Baldur's Gate

That is encouraging. ^_^ (Depending, of course, on how quickly one gains XP—at least some of which will likely come down to how they translate the game for a computer RPG.)
That's a pity, I feel. It seems to me that undeath might be something worth exploring from a player-perspective—especially as there are, if I recall correctly, at least some non-evil undead.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jun 13th 2019 at 1:54:37 PM

My Games & Writing

It's not that players can't start as or become undead - the templates exist - but, just as an example, the level adjustment for a vampire in 3.5e was +8. That's a difficult leap to deal with on both sides of the DM screen. If you were starting as a high level party it could work, but it's definitely not something you want newcomers to the game jumping into.

And it's not something I can see being offered at character creation in a D&D-based video game, either, unless the template was nerfed significantly.

Edited by Tarlonniel on Jun 13th 2019 at 5:32:44 AM

Gone to Faerie, no forwarding address. (AO3)

Low level monsters give much more xp.

XP for a basic Hobgoblin 2e: 35

XP for a basic Hobgoblin 5e: 100

Edited by Envyus on Jun 13th 2019 at 6:31:25 AM

Undead player characters were much more difficult to deal with for parties before 5e, since negative energy affinity was a thing, so you couldn't use cure spells on yourself without harming yourself. Dhampir has been a player race for a while, but there were so many negatives to playing one in parties that didn't have inflict wounds spells (i.e. pretty much every party that wasn't evil-aligned) that it was hard to make work.

5e got rid of it, so dhampirs can be targeted by cure like normal, and it's not nearly as much of a pain to play one. I could see the race being in or added later on alongside other popular non-core races.

Outright vampires and other sentient undead as available race choices are much more nebulous, since even in 5e as player characters they break the game in half. That said, I'd be surprised if the chance for a player character to become a vampire spawn at some point wasn't in the game.

Adventurers: homeless people who steal from tombs and kill things.

That's good to read! Thank you for it. ^_^

I'm actually rather interested to see how a Fifth-Edition computer RPG plays, now. ^_^

Ah, I've read about that, I think. It still seems like a pity to me, as it does seem like quite a barrier to playing an undead character. :/

Ah, that's interesting. It's good to read that it's less difficult in Fifth Edition; perhaps they'll enable such possibilities to an even greater degree in later editions!

I do like the possibility of some form of undeath coming up during the game (ideally without a requirement that one change alignment), if they do indeed include that.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jun 13th 2019 at 3:06:09 PM

My Games & Writing

I don't think it's come up in 5e yet, but one of the things I always liked was racial levels, rather than level adjustment. More flexible, more interesting, and easier to keep track of, and it works well for incremental curses like vampirism or lycanthropy. Power at a price — sure, you gain vampire powers, but it's at the expense of class levels.

I liked those too, even for the core races. Taking levels in, uh, elfiness was interesting

Gone to Faerie, no forwarding address. (AO3)

That's an interesting approach; you essentially multi-class, I take it. Much better, I imagine, than level-adjustment! ^_^

My Games & Writing

I never understood why there were Elf levels and Dwarf levels but no Human levels.

Edited by Druplesnubb on Jun 14th 2019 at 11:54:01 AM

I don't think 5e has templates anymore?

Anyway, in D&D undead are pretty much 90% Evil with exceptions being stuff like sad ghosts and whatever

^Because in original original version of D&D, dwarf and elves used to be their own class. Then later on the other races instead had limited amount of classes while humans had all of them. Then in 3.0 and afterwads they seperated classes and races completely and you could combine them all however you wanted

Edited by SpookyMask on Jun 14th 2019 at 1:07:19 PM

I know, but I think that it might be interesting to allow for a bit more freedom with them.

Let me play as a revenant out to bring justice to the villain who destroyed his home and killed his loved ones; or a mage who tampered with negative energy and ended up undead, and now seeks a way to remedy his state—while fighting the energy's temptation towards evil; and so on.

