Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Returning to Early Access: My Thoughts

So I've decided to do my first runthrough of the game for like, two or three patches. I realized that after talking about the game so much, my opinions on it didn't really feel...right. I worried that I'd built up a more negative version of the game in my head due to all the criticism I've been absorbing. So i'm just starting this thread and sharing my feelings on it all, while I'm still in the process of clearing the surface content. And overall I'm more positive about it. The issues I had had still exist for the most part, but they're not as intense and I don't feel them as much as I play.

Some initial thoughts:

- I still like the party. I've got problems with Astarion, but he's not as bad as I thought he was. Gale's Weave scene was actually so well-executed that it made me want to romance him rather than Shadowheart as I'd initially planned. Kudos there.

- The chain movement mechanic isn't a disaster, but it's still just overall worse than the traditional control scheme I'm used to. It provides less control and I have yet to see any benefits it gives in return.

- I do not like the way co-op has impacted the game. The fact that characters in real-time can wander in range and join combat can be very annoying, and being unable to truly pause the game and stop the action is subtly uncomfortable and just feels off to me.

- Going with the above, the inventory system is better than last time I played, but it's still not really user-friendly. I realized today as I was playing that the awkward, disorganized inventory system and UI has been making me engage with gear less. I straight up don't bother looking at new gear a lot of the time to figure out if anyone in my party can use it because I find the inventory management just tedious. Plus there's a bunch of items with weird effects, like those lightning and momentum ones I've seen talked about and honestly reading their descriptions just made my brain switch off and I did not want to engage with them. I haven't sold them yet because my hoarding rpg brain hasn't let me yet.

- I played aa sorcerer and I am very impressed by the amount of specific options. It hasn't wowed me the way that WotR wowed me, but it's definitely on par with or exceeding Dragon Age for me, which I consider high praise all the same. It's certainly made me really interested in the sorcerer class and I'm definitely gonna play one again at some point after full release. I hope Warlocks get that same level of reactivity at launch, that would delight me.

- The game overall is genuinely pretty fun to play. There's still stuff I'm not a big fan of, that feels kind of obtuse and tricksy, but it's not as bad as I'd been thinking it was.

There's everything for now. I shall update you all when/if more thoughts emerge, and I'm happy to hear your thoughts on my thoughts.

Glad you have re-played it and enjoyed it more than before !
I guess all of us like it a lot better than when we started. As you said it has changed A LOT since the beginning... Patch 5 was the best patch according to me.

I personnaly think that the chain system is a disaster because if it is worse that the traditionnal system, it also creates pathfinding issues, unexpected moves that may lead to tedious situations (like a character going a bit too close and engage combat while you were falling back with the selected one, a character moving while you are trying to select him...) or that are just wierd (characters climbing a ladder, going down, and climbing again when you click another portrait while they are on the ladder). Just as you, I cannot see any benefits. BG1/2EE on console have some king of "chain" but it's on top of a system that works really well and it's not the system itself.

Totally agree with the lack of pause. Personnaly I have the feeling that it reduce A LOT my tactical creativity.
I'd like SO MUCH to be able to pause the game, give orders and let my characters move in exemple to ambush a group of ennemies. Right now it feels wierd, slow, or eventually cheesy.

I also agree with the inventory but to me it comes from the HUGE number of items we can pick. There are too many items we can take with us and as a lot of RPG players : I just pick everything because "I may need it at some point".
I know some players have a lot of fun re-creating merchants shop or creating a beautifull camp... But to me it does not worth the time it consume to manage inventory AND the time you need to explore all rooms / open so much containers...
They could have simplified and "locked" some items in the environment. It does not add any immersion to me if I can take the 2564 inkpot that are in the game.
Just an exemple but dealing with "rations" would be so much more confortable than having 58 types of food. Tooltips or color code could also help to understand what is usefull and what is purely decorative/junk - what is full or what is empty. There are also a lot too much consumables. Items/inventory management is a pain but in the end, I'm not sure their inventory UI is really worse than in other games.

Fully agree with sets of items and conditions like lightning and momentum (and many other conditions/status). There are a lot too much conditions / status in the game. It should have been A LOT simpler in my opinion.
That's also true for weapons attacks that inflicts so many various status and conditions... In the end I never remember the effects of items or weapons attacks so I mostly never use them and I usually only equip """classic""" items.

