Baldur's Gate 3

[KnightoftheWind]

That gif showcasing the characters is reason enough to pass on the game. Yet another pozzed product to demoralize the goyim.

[Lhynn]

[rusty_shackleford]

5E not having feats by default was such a massive mistake. It's equally apparent in e.g., Solasta.
Feats are awesome, more games need meaningful feats. Many of the feats included in the 5E SRD/PHB are extremely minor, because it's just an optional rule.

Anytime a game has you in choice paralysis over picking powerful features at level up is a time a game has succeeded.

[Lhynn]

Feats in the way 5e implemented them is very good. 3.5 fucked up feats by making them too underpowered and giving them to players too often.

[BlueMemphis]

I remember when I was playing baldurs gate 2 back in the day thinking exactly this:
“yeah this game is ok but what if i could play it with my friends, and what if we could have sex with each other? As long as my friend is playing a female character then its not gay it would just be like a funny prank haha”

I assume for true authenticity the sex will be stat based too so when you and your buddy are wrestling to decide who gets to be on top you will have to roll an opposed strength test.

[Fulcanelli]

Reactivity looks very good, with shape change spells, movement altering spells like featherfall, misty step etc. being utilized creatively, speak with animals, speak with dead...
The two problems are Larian generally sucks at writing and fills their games with extremely cringey "humor", and they are probably hamstrung by WotC.

[rusty_shackleford]

The two problems are Larian generally sucks at writing

Only part of DOS2 writing I really disliked was the writer(s?) seemed to have a strong dislike for pets. The game borders on animal cruelty simulator.

[not_fantadomat]

pedocuck game lol

[Shillitron]

The two problems are Larian generally sucks at writing

Only part of DOS2 writing I really disliked was the writer(s?) seemed to have a strong dislike for pets. The game borders on animal cruelty simulator.

I've played through the game twice to completion many more failed attempts.
I can't think of a single example of this?

Is it because you can kill random animals? (Like everything else in the game)

I must of missed the seal cub clubbing club DLC.

[Atlantico]

5E not having feats by default was such a massive mistake. It's equally apparent in e.g., Solasta.
Feats are awesome, more games need meaningful feats. Many of the feats included in the 5E SRD/PHB are extremely minor, because it's just an optional rule.

Anytime a game has you in choice paralysis over picking powerful features at level up is a time a game has succeeded.

Feats are just more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, AD&D had this covered back in the 1980s with balanced and non-gamey NWPs that enhanced character growth and playstyle and wasn't pure power fantasy.

D&D rules and computer D&D rules should be distinct.

[rusty_shackleford]

5E not having feats by default was such a massive mistake. It's equally apparent in e.g., Solasta.
Feats are awesome, more games need meaningful feats. Many of the feats included in the 5E SRD/PHB are extremely minor, because it's just an optional rule.

Anytime a game has you in choice paralysis over picking powerful features at level up is a time a game has succeeded.

Feats are just more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, AD&D had this covered back in the 1980s with balanced and non-gamey NWPs that enhanced character growth and playstyle and wasn't pure power fantasy.

D&D rules and computer D&D rules should be distinct.

NWPs correlates to skills, not feats.

[Atlantico]

5E not having feats by default was such a massive mistake. It's equally apparent in e.g., Solasta.
Feats are awesome, more games need meaningful feats. Many of the feats included in the 5E SRD/PHB are extremely minor, because it's just an optional rule.

Anytime a game has you in choice paralysis over picking powerful features at level up is a time a game has succeeded.

Feats are just more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, AD&D had this covered back in the 1980s with balanced and non-gamey NWPs that enhanced character growth and playstyle and wasn't pure power fantasy.

D&D rules and computer D&D rules should be distinct.

NWPs correlates to skills, not feats.

more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, it's an awesome-button

(why doesn't bold work on text? ... oh it does, but it is super subtle)

[rusty_shackleford]

Feats are just more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, AD&D had this covered back in the 1980s with balanced and non-gamey NWPs that enhanced character growth and playstyle and wasn't pure power fantasy.

D&D rules and computer D&D rules should be distinct.

NWPs correlates to skills, not feats.

more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, it's an awesome-button

(why doesn't bold work on text? ... oh it does, but it is super subtle)

As much of an 'awesome-button' as spells for mages are.

[MadPreacher]

Feats are just more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, AD&D had this covered back in the 1980s with balanced and non-gamey NWPs that enhanced character growth and playstyle and wasn't pure power fantasy.

D&D rules and computer D&D rules should be distinct.

