Opening cinematic of Baldur's Gate 3

[Millstone85]

In BG1, your alignment determined the dreams you got. I think they were determined by your reputation if you were neutral.

The dreams are determined by your reputation, regardless of alignment.

[Clertar]

I can't think of a D&D-based game that had a lot of class reactivity. Baldur's Gate had next to nothing.

BG2 had the class-specific stronghold and the related quests.

That's what I would want from class reactivity in BG3, extra bits of content that are class-dependant. This adds way more to replayability than, say, people having a class-sensitive line here and there in a conversation. "Oh I'll play the game again as a monk, to see if anyone makes a monk-related comment."

[Morty]

The dreams are determined by your reputation, regardless of alignment.

Hmm. I guess I might have misremembered because the extra powers you have are determined by your alignment if you start fresh in BG2.

BG2 had the class-specific stronghold and the related quests.

Yeah, "next to nothing" wasn't very fair of me to say.

That's what I would want from class reactivity in BG3, extra bits of content that are class-dependant. This adds way more to replayability than, say, people having a class-sensitive line here and there in a conversation. "Oh I'll play the game again as a monk, to see if anyone makes a monk-related comment."

So what would this monk-specific content look like? Something involving a monastery or martial school? Monks are easier to include such content for, because they're one of the more specific classes. What about a fighter, rogue or barbarian?

[Clertar]

So what would this monk-specific content look like? Something involving a monastery or martial school? Monks are easier to include such content for, because they're one of the more specific classes. What about a fighter, rogue or barbarian?

The DnD classes are quite interweaved with Forgotten Realms lore. For fighters it could be anything from being recruited into a mercenary company, or as a bodyguard, to having a position in the Flaming Fist.
For a rogue, a smuggling or assassination quest getting more deeply involved with the Guild and the other mafias in the city of Baldur's Gate.
For a barbarian, you come across a gang of slavers that had raided and kidnapped villagers from your native land; maybe a childhood friend is among them.
For clerics or paladins, something mystical having to do with the plots of the Dead Three in Baldur's Gate.
For druids, anything related to saving nature, stopping a mining or farming complex going up against a noble family of Baldur's Gate.
If you're certain class, maybe a wild mage or a sorcerer, you get kidnapped and need to escape (like Imoen in BG2).
Perhaps only magic users get access to a special NPC companion (like in DA2) after a magic-exclusive side quest.

That's just me improvising ideas, presumably a team of creators working on it full-time would come up with much better ideas than those. In other words, fleshign out aspects of the intersection between the class system and the "real-world" factions and attitudes as an excuse to throw you into class-specific extra content.

[Kish]

For a rogue, a smuggling or assassination quest getting more deeply involved with the Guild and the other mafias in the city of Baldur's Gate.

I'd much prefer the game did not double down on the "if you're an adventurer specialized in dealing with traps and locks, you're also a career criminal" thing, as BG2 unfortunately did.

I'm puzzled by the DA2 reference. Is

Spoiler: Dragon Age 2, first act

Show

Carver instead of Bethany

the "special companion" you're referring to there?

[Morty]

For fighters it could be anything from being recruited into a mercenary company, or as a bodyguard, to having a position in the Flaming Fist.

Not bad, but my fighter might not be a soldier or mercenary of any stripe. Again, fighters are so generic that a character is going to be defined by their background (however it works in BG3) far more than this class.

For a rogue, a smuggling or assassination quest getting more deeply involved with the Guild and the other mafias in the city of Baldur's Gate.

What Kish said, in that a rogue might not have anything to do with any kind of illegal activity. In fact, the rogue I played in 5E was an archaeologist. Rogues are only slightly less catch-all than fighters.

For a barbarian, you come across a gang of slavers that had raided and kidnapped villagers from your native land; maybe a childhood friend is among them.

This is a background, not a class. Plenty of other classes can come from a faraway land preyed upon by slavers. And a barbarian need not come from such a place.

For clerics or paladins, something mystical having to do with the plots of the Dead Three in Baldur's Gate.

I don't know if 5E paladins actually have to be religious. That said, I could see it, if there was a compelling reason why it needs a paladin or cleric, rather than anyone interested in religion. A natural course of action is to make quests in service of a paladin order or church - but players will presumably be able to pick from many different deities.

