Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Strongholds in BG3

Now now, that is odd situation ...

I was told that in BG2, your class determined what building you get ...
I reacted by stating that i dont like it, and i would like much more if you get option to choose whatever building your heart desire ... or possibly adding some neutral ground, that you could fit out however you would like ...
Then i was told that this is nonsence, bcs Druids would never accept any Non-druid as their leader ...
For that i reacted by stating, that our PC should not just "be Druid leader" but have option to "become Druid leader" ...

And now you are telling me that this all was allready in BG 2 ?
I sence some incosistency here. o_O

I really dont know what to say on this ...
I realize that there is this possibility, but i simply dont feel the urge to play this game.
(quite the contrary actualy, when someone keeps sugesting it ... it starts a little to feel as anoying as comparing every thing to Solasta -_- )
And i believe you, i bet i would love it as much as you people do ... IF(!) i would get my hands on that game 20y ago, but that was then ... this is now.

Games evolved, and so did we ... and what was then progresive and inovative masterpiece, is now just relic of the past. :-/

There is many games i loved in their time ...
SW:KotOR (1), Fallout (1), Metal Gear Solid (1), Heroes of Might and Magic II., Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (1), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion,... and many more that i just didnt remembered, since i had them on PS1 instead of Steam.
But im no longer able to enjoy all those games, bcs the game insustry simply evolved since then ... and my expectations did too. :-/

I realize that this might seem superficial, and to be honest ... since the main reason is graphics, it probably is superficial as fuck ... :-/
But i gues im not the only one who feels that way, wich is in my honest opinion prooven by the fact that "remasters" (wich are usualy simple reskins) are so popular theese days. :-/

And yes, we did digressed from the subject a bit too much by this.

This is what happens when you state opinions about a game you refuse to play and, therefore, know very little about. It seems you read to the part "your character gets a building" then stopped there, and fail to see the why behind it - the intention they had when they implemented this idea. I have stated it in my previous comments: the point of this idea was to give more significance to the choice of your class, and thus making your playthrough feel more personal to you. If any character can "select" any building they want and decide that ok I want to become the owner of this building, then this is no longer tied to your class. There was a purpose, and this idea was implemented to serve that purpose. It's not that what you suggest is "bad", but if it's like you say then it no longer serves this purpose. Do you understand this now?

You're talking about a free-style world building in which you acquire a building that you want, then customize it how you want. This was not the purpose for the "strongholds" in BG2.

The strongholds in BG2 are not just any buildings. They are tied to factions - clerics, paladins, druids. It makes sense that those factions don't want to offer a position of power to someone outside of their circle. If a software company is looking for software developers, no way in hell they would hire someone without any sort of programming background. If a game company is looking to hire a senior manager, of course they have to look at people with the appropriate background. How does it make sense if an order of paladins would accept a thief into their ranks as a squire??? The more powerful the positions, the harsher the selection process. Why do you think you need to submit CV and go through interviews before you are accepted for jobs? Do you see why it sounds ridiculous when you say something like "you should get option to choose whatever building your heart desire"? This is because you don't understand the game that you're talking about, and why it does the things that it does.

That's pretty shallow if you ask me, but then everyone is entitled to their opinions. That sounds like something someone who can't look very far past fancy graphics would say. There is a reason why games like PST, Chrono Trigger, FF VI/VII, Ultima VII, FO2, are still listed near the top of just about any "top RPGs" today.

@RagnarokCzD




It's a bit hard to discover it for the first time now, yes. Graphics obviously are ...symbolic. And I use this term to stay nice to BG. Mostly items graphics though, maps were drawn by hand so a picture doesn't really age badly lol.
Few minors systems are archaic but overall BG2 really doesn't stand far away from modern RPG. Like....there's a reason there's a sequel to it. Mostly due to people who wrote the dialogues + quests. It was the main feature for BG.


Eeeee... I read the posts again, I fucked up a bit. Nevermind xD You would indeed become the leader and not be one by proving your worth bla bla bla, but the requirment was being a druid to begin with.
Same with the castle brought up before. Paladin /Warrior and De'Arnise castle awaited you. So yeah I guess what you said actually made sense. The thing is it wasn't used as a "base building" thing or anything. It was more a pretext for quests.