This is not to make an excuse for Larian or any of the other companies that have made 'CRPGs' that are kind of like Baldur's Gate 3... but have any of these games ever had "good" inventory systems? I remember inventory management being a pain in the original Baldur's Gate games. It was a chore in Divinity, Pillars of Eternity, Pathfinder, etc.

Without removing a lot of items from the game and maybe getting rid of things like crafting from the game - what is the best way to clean this up? Just add in more ability to easily search for things and organize them? Or just get rid of a ton of the stuff you can pick up in general? I know in Divinity: Original Sin 2 I was like... should I REALLY be able to pick up 19,762,349 books during my playthrough - it seems like this would be easier to do it like other games do?

Like for instance in the new God of War: Ragnarok - when you pick up a book or something like that you don't literally pick up the physical book itself, it just gets added to a codex or whatever where you can browse to it and read it if you want.

The idea that I had was rather than having one big shared inventory for all items... the primary inventory would be for equipment, scrolls, arrows, potions and things strictly used by the character. But everything else (crafting materials, currency, junk items, etc.) would have a separate inventory that automatically sorts itself and keeps track of it in a more organized manner. Like a screen that would just say something like:

Copper: 27
Silver: 13
Gold: 10
Fadeleaf: 132
Bone: 17
Skull: 3

But I think the problem with something like that is that it would inherently make vendoring stuff more of a pain? Maybe?

I think getting rid of a lot of stuff would make things more manageable for sure. Removing books, etc. What you describe could be really good too. I think that what makes Baldurs Gate 3 worse than a lot of the games you describe (not sure about the original two games since I never played them) is the fact that you have to manipulate the inventory of each character individually. you can't just have one shared inventory that you can pull up and consult, you have to go back and forth, you lose access to stuff if you remove a companion from your party, it's just an added layer of complexity on top of a system that, you're right, has overall only ever really been 'adequate' for the most part.

I personally find inventory management ok, since food has no value now in camping - therefore it all goes to stash making character inventory more managable.

I like that idea - I would welcome it. I understand Larian likes their systemic consistency (every item is pickable, and throwable and droppable etc.) but they really need to examing if there is any meaningful gameplay in there to be found. That said, there aren't that many items I canthink of that could be sorted that way. Food is one - just transalate it into supplies as others suggested. Books is another - I like collecting lore books in RPGs for later reference. It would be nice if I didn't have to carry them with me.

I don't know, I never found those to have much inventory management - they definitely had less then modern RPGs. BG1&2 were very selective with items drops, so there wasn't that much junk to sort. Though I think my personal complaint about BG3 inventory would be this:

There is something off about it, to the point I tend to ignore inventory. It is far from being the worst I have seen in an RPG - D:OS2 and Dragon Ages were far worse in that regard... though maybe BG3 full release will surprise me. We do have access to only few items at the moment afterall.

Team sorcerer! Glad you are liking your playthrough!😊

You think the Dragon Age games were worse, really? Maybe I'm biased because DA:O was my first crpg and it set my expectations, but I really do think that BG3 having you manage every character's inventory individually does genuinely make it worse than anything else I've played. I also have to deal with their carrying capacity, occasionally swapping things around, going to vendors to sell stuff off, it takes a system that was already flawed and makes it worse.

I did. I find listing items one by one without strong visual identity becomes really unhelpful once volume of items wracks up. I abandoned my Inquisition play through mainly because I couldnt be asked to deal with constantly overflowing inventory and just tediousness of crafting, sorting and equipping items.

Though my main dislike is how half-assed the items are - it's my most hated fake-RPG thing of having very few weapons types that then constantly come with incremental improvements or variations. If I swap equipment I want to feel the difference, not do 10% damage so I can take on enemies who have 10% more health.

But to come back to the point: I will definitely take BG3 inventory UI over any of Dragon Ages, yes.

I am not sure of there inventory I straight up like - Deus Exes perhaps, because of how limited they are and actually tie into your play style decision. I also thing that's to a lesser extend what BG1&2 achieved. Inventory was so limited that one had to decide what will be useful for each character, rather then carrying too much, and then at some point running out of carrying capacity and having to do sort pile of stuff and make sense of it.