NWPs correlates to skills, not feats.

more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, it's an awesome-button

(why doesn't bold work on text? ... oh it does, but it is super subtle)

Careful or he'll split your comments out into a new thread like he did mine when I expressed contempt for feats being for brain dead players that can't think outside of the box and need the handholding of the game writers.

[rusty_shackleford]

Predefined spells are for people who are brain dead and can't think outside of the box and need handholding. Who needs rules? Let's just play pretend.

[MadPreacher]

Predefined spells are for people who are brain dead and can't think outside of the box and need handholding. Who needs rules? Let's just play pretend.

Yes, that's why they have rules for spell research that spellcasters can create their own spells. You can't say the same for feats.

It's okay that you like Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Third through Fifth Shitting. Not everyone is cut out to play Real D&D™.

[Atlantico]

NWPs correlates to skills, not feats.

more gamey nonweapon proficiencies, it's an awesome-button

(why doesn't bold work on text? ... oh it does, but it is super subtle)

As much of an 'awesome-button' as spells for mages are.

Feats what they are, point is they're more suited to cRPG and less suited to pen&paper RPGs.

The reverse is true with NWPs. Which is why dropping feats in 5th ed. doesn't sound controversial, but idk I've never played 5th edition and I'm not going to — not touching anything above 2nd edition anyway. It's all decline from there and there's nothing in 3rd ed. and later that isn't already there or done better in 2nd edition.

[rusty_shackleford]

Yes, that's why they have rules for spell research that spellcasters can create their own spells.

Which was never a part of AD&D. I get it, you want to play theater, but this is a forum for RPGs not acting.
Maybe this is the forum you're looking for?

[MadPreacher]

Yes, that's why they have rules for spell research that spellcasters can create their own spells.

Which was never a part of AD&D. I get it, you want to play theater, but this is a forum for RPGs not acting.
Maybe this is the forum you're looking for?

Are you sure that you're right?



AD&D 1E DMG





AD&D 2E DMG





Oh look, I'm right and you're wrong.



Do you have anything that you'd like to add to this conversation besides the fact you love Wizards of the Woke's Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Third through Fifth Shitting?

[rusty_shackleford]

Yes, that's why they have rules for spell research that spellcasters can create their own spells.

Which was never a part of AD&D. I get it, you want to play theater, but this is a forum for RPGs not acting.
Maybe this is the forum you're looking for?

Are you sure that you're right?



AD&D 1E DMG

Did you take a moment to note all the effort that's required to create a new spell here? It's not just coming up with a new spell on a whim, it's something exclusive to very high-level characters.

What you're suggesting to replace feats is equivalent to stageplay, it is not the equivalent of your character going to a training area to spend a massive sum of gold to train for years to learn how to do it.

[MadPreacher]

Did you take a moment to note all the effort that's required to create a new spell here? It's not just coming up with a new spell on a whim, it's something exclusive to very high-level characters.

You're moving the goal post. You originally claimed that spell research was never part of AD&D. It was and it was also presented in Dragon issues 37 and 82. The Dragon issues presented alternate methods of creating the spells using the original rules.

Just take the L on this. You opened your mouth to make a brash claim and was proven wrong by someone more knowledgeable about the rules of Real D&D™. Even I get corrected by Zed Duke of Banville.

What you're suggesting to replace feats is equivalent to stageplay,

This is a strawman since I've never said anything of the sort. In fact, I said the following from the AD&D 2E DMG, "Players should be allowed to try whatever they want—especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding."

Those rules go all the way back to the 1974 White Box by the way. You just stated that Gary and company wanted a stage play. Interesting that you actually ignore the rules of Real D&D™ and how it says to use the appropriate ability or NWP if those are used to determine success or failure. How else did Gary and company resolve actions in the White Box when they didn't have feats or NWP? Oh it's just theater to you.

[rusty_shackleford]

ou're moving the goal post

Your argument against feats was just coming up with random things on the spot, which is theater. Nowhere did you once suggest going and training to learn how to do something, your character just magically already did it because they're batman.
… Because it's theater.

AD&D 2E

What does this have to do with AD&D?
Should I start citing AD&D 3E too?

[MadPreacher]

Your argument against feats was just coming up with random things on the spot, which is theater. Nowhere did you once suggest going and training to learn how to do something, your character just magically already did it because they're batman.
… Because it's theater.

Oh yes, there is training in how to do something and using your brain. Your character's aren't stupid which you seem to think if they don't have the game designer telling the player can perform a sanctioned action.

Since using the bathroom or fucking isn't a feat then your character is too retarded to do them according to rusty's logic.

What does this have to do with AD&D?

AD&D 2E is AD&D. It's in the name.

Should I start citing AD&D 3E too?