The thing is having a Stronghold has to " make sense" in the story.

In BG2 they used it as a pretext for quests + story building kind of thing. You were gaining power, influence etc and your possession was a proof of it. You needed it to face your enemy. You needed allies.
The fact it's bind to a class makes sense after me. Kinda adds to replayability and makes it easier to tell a specific story. Doesn't have to be, granted. It can be done in a lot of different ways mechanically but HOW would it work is not my point( for now).

IF ( and that's a very big IF, they said they were going for ACT 1 +2+3 kind of thing similar to DOS2 in which case "housing" makes little sense). But IF they go for housing in any way it should after me be a pretext to some kind of quests, dialogues, anything. If it's housing for the sake of it then it's kinda a waste of time. On the bright side Larian doesn't seem to add systems for the sake of doing it so there's that.


In BG2 the paste of the story was way slower. At the very start the games literally tells you : You need this, this and this to go forward so fuck off. You're staying in Baldur's Gate for a while.
In BG3 for now we are supposed to be in a hurry to remove the tadpole. This idea of urgency ( regardless of it being real or not gameplay wise ) makes any developed way of housing have little sense. If the main quests keeps pushing us forward as fast as possible ( even if it's only theoretical) then I would straight up be against any Stronghold. If it doesn't then... why not.

There's a couple of way of doing it where it could be fun. Especially with their graphics ^^.

Someone mentioned D&D itself is starting to shift away from class restrictions. Didn't ask him for details but maybe insisting on your class choice via the stronghold isn't a necessarily a thing to do. Also I doubt Larian will get us a 3d model of a stronghold for every single class+ a questline for each just because of the crazy amount of work that woul require nowadays. Would be easier to go with one place and different interactions depending on...

1) The faction you align with.
2) Your choiceds in the main story line.

Personally I'm a fan of having a specific place assigned to one class. Makes them more unique. But feels unrealistic.

D&D is not shifting away from class restrictions (and thank God for that!). If you don't have (distinct) classes, you don't have D&D.

Sure, bcs the only way how anyone could disagree with such marvelous model is either ignorance, or missunderstanding ...
The option that person could *know* and yet dislike, is totaly impossible, right?.

As much as this whole time ...
And i still dont like it.

I dont know how to say it differently to be honest ...
If im suppose to get a building as a Quest reward, i want to have options ... i dont want to create a Druid and since that point, have every big reward in game toned specialy for druids ...
I would be all in, for having option that is perfect for Druid ... and honestly, i would most likely choose it for my Druid no matter what ... but once whole world is automaticly forming around the fact that *my PC* is a Druid ... it starts to feel odd. :-/

*Thank you hero for saving our lives ... oh what a coincidence, i just have here armor made of wood!*
*Thank you hero for saving our castle ... oh what a coincidence, i just have here this nut of oldest three in the kingdom!*
*Thank you hero for saving our kingdom ... oh what a coincidence, did i mention that druid groove in the East is empty for few decades? Its yours now!*
I dunno ... it just dont feel right. :-/

Also, as *i* stated in my previsous comments:
Druid is not my main poblem, the most problematic classes are Rogue, Warlock, Necromancer ...
I dunno how about you, but i see those classes as something subtile ... i mean, if you look at adventurer and first thing in your mind is "this is surely a Thief", or "this is for sure an Assassin" ... i would say that he would be not so good thief/assassin.

And i never claimed the oposite ...
So what is point in this statement? O_o

And that is why i said that non-paladin classes, that would choose paladin stronghold should do some extra quests to proove themselves.

Also as i mentioned previously (in this coment, and in past coments too) you are not suppose to recognize a thief just by looking at him.

To use your own metaphor:
If a game company is looking to hire a senior manager, of course they have to look at people with the appropriate background ... but if all they get is a person who seems to *want* be a manager, yet dont have any experience ... they can allways hire him at lower position, and give him chance to work his way up.

Yes, ofcourse it is ... what else reason there could be ... maybe except that one i mentioned several times allready.