For druids, anything related to saving nature, stopping a mining or farming complex going up against a noble family of Baldur's Gate.

This does work, since druids are more defined than quite a few other classes.

If you're certain class, maybe a wild mage or a sorcerer, you get kidnapped and need to escape (like Imoen in BG2).

There's no magic police in Baldur's Gate last I checked, but a plot like Neera's could maybe work.

Perhaps only magic users get access to a special NPC companion (like in DA2) after a magic-exclusive side quest.

I suppose giving magic-users special treatment is a fine and old tradition...

[Clertar]

I'd much prefer the game did not double down on the "if you're an adventurer specialized in dealing with traps and locks, you're also a career criminal" thing, as BG2 unfortunately did.

I wanted to add a comment relative to that, something like "none of this is alignment-dependant" but it felt the post was too long. In any case, does that seem an interesting approach to you? You seemed quite skeptic about the feasibility of class-sensitive content.

As for this post, if you pay attention I didn't specify the PC's position in the outcome of the quest, and there was a good reason for that. Any alignment is accommodated in the quests. I think that, by now, this is standard CRPG fare: main character gets hired to assassinate someone, and the player gets to choose the outcome: will they go forward with it, or will they instead find out about the victim and help them out? The same should be true for all the other ideas I sketched. You're a chaotic evil fighter? You can still let yourself be recruited into the ranks of the Flaming Fist, but you do that for self-advancement and you can become a dirty cop or whatnot---you can choose to be Dexter or to be the Mentalist, for a modern TV analogy of the trope.

I'm puzzled by the DA2 reference. Is

Spoiler: Dragon Age 2, first act

Show

Carver instead of Bethany

the "special companion" you're referring to there?

Right.

Spoiler: Dragon Age 2 plot

Show

If you play a mage, you have Carver through the game. If you're a rogue or a fighter, you have Bethany. And thay are not different flavours of the same character. Their roles and quests are different, they're not interchangeable: Carver is an ass who's obsessed with social progress and becomes enamored with the templars, while Bethany is mostly worried about her family and her goal is to achieve peace one way or another.

Back to my mention of this: this is a great way to make class-dependant content that spices up different playthroughs of the game. Based on decisions you make during class-specific quests, you could get to recruit different special companions that are otherwise not available.

[Morty]

I wanted to add a comment relative to that, something like "none of this is alignment-dependant" but it felt the post was too long. In any case, does that seem an interesting approach to you? You seemed quite skeptic about the feasibility of class-sensitive content.

As for this post, if you pay attention I didn't specify the PC's position in the outcome of the quest, and there was a good reason for that. Any alignment is accommodated in the quests. I think that, by now, this is standard CRPG fare: main character gets hired to assassinate someone, and the player gets to choose the outcome: will they go forward with it, or will they instead find out about the victim and help them out? The same should be true for all the other ideas I sketched. You're a chaotic evil fighter? You can still let yourself be recruited into the ranks of the Flaming Fist, but you do that for self-advancement and you can become a dirty cop or whatnot---you can choose to be Dexter or to be the Mentalist, for a modern TV analogy of the trope.

This really isn't related to alignment. An evil rogue might still have no particular inclination towards organized crime. In fact, why can't an evil fighter or bard join the mafia? Likewise with fighters and the Flaming Fist.

Back to my mention of this: this is a great way to make class-dependant content that spices up different playthroughs of the game. Based on decisions you make during class-specific quests, you could get to recruit different special companions that are otherwise not available.

In DA2, you have three classes instead of twelve, only one of them gets a different companion and the fate of mages is a central conflict of the game. There's absolutely no in-story difference between a warrior and rogue Hawke.

[Kish]

I wanted to add a comment relative to that, something like "none of this is alignment-dependant" but it felt the post was too long. In any case, does that seem an interesting approach to you? You seemed quite skeptic about the feasibility of class-sensitive content.

Me? Think you've got me confused with Morty there.

I'm generally in favor of class-specific content. The Thieves' Guild in BG2 would be the only example where I really wasn't, though I would have preferred more differentiation--that is, not to have three classes given the de'Arnise Keep.