There is no AD&D 3E. All you have is Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG Third through Fifth Shitting. You seem to really enjoy shit rusty.

[rusty_shackleford]

Oh yes, there is training in how to do something and using your brain. Your character's aren't stupid which you seem to think if they don't have the game designer telling the player can perform a sanctioned action.

Again, this is theater. The difference between game and theater is rules.

AD&D 2E is AD&D. It's in the name.

And the DPRK is really a democratic republic.

There is no AD&D 3E.

au contraire
https://scruffygrognard.wordpress.com/2 ... d-edition/

It has as much to do with AD&D as AD&D 2E does.

[MadPreacher]

Again, this is theater. The difference between game and theater is rules.

Okay everything that a character does is all theater unless they have a feat. That means that eating, drinking, shitting, fucking, talking, etc... are all theater since there aren't any feats to tell your character that they can do these things. Seriously this is the most fucking retarded argument I have ever heard.

The game designer didn't want you to try those things which is why they never put in the feats for them.

And the DPRK is really a democratic republic.

Stupidity but then this is all theater since you lack the feat for humor and politics.

It has as much to do with AD&D as AD&D 2E does.

AD&D 2E was published by TSR under David Cook and started by Gary before he was ousted. Also, David and team gave all the credit of AD&D 2E to Gary's AD&D and stated this was a refinement of his rules. You really hate Gary don't you?

Shall you try again?

[rusty_shackleford]

Again, this is theater. The difference between game and theater is rules.

Okay everything that a character does is all theater unless they have a feat. That means that eating, drinking, shitting, fucking, talking, etc... are all theater since there aren't any feats to tell your character that they can do these things. Seriously this is the most fucking retarded argument I have ever heard.

The game designer didn't want you to try those things which is why they never put in the feats for them.

And the DPRK is really a democratic republic.

Stupidity but then this is all theater since you lack the feat for humor and politics.

It has as much to do with AD&D as AD&D 2E does.

AD&D 2E was published by TSR under David Cook and started by Gary before he was ousted. Also, David and team gave all the credit of AD&D 2E to Gary's AD&D and stated this was a refinement of his rules. You really hate Gary don't you?

Shall you try again?

Can you point to the Gary Gygax authorship on AD&D 2E?

[MadPreacher]

Can you point to the Gary Gygax authorship on AD&D 2E?

AD&D 2E PHB first printing



Dragon Magazine Issue 103 November 1985.



Gary started the project for AD&D 2E while he was still at TSR. The entire credits section for AD&D 2E in the PHB states it is a derivative work of AD&D 1E written by Gary Gygax. David "Zeb" Cook was third full time employee at TSR behind Gary and Lawrence Schick. If you doubt David "Zeb" Cook's bona fides he wrote the D&D Expert Set for the Moldvay Basic Set in 1981.

[rusty_shackleford]

Q: Not to start a gripe session or anything, Gary, but do you mean that the revisions in 2e were done to basically make things in AD&D less Gygaxian?

Gary: It was done so as to remove my name and have a “derivative” game for which no royalties were payable to me per agreement. to save 2.5% they wrecked the company…

[MadPreacher]

Q: Not to start a gripe session or anything, Gary, but do you mean that the revisions in 2e were done to basically make things in AD&D less Gygaxian?

Gary: It was done so as to remove my name and have a “derivative” game for which no royalties were payable to me per agreement. to save 2.5% they wrecked the company…

Yet, his name appears in the credits as a big fuck you to Lorraine. The rules are a revision that he started and gave to David back in 1985. I posted the actual PHB page. The same credits appear in all three printings of the AD&D 2E PHB by the way.

You can't hate David or his work because of what Lorraine did. Thus, the rules as appears in AD&D 2E are entirely a revision of AD&D 1E as evidenced by the Dragon Issue 103 article by Gary himself. Unless you're calling Gary a liar. Are you?

[rusty_shackleford]

Q: Not to start a gripe session or anything, Gary, but do you mean that the revisions in 2e were done to basically make things in AD&D less Gygaxian?

Gary: It was done so as to remove my name and have a “derivative” game for which no royalties were payable to me per agreement. to save 2.5% they wrecked the company…

Yet, his name appears in the credits as a big fuck you to Lorraine. The rules are a revision that he started and gave to David back in 1985. I posted the actual PHB page. The same credits appear in all three printings of the AD&D 2E PHB by the way.

You can't hate David or his work because of what Lorraine did. Thus, the rules as appears in AD&D 2E are entirely a revision of AD&D 1E as evidenced by the Dragon Issue 103 article by Gary himself. Unless you're calling Gary a liar. Are you?