The problem with your example is exactly in your own words: "The more powerful the positions, the harsher the selection process." I agree with you completely on this one.
But its double sided sword.
Bcs at same time it means the easier selection process > the less powerfull the position.
That would mean (as i stated both in this coment, and previously) ...
That if you choose Druid groove as a Druid, you will be accepted as a member ... if you choose Druid groove as a Warlock, you will be accepted as an iniciate.
> Problem solved.
All you need to do is simply dont start climbing the mountain at its top.

And I wish them wholeheartedly, as well as all the people who continue to play and enjoy them.
The fact that *someone* considers the game to be perfect wont affect me in any way ... just as the fact that *i* am just not interested in it in any way, dont affect them.

In other words: w/e

Oh dont get me wrong, i never tryed to convince you that BG2 is "old piece of s**t" or anything like that ...

Im simply stating reasons for why this game is not atractive for myself, nothing more.
We can see it totally different and i believe its fine ... but those are mine reasons, you can either understand them or not ... aswell as i can, or not understand yours ... but that is i would guess probably all we can do.

Could be ...
But what makes sence for developer, could not make sence for player. :-/

You know i may not play BG2 ... but i played a lot of other RPGs and i noticed long ago, that developers tend to tune all the places to "match the class" ...
And i have no reason to believe Larian (who put symbol of Shar on Shadowhearts forehead, and still try to look like her worshiping its perfectly hidden secret) is any different.

For example:
When you look at that list, that was written in OP ... and focus on last two sentences specificaly:
Thief Thieves' Guild Stronghold
Bard Running the Five Flagons
> This is exactly wasted opourtunity in my eyes ... since if i would like to play Thief, i want my surrounding *not* knowing that im Thief ... that would mean to get litteraly any other building, than something called "Thieves' Guild Stronghold". :-/
I admit that i have litteraly no idea how "Thieves' Guild Stronghold" looked like (i googled and it ended kinda how i imagined it), so maybe my opinion here is blurred a little ... but *i* imagine perfect building for my Thief to be a Tavern, maybe with some backroom, where shady deals can be made ...
And as you can see, there is a Tavern ... but only for Bards. :-/

And that is precisely what im talking about here, CHOICES! OPTIONS!

To be completely honest?
If every class get at least two, or three building to choose from, where:
1) One would be speficifcly for that Specialization
(Crypt for Necromancer, Fighting pits for Barbarian, Castle for Palain, Church for Cleric, Temple for Monk, Grove for Druid, etc.)
2) Another one would be something a little more common, more for Classes
(Library for casting classes, Stronghold with training grounds for meele classes, Tavern with some space to socialize for talking classes, some old Warehouse for i dunno hoarders , etc.)
3) And third one will be simple, boring, generic house in town ...
(Wich honestly is probably not even necesary, but it would be nice to have some option for characters who just want to have some place they can call home, withou being hero all the time.)

Where first option will be tied to your max leveled specialisation ... second options should be all presented at all time ... and third one aswell, just for fun of it. :P
I would be totally happy!

It that case world is no longer shaped by your class choice, yet it matters.

That is still possible, if you ask me ...
In one case, you would be gaining power as Barbarian who is getting thrust of other Barbarians ...
In other case, you would be gaining power as non-Barbarian, who need to do *much more*, to get to that same level of their thrust.

But i just cant see how choice of your class could make it totally unable to work your way up ...
Except some obvious examples ... like Necromancer would probably not stand as High Cleric of Kelemvor, in his Church ... so *some* limitations would be welcome ... even tho, in game where you can play Benevolent Light Cleric of Shar, well ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would i agree on that ...

Well ... i presume that *if* (and its a very big if, even tho not as big if as your IF) we will be dealing with some housing ... it would be after our tadpolisation will be resolved, at least so much so we would be enough time to address other issues.

If you're saying a game could make sense, what are you really arguing here. I'm also getting a little miffed at how people are rationalizing poor game design with "what makes sense for the developer". Are we their accountants? Like we have to choose between advocating Larian or the game they're making. They shouldn't be different.