I didn't mind PoE1&2 stash - it was easy to figure out what is worth keeping and what is not, though without having to make decision on what to carry O so think it is too easy to just stick to one weapon that works and let all the cool toys the game drops rust in the stash.

Interesting, I like hearing your inventory thoughts despite never having had the issues you've had.

Moving onto some new observations I've had from playing, I am again reminded of how much I liked the celebration after defeating the cult. It's great getting to interact with all the people I saved and to really feel the impact of it. It's a great high point before moving on to the harsh journey to moonrise tower and it really did feel very personal in a way a lot of the game doesn't. Related, I enjoyed Wyll and Shadowheart's reactions when I decided to spend the night with Gale, it felt friendly and like actual bonding moments. And the fact that the game got me to romance a guy really is a strong mark to the strength of writing.

Having said all that, I also played out the Waukeen's Rest fire encounter and oof, that's still annoying. The fact that the create water spell barely does anything is a real annoying thing to discover. However this is the first time I actually rescued the counselor and not the guy in the other room. Since this is the first time I actually realized that the guy wasn't the counsellor and there was someone else in there. I think I only knew that because I saw on this forum that the counsellor was actually a woman. I also couldn't save the guy despite reloading two or three times, getting the lumber off of him and destroying the door leading outside. He just kepy laying there and I had no idea what to do. The game offers a lot of freedom to do stuff, but the consequence is that sometimes that freedom leads to things being obtuse and counter-intuitive. I think that this is a prime example of that.

Another thing I wanted to bring up is that a lot of times it feels like the options to be dismissive or mean outweigh options to be gracious or nice, which I am not a fan of.

Firstly, Gray Ghost, your project is quite commendable. Being willing to gather new information in order to update your opinion is honest, and doing it in public is brave.

Secondly, here are thoughts on good inventory systems: they make finding things easy, manipulating things easy, and they’re relevant to gameplay. Two games to illustrate this, Solasta and Disco Elysium (if only because their memories are fresh).

1. Finding things easily.

Both of those games segment items effectively, though in different ways. Solasta has a reliable auto-sort button which lets players assess their entire inventory in a single click. Disco E sorts relatively few items into four small categories. Either way, players are always two clicks away from whatever item they’re after.

BG3 has a search bar, which requires precise spelling and doesn’t find items inside in bags or pouches. It sees little to no use in my games. There are also filters that let players see a type of item in a semi random line accross their screen. The hope is players can tell potions apart by looking at them. (Works well enough for scrolls.)

2. Manipulating things easily.

Solasta and D Elysium have drag and drop. Easy.

In my experience, BG3’s inventory is too unstable for drag and drop. The only way to reliably manipulate items is to right-click, move-to. This is the primary pain point in vendor interactions, as the party tank loots but the party face sells.

The stability thing hasn’t been mentioned too loudly in the forums, but honestly it’s nuts; I assume it’s been submitted as a bug a biliion times through official channels. Every fatal crash I’ve heard of (or experienced) since Patch 8 has somehow been tied to the inventory.

3. A relevant inventory

Inventory is relevant in S and D E in diametrically opposed ways.

Solasta has more items than can be carried and stringent action economy rules which means pre-combat inventory manipulation is key to success. Equipping arrows and bags of holding is a big deal.

Disco Elysium has fewer items than can be carried and mostly forgiving “combat” rules. The player starts in such a dire position that equipping anything is a big deal.

BG3 has magic pockets and encumbrance and the camp chest. The sum total of these mechanisms is that the inventory restrictions apply to two cases: mid-combat barrelmancy and vendors. The former is barely a restriction while the latter is a huge pain point.

Interestingly, magic pockets + encumbrance = party-wide carry limit. Every PC automatically benefits from the strongest members in the group; it would be nice if they also automatically benefitted from the most charismatic.

Conclusion

There is such a thing as a good inventory. BG3’s isn’t there yet.

Patch 9 hopefully continues to improve things - I like the food thing but it needs to be harder not 40 make it 120 for a full rest that way there’s some actual value in hauling a supermarket around on your adventure.

Fix scrolls, less magic items at vendors - most of the joy in d&d was that feeling that magic items were rare & special - earned from slaying the evil denizens of the world or finding them in some lost part of the map - not popping down the road for a burger and a dozen magic fire arrows !