Anyway, this is tangential, and I feel like I'm complaining too much! Let me leave this topic there for now. ^^;

My Games & Writing

Going back to new races but the dark elves will probably be playable this time around

New theme music also a box

Problem with revenants though is that I'm pretty sure they are destroyed upon killing their murderer

@Druplesnub Humans do get racial levels in some systems. Arcana Evolved was one. Part of the reason it seems like they get less now is because in early editions they were the only ones who could take pretty much any class or alignment, and the only ones who could dual-class in 2e, which let them get more levels faster than anyone else.

@Spooky Mask Well, we don't have to remain bound to the sourcebook definition of undead. There's also whatever the hell the Nameless One was, or whatever the hell Morte was, or One of Many or the Faceless Man

Granted, the Nameless One is kind of unique. He's also not technically undead — he's just an immortal who has accumulated so many scars over his existence that his body is as fucked up as a typical zombie's.

Edited by M84 on Jun 14th 2019 at 4:52:45 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Right, that was kind of my point — he's not "undead" or a revenant by the game rules, but he's referred to as a revenant in-game and superficially fits many of the mythological qualifications. His Resurrectiveimmortality is tinged with something other than priestly healing, draining the lives of others and spawning shadows. So undead-adjacent even if not entirely undead by the rules of the game. Sort of like how dhampir aren't quite undead themselves. Half-dead, neither here nor there.

The big debate on the Steam discussion page is RTWP vs turn-based. I had no idea this was such a hot button topic for some people.

Gone to Faerie, no forwarding address. (AO3)

I can totally see the combat style being controversial. It's a lot like how a lot of traditionally turn-based RPGs (like Final Fantasy, not just the modern games, but even the remake of VII isn't turn-based) are going largely action combat to be more accessible. Some people feel like it's a bit of a watering down over part of what made the series (and RPGs in general) unique and fun, others feel like turn-based is too slow and outdated. I'm in the camp that's kinda sad that turn-based is getting rarer and rarer, since I love it.

With TTRPGs, RTWP defined a lot of the genre as well. I think RTWP makes the most sense with tabletop style mechanics, since the tabletop game combat is played similarly (roll initiative, combat pauses each time DM asks for your action, you do it, pause again for next person, etc.). I enjoy the mechanic personally, though I can see how the style is unpopular with others. A lot of Baldur's Gate fans would naturally have to be at least neutral on RTWP, but Divinity Original Sin 2 is more of a turn-based style, which the creators have cited inspiration from and is popular in its own right.

Adventurers: homeless people who steal from tombs and kill things.

> RTWP vs turn-based

I don't really know which one I prefer to be honest,I'm good with either

RTWP- 'Real Time With a Pause' because I hate acronyms

New theme music also a box

Real time would be truer to the original games, tbf.

Turn-based is more what I'd expect from a game that's being a successor to classic Fallout games.

Edited by M84 on Jun 21st 2019 at 7:04:40 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

When you first start out and your unfamiliar with real life pausing it can be pain watching your team get wiped out because you don't know that you need to give each member of your party an order or they do nothing.Planescape's combat was horrible in that regard,at least Baldur's Gate had the option of turning the AI on or off

New theme music also a box

I understand what you're saying, but I don't find that exactly persuasive when I can use the same line for turn-based combat.

Personally I don't care as long as the encounters are well-designed, but I think most BG players would want RTWP because that's how it's been.

Edited by UltraWanker on Jun 21st 2019 at 4:44:30 AM

Um, what? Isn't that just common sense? Obviously if you don't tell your party members to do anything they won't do anything. It's exactly the same in turn-based rpgs.

Edited by Druplesnubb on Jun 21st 2019 at 3:06:58 PM

^I first played BG 1 when I was eight or something, so real-time was really overwhelming. Granted, that's well outside the intended age bracket, so. There's also the fact that generally you'd expect them to at least autoattack back... but nope.

I would be fine with either system, I think, though it would feel weird having the Divinity system in a Baldur's Gate title.

Edited by RedSavant on Jun 21st 2019 at 10:23:01 AM

It's been fun.

Well if it was turn-based it would actually be more DND-like, especially if they did it like Divinity, since DND is turn-based and each "round" of combat in that is like six seconds.

That is the face of a man who just ate a kitten. Raw.