That said I'm still not entirely sure what Rags issue is. You want strongholds to be more diegetic to the world? You think that a stronghold shouldn't reflect the specializations of your class?

The information gleaned from looking up screenshots of BG:2 is a great way of proving our point.

No it's actually the other way around, if talking about easier.
If they would create one place with all the same, but in the same time different interactions, that would be (translating code to human):
A) The player comes to some interaction point:
1. Is the player character a paladin? - No.
2. Is the player character a rogue? - No.
3. Is the player character a wizard? - Oh yes! He is a wizard, start the wizard branch.
B) The player comes to one more interaction point:
1. Is the player character a paladin? - No.
2. Is the player character a rogue? - No.
3. Is the player character a wizard? - Oh yes! He is a wizard, start the wizard branch.
- And so on with every interaction.
And if they would create a separate stronghold with it's own quest branch always in the game for every class, and then just create some access points, they would need only a few points each running just one check:
1. Is the player character a <class-name>? - No/Yes.
2. Restrict/Allow access.

Anyway guys, what you're describing here this whole time loooks very much like TES guilds with their guild-quest branches. And I personally grew sick of it long ago. Especially because it's often connects badly with the main quest. So if Larian would prove they can do it properly in a nice, making sense and a bit refresing way, I'm all up to try. But it's not something I would ask for just to distinguish my character's class more.

What my issue is. :-/
I can only repeat myself. :-/

I simply want to have a choice.
Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If my Necromancer will get a Crypt, bcs its a Necromancer ... im dissapointed.
If my Necromancer can get a Crypt, or the Library, or the Castle, or the Tavern, or the Sphere ... im happy!

@RagnarokCzD Nothing wrong with wanting options. In the case of BG2 strongholds, the "options" here are precisely your options for class at the character creation screen. You pick your class, and the game bases on that to give you something special, and you're saying you want options to choose other things intended for other classes?

Not saying this is completely impossible, but how many cases of this in real life do you actually know? Or are you just throwing around theoretical situations whose chances of happening are close to none but "no one can prove"? You're saying that a company looking for senior manager would be willing to accept someone who has no experience whatsoever, and hope that in maybe 10-15 years he will become the manager they were hoping to get 10-15 years ago?

And who said you're supposed to be able to? This is again just another generalized argument of yours. In a game, and this is not just BG2, you have to go through quests, talk to people, and from your conversations, your actions, other characters know what kind of profession you have. For each stronghold in BG2, you have to go through quests, tell people about who you are, you have to solve problems, show your abilities, and prove your capabilities. Another important factor here, specifically in the BG games, is your reputation. People know who you are because of your identity as well as your exploits both in Baldur's Gate and in Athkatla. You're not a no-name that no one knows anything about. Again, you're trying to make generalized arguments while knowing nothing about the specific game we're discussing.

Remember I talked about submitting CV and going through interviews? That's how people find out what kind of experience and background you have. Or are you telling me when they ask you in your interview what kind of experience you have, you say no I don't want to tell you? And you want them to accept you for "lower positions"?

So no, ignorance is not the only way for someone to disagree with or dislike something. Everyone here is simply arguing based on the comments you've made. Whether your comments show ignorance or otherwise is for everyone including yourself to judge. The game gives you this, and you say that doesn't make sense and you want something else. Fair enough. You can say certain ideas from BG2 are bad - that is fine because it's your opinion. But the fact that you haven't even played the game makes it hard for anyone to take your opinions and criticism seriously. It's as simple as that.

I know ... you allone mentioned it allready at least five times ... others even more ...

What i honestly dont know is why you keep repeating it. O_o

Do you believe that on 100th repeat i sudently see through and realize how brilliant and genius system it is?
Well, that is not going to happen i assure you. :-/

Im trying really hard to not use the same words again ... but you dont make it easy. :-/

If every class get at least two, or three building to choose from, where:
1) One would be speficifcly for that Specialization
(Crypt for Necromancer, Fighting pits for Barbarian, Castle for Palain, Church for Cleric, Temple for Monk, Grove for Druid, etc.)
2) Another one would be something a little more common, more for Classes
(Library for casting classes, Stronghold with training grounds for meele (ok, this word could be missunderstanded, lets say fighting) classes, Tavern with some space to socialize for talking classes, some old Warehouse for i dunno hoarders , etc.)
3) And third one will be simple, boring, generic house in town ...
(Wich honestly is probably not even necesary, but it would be nice to have some option for characters who just want to have some place they can call home, withou being hero all the time.)