But that’s just me & I get that it’s different in computer based versions …still I think less is more.

I don’t have to many issues with the current implementation of inventory - apart from forgetting which character is actually selected and equipping the wrong character by mistake …that is annoying …

Well Flooter, I think you're pretty spot on about all your inventory comments. It's always nice seeing something stated succinctly like that.

Another thing that's started standing out to me this playthrough is the controls again. The control scheme constantly results in my companions being caught far behind me when combat starts and I have to waste their first turns catching up to get in range. Which is also annoying since I play a sorcerer and always end up closer than anyone else. It's super annoying after a while.

I also am coming to kind of hate the way the game lacks a real pause. If I get into a conversation as my lead character, then effects that are time-limited are still going on for other characters, seemingly in real time. So if I want to take a potion before a conversation, I run the risk of the potion running out before the end of the convo. I found that out when I had lae'zel take a movement potion before facing Auntie Ethel and by the time the combat started, she was fatiqued or exhausted, whatever the status effect is. It's just one more small (or maybe not so small) way that trying to work in multiplayer makes the single player experience worse.

Good write up Flooter.

I think search bar should also recognize tags. So if I type "sword" or "mace" it should filter out all swords or maces in my inventory. At the moment it will find items that have those specific words in their names, which is likely to exclude all special items. I also don't like how UI doesn't actively search unless you press enter - after you do that you are kicked of from search bar and have to LMB on it to search for something else or try to fix your typo. That's an annoying ammount of unnecessary imputs - having to switch my hands from keyboard to mouse. Drop down menu covering inventory is not terrific either - there is something inherintely annoying about search UI covering the thing I am trying to search.

Items in pouches being ignored is a horrid overlook, though personally I didn't run into it, as I gave up on sorting the inventory through them. Can one still not open and sell contents of a container in shopping screen as well? If that is still the case, then comeone devs, that was something that even BG1&2 got right.

I also wish filters would be easier accessible with recognisable icons. The functionality is there, accessible through search bar but I think there is enough space to have a nice buttons on a side or top. At the moment one need to constantly press searchbar and then choose category, which is click and mouse movement intensive. Between those two, I just find Deadfire's UI (on the right) much more efficient.


And I just really wish there was a way to get some items out of the sight - keys are the biggest offender, as they play no role in inventory management outside being there and being annoying. A key ring that would be openable, but would automatically collect all keys would be ideal. I wouldn't mind other containers of that kind (arrow quivers, scroll cases, potion bags, granades bags) but there is too much danger of those interfeering with other features, like search or shopping. With filters available I think I can get around without them, but while BG3 has a decent functionality at the moment it still lacks in terms of polish and usability.

Tags are a great idea, especially in situations where you're trying to match up against strengths and weaknesses.

Definitely +1
I think it's something we already suggested (or at least I thought about it) because it's really something the game needs.

Browse his inventory through a search bar is another idea "made in Larian" that I just can't understand at all...
They are making many things a lot too complicated without any real benefits.

So I did the githyanki patrol quest with Lae'zel (save-scumming a couple times until I was able to pass the deception check with Lae'zel, because I didn't think my character would override her in that situation) and a weird little thing happened. After the kithrak left, Lae'zel started saying something about how he went rogue and that she would be Vlaakith's chosen. And I haven't been upping her approval so maybe that means I missed something, but I was like 'wait, is that on the table?' I'd never thought about it before in past playthroughs but, everything I've seen from her indicates that she's a pretty standard gith soldier, nothing particularly special about her. Why is she suddenly talking about being Vlaakith's chosen? That sounds like a really big thing that would be the goal of a lifetime's worth of effort and training and in this context it's not really made clear why she's bringing it up. Because the implication is that she doesn't believe the kithrak could be chosen because she should have a hot at it for some reason. Like there's some competition that she could participate in for the honour or somesuch. Also, her becoming the chosen hasn't come up before. So yeah, what's up with that?

Lae'zel is a novice who spent most of her life studying and training, before leaving her creche in order to prove herself. And just like any Githyanki, she is not allowed to enter the Astral Plane until she achieves something of worth outside of it.