[Lord Torath]

I'm generally in favor of class-specific content. The Thieves' Guild in BG2 would be the only example where I really wasn't, though I would have preferred more differentiation--that is, not to have three classes given the de'Arnise Keep.

Which three? Fighters got the keep, rangers got the cabin in the woods, and paladins got to join the order of paladins in Amn.

[Morty]

Barbarians and monks also get the keep. Sorcerers meanwhile get the planar sphere, like mages.

[Keltest]

Barbarians and monks also get the keep. Sorcerers meanwhile get the planar sphere, like mages.

Werent all those classes added in the remastered version of the game?

[Divayth Fyr]

Werent all those classes added in the remastered version of the game?

For Baldur's Gate I. Shadows of Amn had them since launch. Including some Monk-only equipment later on like Tzu-Zan's Bracers.

[Morty]

Werent all those classes added in the remastered version of the game?

For Baldur's Gate I. Shadows of Amn had them since launch. Including some Monk-only equipment later on like Tzu-Zan's Bracers.

Yes, they were added in BG2, but the release version already had them. The Enhanced Edition added some kits, but no new classes.

[Keltest]

So heres an interesting question. Will they be using the Revised Ranger as the base for their class, or the PHB version? because only one of them is especially well designed, and I cant imagine that they would look at the community opinion on the PHB ranger and think "this is fine".

[Morty]

So heres an interesting question. Will they be using the Revised Ranger as the base for their class, or the PHB version? because only one of them is especially well designed, and I cant imagine that they would look at the community opinion on the PHB ranger and think "this is fine".

I think they've explicitly said they'll be reworking rangers for the purposes of BG3. Quality of the class aside, the wilderness survival focus is problematic in a video game.

[Millstone85]

I don't know if 5E paladins actually have to be religious.

For 5e in general, no spellcaster necessarily has to follow a god.

The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power--gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.

Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity.

The cleric's class features often refer to your deity. lf you are devoted to a pantheon, cosmic force, or philosophy, your cleric features still work for you as written.

And my interpretation is that, just like most clerics represent a god, and most druids commune with nature as a whole, most paladins are empowered by the ideals they commit to.

However, BG3 will be set in the Forgotten Realms, where the gods just can't be ignored.

Some people are warriors of superior virtue. They exemplify a host of traits that folk consider honorable, just, and good. These warriors aspire to be the best people they can. When such a warrior also has great devotion to a particular deity, that god can reward the faithful with a measure of divine power, making that person a paladin.

And while I prefer the freedom of the core books, I would understand if Larian Studios decided to stay true to the setting.

[DarthArminius]

For 5e in general, no spellcaster necessarily has to follow a god. And my interpretation is that, just like most clerics represent a god, and most druids commune with nature as a whole, most paladins are empowered by the ideals they commit to.

However, BG3 will be set in the Forgotten Realms, where the gods just can't be ignored. And while I prefer the freedom of the core books, I would understand if Larian Studios decided to stay true to the setting.

Did the Wall of the Faithless disappear? I heard it vanished during the 4th edition or something like that.

[wilphe]

Thats my understanding as well. It's just.. We don't see much of the Spell jammer verse in Faerun. Why is that? Is Toril considered a backwater world unworthy of visitation by the space travellers?

Well you know how Kirk used the Enterprise as a dating service to find the hottest chick on every world?

Elminster is like the reverse Kirk confined to one planet, so Spelljammers avoid visiting Faerun for their own protection

[Millstone85]

Did the Wall of the Faithless disappear? I heard it vanished during the 4th edition or something like that.

Alas no, the Wall is still there.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Well you know how Kirk used the Enterprise as a dating service to find the hottest chick on every world?

Elminster is like the reverse Kirk confined to one planet, so Spelljammers avoid visiting Faerun for their own protection

That's what happens when you let otaku write fanfic and make it canon. Self-insert Gary Stu characters aside, however, I believe that Toril is actually the backwater of the spheres, much like how Earth is portrayed in the Hitchhiker's Guide. It's rare to even run into one of the Gith (of either faction) in Faerun. Not impossible (I believe in one of the remakes of Baldur's Gate you could end up with a Silver Sword), but certain extremely rare.