I really dont know how to say it differently, if you dont get it from this. :-/

Necromancer (therefore casting class)
> Crypt (specialisation)
>> Library (type)
>>> House in Town (general)

Barbarian (therefore fighting class)
> Figting Pits (specialisation)
>> Stronghold with Training ground (type)
>>> House in Town (general)

Bard (therefore casting class, therefore social aka. talking class)
> Brothel (specialisation)
>> Library (type)
>> Tavern (type)
>>> House in Town (general)

Druid (therefore casting class)
> Grove (specialisation)
>> Librabry (type)
>>> House in Town (general)

Rogue (therefore fighting class)
> Warehouse, or Store (specialisation)
>> Stronghold with Training ground (type)
>>> House in Town (general)

What is so hard about it?
Its all written abowe. :-/
There is no "intended for other classes" ... just another options, so your class dont shape the world. o_O

First ... it was your example, not mine ... we are talking here about accepting Rogue to become a Paladin ... wich is totally possible, even more when all it takes is simply pick it as second class at certain level.
Second ... yes, i know companies wich are focusing on personal growth of their own employees to fill those roles in the future ... usualy they say things like: "sucesfull company never have *too many* talented people", or "this would be good investment for the future", or similar shits.

Also ...
When i started about Multiclassing ...
How would YOU like to solve it?
I pick Druid in character creation ... therefore in your (aka BG2 model) i should Heeding the Spirit of the Grove ...
But what if i shall also pick Monk while exping ... therefore in your (aka BG2 model) i should Ruling the de'Arnise Keep and Lands ...
And in level 8, when i shall get my Stronghold ... i will be level 4 Druid and level 4 Monk ...
What should i get?

Im not sure how Multiclassing works, i searched but i didnt find any "minimum level requirement" ... so i dare to presume that the only limitation is Ability Score Minimum ... so feel free to ignore this question, if im wrong in this asumption.
And what about situation, where i will have 1 Druid level, but 7 Monk levels?

Should as you said "class at the character creation screen" be still the determinant?

Im glad you asked ... you did, by this sentence:
How does it make sense if an order of paladins would accept a thief into their ranks as a squire???

But if you didnt, as you claim now ...
Please, enlighten me ... how should those Paladins know that person who is standing before them asking for membership for in their order, as a reward for some heoric deed ... is a Thief? :P

Well, its not exactly mine fault, that Rogue advanced class is named "Thief"

You would still go through quests, you would still talk to people, you would still have to have some actions, and conversations ... but unless your character actualy *steal* something and being caught you are not known as "Thief" ...
You are talking here about quests, solving problems, showing abilities, proving capabilities, reputation, deeds and exploits ...
Yet, all that can be done in Honorable way playing a Thief ... and yet nobody can know, all you have to do is *not stealing* ...

And therefore i ask using your own words:
How does it NOT make sense if an order of paladins would accept a thief into their ranks as a squire as long as your Thief is *not stealing*???

On the contrary, we are talking here about imaginary situation in game that is still in development.
The fact that another game had simmilar feature, is certainly good for some ideas ... but its not 10 commandments.

Using the same example? O_o

Okey, i can play along.
You managed to create good example of messed interwiev ... i hope you dont wish to tell me that this is the only way you can go.
Lets remember, that even this example was still only used as an example for simulating situation that we can find ingame ... so ingame rules must work for it, otherwise its false:

Company: What kind of experience for this position do you have?
1) I dont want to tell.
2) I dont have any to be honest, but i would like to start working here and get them.
3) [Deception] Well, i worked in the other company for last few years and i oversight a lot there.
4) [Intimidation] I have some compromising data in my phone, would you like to me to send them to your boss?
5) [Performance] Let me show you what i CAN do instead.
6) [Persuasion] Well, this would be a great opourtunity for me and even tho i would maybe not be the best employee since the day one, i learn pretty fast and i would be eternaly gratefull for such opourtunity.
7) [Investigation] I do know that this company is doing in inport export of steel weapons for Barbarians in the North ... believe me, i know what they want.
8) [Insight] I can see you want some guarantees ... i presume im not your first option and you probably are tired of meeting unexperienced people, but i can asure you that i can provide you the results you want.
9) [Perception] Do i see Management Manual, written by Mr. Try2Handing himself in your bookshelf? My, i readed that book too, i learned a lot from there.