There are multiple conversations with Lae'zel in which she talks about her dream of becoming a kith'rak. Which is the highest of honors bestowed upon worthy Githyanki that grants them the silver blades and a dragon to ride, practically becoming Vlaakith's Chosen. It is also the whole reason why in her dreams she sees Queen Vlaakith. It is her greatest desire and ultimate goal in life to become noticed by Queen Vlaakith and be her chosen, as it is her greatest fear to be a failure and a nobody in her eyes. Which is why she becomes extremely pissed off if you act dishonorably towards her.

As for the kith'rak, she is pissed off at him for several reasons.

First is that he broke protocol. An infected Githyanki is supposed to be taken in for purification, but instead he was willing to kill her right then and there.
Second is that he said Queen Vlaakith herself wants the artifact found at any cost, even if it means killing her children. Which to Lae'zel is the ultimate insult, as she doesn't believe her Queen would kill her own children. So she becomes furious and wants to rip him apart for even implying that.

He is not acting according to kith'rak standards nor upholding them, which is why she deems him unworthy of the title and why she promises to rip out his tongue later in the camp. This is all in the game, explained, talked about, in character.

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I missed some scenes in this playthrough and am not remembering other ones. Though I do find it really strange that she thinks Vlaakith wouldn't have her own children killed when there's party banter where she literally says murder is good because it culls the weak. So that's a disconnect, but otherwise yeah, you've explained it all.

I allways thought this is common mentality among Githyanki ...
I mean "to become Queens chosen" being something like ultimate goal for everyone.
Ofc, it means for them that they will be killed and their soul eaten by her in order to raise her power even futher ... but they dont know that.

As for Kithrak betrayal ...
Lae'zel seems to believe that "protokol" she is talking about, orders everyone to help infected Githyanki ... sadly (for us at least), Kithrak seems to believe that those who were infected should be simply eliminated ...
And since in Lae'zels loyal, but honestly quite simple mind, there is no way that Vlaakith would do any harm to her people ... notice that Lae'zel dont talk about Githyanki as Vlaakiths people, nor even as her soldiers (wich they most likely are for her) but as her "childern" (so she either actualy is royal blood, or she just see Vlaakith as benevolent and loving ruler) ...
Therefore his betrayal is the only explanation she is willing to accept.

//Edit:
There is even another where she say that she herself killed several of her cousins during training ...

Thats just it, in Githyanki eyes (as far as i understands it) if you are weak, you have no right to live, none of that is murder for them therefore ... but Lae'zel dont concider herself weak ... and so she dont apply this rule to herself.

Bear in mind of course....

"The Kith'rak is not acting as a Kith'rak should!" - Because I know I'm in the right, of course, and he didn't agree with me, so, naturally he absolutely must be in the wrong! How dare he!

"We're meant to undergo purification!" - Because purification certainly does not mean 'a swift death', of course not... no, they would absolutely bring someone who was potentially about to turn into an illithid to the creches where they raise their young, yes, that makes sense! Never mind that there's no known cure for an illithid tadpole in our society that does not have openly practicing clerics... no, it's a mysterious purification rite, which I am not allowed to know the specifics of until I'm an adult and permitted back into full society; there's no way they'd keep the fact that death is the only cure from those who hadn't completed their rite of passage yet, never!

"Vlaakith would never sanction the death of her own people for the sake of capturing an important relic!" - Vlaakith, the lich queen, who above all else covets power and who has supported a society where inter-clutch murder for the sake of competition and advancement is commonplace. Vlaakith who routinely 'honours' her most successful and high ranking warriors to a special audience where she devours their soul to feed her immortality. No, she'd never!

But it is pretty on brand for your standard githyanki - who generally treat the very idea that they might be wrong about something, or that they, personally, may make mistakes, to be anathema and impossible concepts.

Lae'zel, of course... is most likely some form of special bloodline, or favoured individual - I'd say princess, if Gith society had such, though they generally do not; they *used* to have a royal succession, but Vlaakith (Vlaakith the 157th, that is) refused to select or produce an heir of her own right up until she died... at which time she returned as a lich and kept hold of the crown with a tyrannical death grip ever since. Lae'zel is probably descended of a line that traces back to a clutch of the previous Vlaakith in some fashion, and is the secret heir of her people, the only one with the true right to challenge Vlaakith and claim the throne of the githyanki people for herself.

This is Larian we're talking about, after all.