rich C. Velay wrote:
> RCV: I won't argue that there was stuff that could have been cleaned up
> in 1st and 2nd ed - that those mechanical changes could have been
> implemented without changing the flavour and focus of the game is also
> unarguable. "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
> required non-rolled stats, free-form multiclassing or any of the other game
> philosophy changes made in addition to cleaning up the rules.
>
> Rich

Point buy is an alternative method of generating stats that isn't even
mentioned in the 3.5 PH. Rolling 4D6 and dropping the lowest is the
standard method in 3.5.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

John Salerno wrote:

> Rich C. Velay wrote:
>
>> "Fixing" negative and positive modifiers would not have
>> required non-rolled stats
>
>
> What do you mean?

He's likely referring to the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Icewind
Dale II, both 3ed games, use point buy character creation--instead of
rolling for random stats, you have X points to spend for stats there.

This has nothing to do with the Edition, however; my 2ed and 3ed PHB
both offer the default method of stat generation (rolling), and my 2ed
and 3ed DMG both list point buy character creation as an optional method
of stat generation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Kish wrote:

> He's likely referring to the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Icewind
> Dale II, both 3ed games, use point buy character creation

Ah, I see. Haven't played those yet. I know my 3.5 PHB doesn't even
mention point buy, but the DMG does, like you said. Personally, I don't
like point buy either, even when you have 32 points to spend (after an
initial 8). Too bad you can't roll in those other games. Are you still
able to get decent stats?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"John Salerno" <johnjsalNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4087f65f$0$16450$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Wim Dekker wrote:
>
> >>1. My AC is 10. Therefore, you have to roll a 10 to hit me.
>
> > I don't know anything about 3d ed rules, but it seems to me
> > that your first example doesn't use some attack skill, while
> > your second does. Is AC in 3d ed rules based on the attack
> > skill of the attacker or does experience not matter anymore?
>
> You'd have to roll a 10 after modifiers have been added, but my point
> was that it still seems easier just to add things together than do all
> the weird math of 2nd ed. If you have an attack modifier of +3, then in
> the above example you only need to roll a 7. This method seems more
> intuitive to me than having to think about a THACO, and subtracting some
> numbers and adding others, etc.

So you take AC 10, _subtract_ the +3 modifier from it to
know you minimum hit dice?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. You're right of course.

Wim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
<dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:

>After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off 🙁(
>http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.php
>I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>

Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
that.



--
Hong Ooi | "My hate of d02 know no limit"
hong@zipworld.com.au | -- asw, on rpg.net
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message news:<mtsk809vtv5hsr7862culft0kpsmae4r5a@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
> <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> >After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off 🙁(
> >http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.php
> >I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
> >
>
> Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
> loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
> you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
> generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
> that.

Well, the NPCs were really the pitch, weren't they? So just bring
along some of the old friends, maybe convert one of them to a
baddie... similar engine (more or less... familiar surroundings...

How about Viconia and Kagain teaming up to rule the world! For the
money, of course... there would be some juicy sideplots in that one.

I'd go for it.

DJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"djarvinen" <jarvinen@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:4c6b7a6a.0404241041.7cd92680@posting.google.com...
> Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:<mtsk809vtv5hsr7862culft0kpsmae4r5a@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
> > <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off 🙁(
> > >http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.php
> > >I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
> > >
> >
> > Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the
way of
> > loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not
dead, and
> > you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have
another
> > generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name
to do
> > that.
>
> Well, the NPCs were really the pitch, weren't they? So just bring
> along some of the old friends, maybe convert one of them to a
> baddie... similar engine (more or less... familiar surroundings...
>
> How about Viconia and Kagain teaming up to rule the world! For the
> money, of course... there would be some juicy sideplots in that one.

Nope - Viconia wouldn't do that, especially not if she'd been in the
party with the player. Korgan, maybe, and Edwin(a) certainly, but
Edwin couldn't be a main evil boss. Maybe we meet (Edwin or Edwina) as
a non-party-joinable NPC...

Or a new adventure set back near the actual Baldur's Gate region, and
a couple of decades later (thus justifying starting again with low-ish
level characters.) In which one of the villains (although not
necessarily the major villain) is somebody that got left behind from
the events between BG1 and BG2...

Vampire Dynaheir!!!

(The fact that Minsc's racial enemy changed from Gnolls to Vampires
between BG1 and BG2, indicates that Bodhi and her minions might have
actually been the ones to land the killing blow, rather than it being
a spell from Irenicus. And, of course, those who are killed by a
vampire rise as vampires themselves... originally under the control of
the one who killed them, but Bodhi is of course dead now, so Dynaheir
would be an independent sorceress-vampire. Possibly when she is
staked, her soul would give a "thanks for freeing me" speech and you
get a Nifty Item (TM).)

Of course, for the main villain, there's always the old standby - The
Return Of Sarevok. Because the player had to return him to mortal
life, in order to escape the Throne of Bhaal for the first time.
Obviously he can't have the ambition to be a god any more, but he
might still retain the ambition to be a mortal tyrant. And he's not
dead yet, and he still might have supporters in Baldur's Gate City -
not least of which would be his old minion Winski Perorate the mage...

(All you'd need is the premise that the PC of BG1 and BG2 - who would
not play a part in this game - did NOT take Sarevok into his party in
Throne of Bhaal, or did not convert him to Good. Which is considerably
less of a premise than that on which BG2 is based: i.e. that you took
a full specific party of six - yourself, Imoen, Khalid + Jaheira,
Minsc + Dynaheir - and even dual-classed Imoen, which of course not
everybody did.)

Jonathan.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

On 24 Apr 2004 11:41:18 -0700, jarvinen@proaxis.com (djarvinen) wrote:

>Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message news:<mtsk809vtv5hsr7862culft0kpsmae4r5a@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:32 +0200, "Dirk Dreidoppel"
>> <dirk.dreidoppel@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >After Fallout 3 now Baldurs Gate 3 has been killed off 🙁(
>> >http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/seankreynolds2.php
>> >I feel like nuking their HQ right now.
>> >
>>
>> Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
>> loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
>> you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
>> generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
>> that.
>
>Well, the NPCs were really the pitch, weren't they? So just bring
>along some of the old friends, maybe convert one of them to a
>baddie... similar engine (more or less... familiar surroundings...
>
>How about Viconia and Kagain teaming up to rule the world! For the
>money, of course... there would be some juicy sideplots in that one.
>

That's not "Baldur's Gate 3". That's "Tales of Baldur's Gate", or "Baldur's
Gate: Chronicles of the Companions" or something. After the epic scope of
the original, it seems like a marked diminution of scope. It would feel
more like a spinoff, like Angel is to Buffy, rather than a continuation of
the story.

Mind you, a BG3 starring the Bhaalspawn's _kid_ (whether with one of the
romantic interests or otherwise) might be something that would pique my
interest. I hear Tarantino is planning something similar for Kill Bill
3....


--
Hong Ooi | "My hate of d02 know no limit"
hong@zipworld.com.au | -- asw, on rpg.net
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

>Meh, the conclusion for BG2/TOB didn't really leave much in the way of
>loose ends. What plot would they use for BG3? Bhaal's really not dead, and
>you have to kill him all over again? Sure, you could just have another
>generic superbaddie to deal with, but you don't need the BG name to do
>that.

Baldur's Gate 2: Imoen Has Been Bad And Needs A Spanking.