And before you start complaining ... remember, once again ... it was YOUR example, not mine.

Because of the way your comments tend to make others think "wow this guy just doesn't see it but he keeps talking nonetheless", so we have the tendency to repeat the point when it's relevant to our argument. But if you have to ask...

This makes no sense because as long as you select a class, from the game world's point of view there has to be something defining you as someone of that class. Saying "if your thief doesn't steal" still makes little sense even if you play your game without ever using any of the thief's abilities whatsoever. As long as your class is a thief, it's believable that in the game other characters have ways to find out.

How you managed to infer "people are able to tell someone is a rogue by just looking at him" from that sentence is completely beyond me. It's astounding. Especially when I even tried to explain no it's not just by looking at him, by saying your character has to go through quests and such.

I don't know how you see all this as "complaining", but I'll just chalk it up to a subpar choice of word. And yes, it was my example, so there's no need to keep reminding me that. Unlike some, I know what I said and I'll back up what I said, instead of repeatedly saying "it's not my suggestion", "I never said this, I never said that", "this is your own words, your own example", etc. before ending more than half of my sentences with emotes.
In that example, what I tried to say was that, it doesn't make sense if someone accepts you into their circle without you providing any sort of information whatsoever. And if they know something about you, then it's not "just by looking at you". This point you clearly missed, it seems. This is a reply to your saying "you are not supposed to recognize a thief just by looking at him."

I'd love to see you try saying these lines in an actual interview. Or are you only saying these ridiculous things because you know there's no problem typing them out here on these forums? And no, this is not a video-game situation expressed in real life words. I was actually taking real life situations, so you'll have to forgive me for not buying all that [Deception], [Intimidation], [Performance] crap. Yes, I know, "everything is possible", right? Always relying on "always right" generic arguments like that though doesn't make your case very convincing, just saying.

But either way, through your example, you proved that you have to reveal information about yourself in order to convince people you are an appropriate candidate, whether you're telling the truth or just bluffing. This, if anything, just supports what I was saying previously: you have to provide people with information in some manner. But seeing as you inferred something I totally didn't say, it's understandable that you would provide this kind of example.

So let's try to wrap this up, shall we? Through all this, my biggest points are: you haven't played the original BG games, and your comments clearly show you know next to nothing about them. I believe we can agree on this. Everything specific to the game that I said, you conveniently ignored. As I also have said, it's hard for anyone to take whatever you say seriously. By this point, most people on these forums probably already know just how much credibility your comments contain.

Not "we", it was mostly "you". It's part of the problem here, isn't it. When others were talking about BG2, you jumped in and said a lot of things. When we said you don't have those things in a game made 20 years ago, you said "but I'm talking about BG3". When we said that wouldn't make sense in BG2, you said "but everything is possible because I'm talking about BG3". I mean, that's true - everything is possible for a game in development. The conclusion here is that: yes, you don't know anything about BG2, but tried to argue nonetheless, then it turned out that you were talking about something else altogether. This about sums it up, I believe?

@Try2Handing + @ Ragnarok -> I think you kinda both made your point and we're running in circles now ^^''

Even tho, this guy in every single sentence repeats that he DO see ... yet, still disagree.
Therefore we are back in the "anyone either agree with me, or dont understand ... there is no other way people could dislike something i like"

Well ...
I see, you are using metadata to determine things, you cannot support with your arguments. :-/

As far as i know, the class is named "rogue" ... in not entirely sure about fullscale meaning in english, but in our language it means "tulák" (feel free to google, but translated to english, its wanderer) ...
There are advanced class with misleading names, feel free to complain at Wizzards of the Coast, i didnt name them ... but simmilar as you dont get huge killcount the second you pick "Assassin" as your advanced class ... you dont become wanted crimminal once you pick "Thief" advanced class ...
Advanced class only provides you resources and abilities, that are most beefitial for such archetype ... but there is no power in hells, or heavens forcing you to use them.