[Morty]

For 5e in general, no spellcaster necessarily has to follow a god. And my interpretation is that, just like most clerics represent a god, and most druids commune with nature as a whole, most paladins are empowered by the ideals they commit to.

However, BG3 will be set in the Forgotten Realms, where the gods just can't be ignored. And while I prefer the freedom of the core books, I would understand if Larian Studios decided to stay true to the setting.

Right, so basically how it worked in 3E, though not in 4E, where paladins more or less worked like clerics in the PHB already. Core 3E paladins didn't need to serve gods, but in the Forgotten Realms they did. Likewise with druids and rangers. I'd expect BG3 to stick to this, especially since the paladins in the original series directly swore fealty to gods - Keldorn to Torm, Anomen and Ajantis to Helm.

[Keltest]

From my understanding, in the Forgotten Realms, divine spellcasters need to pray to gods to get spells, whether they be rangers, clerics or paladins. Druids kinda sorta get an exception because they can count "nature" as their god, but since there are gods OF nature, they pray to a god anyway.

[Kish]

Right, so basically how it worked in 3E, though not in 4E, where paladins more or less worked like clerics in the PHB already. Core 3E paladins didn't need to serve gods, but in the Forgotten Realms they did. Likewise with druids and rangers. I'd expect BG3 to stick to this, especially since the paladins in the original series directly swore fealty to gods - Keldorn to Torm, Anomen and Ajantis to Helm.

Anomen was a cleric not a paladin, a PC paladin (or druid or ranger) didn't have to (and couldn't) declare a deity, and the rangers in BG2 were tacitly (Minsc) or actively (Valygar) godless, so while I have no opinion on whether BG3 will link paladins to gods, I'd put the evidence of BG1 and 2, insofar as it weighs anything, on the other side of the scale.

[Keltest]

Anomen was a cleric not a paladin, a PC paladin (or druid or ranger) didn't have to (and couldn't) declare a deity, and the rangers in BG2 were tacitly (Minsc) or actively (Valygar) godless, so while I have no opinion on whether BG3 will link paladins to gods, I'd put the evidence of BG1 and 2, insofar as it weighs anything, on the other side of the scale.

Its worth pointing out that a cleric didn't have to declare a deity either. A few gods had special cleric types that got a couple variant abilities, but the actual declaration of deity in that case was just in the name of the kit, not a separate game mechanic.

I suspect they might have you declare it because 5th edition, unlike AD&D, actually has some link between your god and your available cleric domain, and they don't want a Life cleric worshiping the god of undeath. It also acts as another source of potential tags like in DoS2, for enabling different interactions or dialogues with other characters.

[Anteros]

For myself, I'd just as soon they not spend a ton of development time on class specific content that most of the players will never see. Any time and resources spent on that is time that isn't spent on the rest of the game after all, and I certainly don't have any interest in replaying the game for every class just to see their unique content.

[Driderman]

Its worth pointing out that a cleric didn't have to declare a deity either. A few gods had special cleric types that got a couple variant abilities, but the actual declaration of deity in that case was just in the name of the kit, not a separate game mechanic.

I suspect they might have you declare it because 5th edition, unlike AD&D, actually has some link between your god and your available cleric domain, and they don't want a Life cleric worshiping the god of undeath. It also acts as another source of potential tags like in DoS2, for enabling different interactions or dialogues with other characters.

Forgotten Realms requires all divine casters to have deities since D&D 3rd edition rules too so I'm guessing (and hoping because "philosophy" casters are cheap and stupid IMO) religious casters will require worshipping gods

[Millstone85]

"philosophy" casters are cheap and stupid IMO

They make sense to me, or at least with my headcanon.

Spoiler: On philosophies and divine magic.

Show

The 5e DMG describes the Astral Plane as "the realm of thought and dream" where travellers can encounter storms "made up of lost memories, forgotten ideas, minor musings, and subconscious fears that went astray in the Astral Plane and conglomerated into this powerful force". Also drifting through the plane are the petrified corpses of deities, and an earlier chapter speaks of "deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers and are considered dead, from a mortal perspective".

From here, one can easily imagine that the collective faith in a philosophy would take on a physical reality in the Astral Plane. At first, it would be a more coherent form of psychic wind. Later, it might become a place that exemplifies the philosophy, much like how Thor described the origin of the Outer Planes in OotS#1138.