And unless you cant understand this ... there is probably not much point in continuing this discusion. :-/
Its called roleplay, btw ... feel free to google that too.

Yes i know ...
And they should determine who your character is by the outcome of those Quests ... so as long as your "Thief" is acting in those quests honorable, just, and have no problem with any rule or law ... how else would they determine that he is "a Thief" then?

Do you tho?

as long as you select a class, from the game world's point of view there has to be something defining you as someone of that class
vs.:
And if they know something about you, then it's not "just by looking at you".

Bcs as i see it, those two sentences are in pure contradiction ...
> The first one claims that once my character is marked as a Thief class, game should concider him being Thief ... no matter if he ever stealed something or not.
> The second one claims that my character should be judged by his deeds, therefore once he stole something, he is a Thief ... no matter what class he picks.
So what is it then?

Wich i agreed with, about two sites back ...
When i talked about that people who dont belong in the *right class* should first do few quests to proove their worth. O_o

Get me to universe, where outcome of any dialogue will be determined by throwing 20 sided dice, and adding ability bonuses ... and i see no problem. :P

Well in that case its completely irellevant.
Bcs as you probably know, we are here talking about video-game situations on this forum.

No i did not, i never claimed otherwise, and i still with pure hearth believe that i dont need to ...
Thats bcs i do not and i never comented what "was in BG2" ... i coment what i would "like to see in BG3", and that is not affected by content of BG2 at all. O_o

If indeed i am "mostly the only one" who came to forum about Baldrur's Gate III., to talk about Baldur's Gate III. ... then yes, that certainly, is a problem!

Can you please re-read the OP?
Isnt is a little more about: When other were talking about what they wanted in BG3, YOU jumped in and said a lot of things about BG2 ?
It certainly feels that way. :-/

Well, yes i am ...
As i mentioned that is kinda purpose of this forum.

And fact that *some things*, whatever they are, were not part of the previous game 20y ago, dont mean that they "cannot" be part of this game right now. O_o
Please, if this forum would be about BG2 remaster ... i would not say a thing, but its not ... and i honestly dont see any relevance between "i wat this in this game that we have now" and "it was never in that game 20y ago". O_o

If that can be understanded as we both kinda expected to have a dialogue ... but in fact it shows us that we were leading two, compeltely indenpended monologues ... well, i gues so.
Funny how things sometimes ends up huh?

Going through BG2 again right now, Ill post pictures of all the strongholds. Some look really nice. Ill get the thief class one first, got my party together, heading to the docks from the Copper Corronet Inn once I take care of all the slavers organization there. Gonna have a good time first in the <<special>> guest rooms before all hell breaks loose.
Party includes: Bard blade kit, Fighter Berserker kit (Korgan), Sorcerer (Adrian, amazing npc mod), Thief/Illusionist (Jan), Fighter/Druid (Jaheira), Cleric (Viconia). Left Minsc in the bath house with Boo, taking a rest.

In BG2 that blanket class is called Thief. Already pointed out that I was talking about BG2, but yes, "as far as you know" means you don't know this.

If the quests were designed with the purpose to reveal your class, then there is no "if this" or "if that". And if your class is not shown after doing said quests, then what are their purposes again? I said "oh but the game uses quests to figure out your class, it's not just by looking at you" - this is how it is in BG2. And you reply by saying that "oh but if I do quests in a way that doesn't reveal my class..." - well then you must be talking about a different game (what game is that, I wonder), in which case, whatever you say, I suppose.

I certainly believe so. What do you think?

Here I thought this was easy to understand. The first sentence speaks from the "gameplay" angle - as long as your character sheet shows that label THIEF, (or Rogue or whatever) then your character is a Thief, until somehow you change your class. The second sentence is from the "game world" (or story) angle - how in-game characters perceive your character, what kind of person they think your character is. I hope this is clear now.

In fact, you did not... Or I must have misunderstood you very badly. Because after quoting that point of mine you provided a rather interesting example of how someone can bluff his way through an interview in order to contradict what I said. So what were you trying to say with that example again?

Gotcha. Just about what I expected. This means your argument here is about as relevant as you think some of mine are.

Yes, dismissing something as irrelevant is another way of avoiding tackling it. I used that "real life" example for a purpose, in response to your comment before that. But if you'd rather skip this point because you think it's irrelevant, that's fine too.

Oh, nothing as serious as the whole forums. Just this particular topic. During specific exchanges.

The very first post made by the OP listed things from BG2. That's one. I said a lot of things about BG2 as responses to other posts, including yours. Just like you said a lot of things about BG3 as responses to other posts. Your argument here is about as good as mine.

They have as much relevance as your comments give them.

This stopped being about making points several posts ago, I think. Now this is all about picking apart each other's sentences and see which one you can cling on and use as ammo for your next post. My day work can get really boring and this serves as something that helps keep my brain active. Always look at the bright side and all that.

Lots of respect for playing the non-EE game. I myself have been doing an Archer playthrough recently, and right now I'm standing in front of the final battle of the expansion. A bit reluctant cause there's just too much work going into the preparation for that fight (Ascension + SCS). And I STILL need to do a Cleric, a Druid, and a Wild Mage runs. After 10+ years I still don't know what the Cleric and Druid strongholds and quests are like.

>>

And ... just by the way, the name of topic itself is "Strongholds in BG3" not "Let's remember bg2 together" ... -_-

//edit:
You know what?
Virion was right ... you are only arguing for the sake of conflict, and i dont want to be part of this shit anymore ...
So i try new approach, you argue with yourself, since you dont read my posts anyway (Im talking about BG 3 >> but in BG 2 was -_- ) ... and just let me know how it ended.

This is not completely true! :[ (or perhaps I just evolved backwards O.o) I ran late for the CRPG-party, and I have been enjoying most of the old titles without heeding any issues to the somewhat old graphic, in *all* cases I've tried so far.

PoE? I played it last winter (LIKE LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AGO O.o) and had a "Wowww, did it seriously look this bad?"-experience when I searched for it on YouTube to get the soundtrack to the battle of Castle Nua. As I remember it, 6 months ago it had equally great graphics to the newest Final Fantasy games :'D ....

DA:O - hey, I even re-played Guild Wars (1) just few years ago. If I can survive that (and enjoy it <3), then a few pointy edges in the scenery won't bother me!

BG2 - next on my list! I was even very pleasantly surprised with the HD version when I looked at it on Steam (I even had to call my brother and be like "Hey, isn't BG2 supposed to look ... Old? This stuff doesn't look bad at all!") - I mean... It really does not look that much worse than PF:K, does it? I am sure I am going to love playing it!

My point is - I always thought that graphics were important to me. When playing MMO-RPGs, one of my main issues with many of the top contenders is that they felt so "out of date" and trying to return to WoW Classic? HELL NAH (however, graphics are by far my least concern there, I already did the "classic" race back in the days - anyways, off topic) - but now? I am sitting here playing games that are 10+ years old and games like Wildermyth (highly recommend it for the story lovers in here! It has absolutely AMAZING writing! Like SERIOUSLY - just try it!) - and I *LOVE* it. The games are awesome \o/ Well-done writing (regardless if it is voiced or not), good music and a great story makes the game feel much more alive than any pretty graphics can match! Does good graphics hurt? Of course not! But I realized, as far as CRPGs goes, that it is one of my least concerns when it comes to the properties of a good CRPG.

Sure, BG3 is very pretty and obviously it is fun to see the breath-taking graphics and details - but... Like we discussed before in another topic - no CRPG is going to nail it just the way *I* want it and hence I feel like games like Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Pillars of Eternity and (possibly!) the earlier Baldur's Gate games can do the job just as fine - as long as one has the imagination to keep the world alive, and the creators managed to support your fantasy with amazing writing!