Being a "philosophy" spellcaster would be a matter of successfully attuning to that pool of magic, an act that would require exceptional devotion to the precepts that created it. Possibly more difficult than having a privileged relationship with a deity, and the reason paladins are the main representatives of that type of divine magic.

Of course, that same pool could eventually become the birthplace of a deity. I wonder if the Athar faction in Sigil worries over the possibility of their philosophy creating a "godslayer god" like Kratos from the God of War series. Useful, but it would defeat the purpose of rallying mortals against all gods.

But again, yes, the gods of the Forgotten Realms hold a tight monopoly on both divine magic and the afterlife.

I would actually find it neat if BG3 let you select a god for your character regardless of class, and leaving that part blank led to "Fear the Wall" moments.

Alternatively, that choice could be made during the game, with temples offering not only healing services but the possibility to, you know, pray to the god honored in that place. Lots of possible consequences there. Praying to Lathander and later to Chauntea? No problem, they are pals, maybe even a couple. Then you pray to Umberlee? Well alright, she sure is no friend of the other two, but you have got to appease her before setting sail. Also praying to Talos, so you have both the waves and the winds on your side? You done goofed. Talos and Umberlee's last breakup did not go well!

[Kish]

My first choice would be for them to do what BG2 did, and sweep the Forgotten Realms' nonstandard (and literally godawful) approach to afterlife requirements quietly under the rug.

We'll see what they go with.

[Driderman]

My first choice would be for them to do what BG2 did, and sweep the Forgotten Realms' nonstandard (and literally godawful) approach to afterlife requirements quietly under the rug.

I might be mistaken but I think that the requirement of worshipping a god to be able to channel the divine power of gods wasn't really an established thing before 3rd edition D&D, as there wasn't really much of a precedent for "philosophy"-casters before then.

They make sense to me, or at least with my headcanon.

Spoiler: On philosophies and divine magic.

Show

The 5e DMG describes the Astral Plane as "the realm of thought and dream" where travellers can encounter storms "made up of lost memories, forgotten ideas, minor musings, and subconscious fears that went astray in the Astral Plane and conglomerated into this powerful force". Also drifting through the plane are the petrified corpses of deities, and an earlier chapter speaks of "deities who have lost nearly all their worshipers and are considered dead, from a mortal perspective".

From here, one can easily imagine that the collective faith in a philosophy would take on a physical reality in the Astral Plane. At first, it would be a more coherent form of psychic wind. Later, it might become a place that exemplifies the philosophy, much like how Thor described the origin of the Outer Planes in OotS#1138.

Being a "philosophy" spellcaster would be a matter of successfully attuning to that pool of magic, an act that would require exceptional devotion to the precepts that created it. Possibly more difficult than having a privileged relationship with a deity, and the reason paladins are the main representatives of that type of divine magic.

Of course, that same pool could eventually become the birthplace of a deity. I wonder if the Athar faction in Sigil worries over the possibility of their philosophy creating a "godslayer god" like Kratos from the God of War series. Useful, but it would defeat the purpose of rallying mortals against all gods.

But again, yes, the gods of the Forgotten Realms hold a tight monopoly on both divine magic and the afterlife.

I would actually find it neat if BG3 let you select a god for your character regardless of class, and leaving that part blank led to "Fear the Wall" moments.

Alternatively, that choice could be made during the game, with temples offering not only healing services but the possibility to, you know, pray to the god honored in that place. Lots of possible consequences there. Praying to Lathander and later to Chauntea? No problem, they are pals, maybe even a couple. Then you pray to Umberlee? Well alright, she sure is no friend of the other two, but you have got to appease her before setting sail. Also praying to Talos, so you have both the waves and the winds on your side? You done goofed. Talos and Umberlee's last breakup did not go well!

As a unique, special case permission from DM backstory kind of deal sure, philosophy casters can work for me too. As a general concept, no thanks. YMMV.

I figure that unless you're a divine class (and possibly still then) or a Faithless, in a polytheistic world like Faerun you'd likely give offerings to many gods. As far as I remember the 3rd edition books at least also mention this.