Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Initiative By Character..And other stuff

Please, for the love, please, please, PLEASE add initiative by character as an option instead of initiative by team. That completely breaks the immersion as a D&D-based combat. You can even leave party-based as the primary...just add an option that allows us to play initiative by character. PLEASE. That is such a CRITICAL part of D&D turn-based combat, especially in 5E. There are so few other things that I saw in the gameplay that I would even mention as things I'd like to see changed...it's really just that. Please. I don't know if I could get past that.

Other stuff, which I really don't care too much because they're easy to just not-use, is like dipping a wooden bow into lava grants it the ability to deal fire damage? Is the lava magical? I would never use that feature...that's just not D&D either. But, again, I can just avoid using that feature and I'll never notice once I'm actually playing the game.

Literally, this game looks so incredibly amazing I can't wait to buy it the second it hits pre-order or EA. It looks so close to being a Babe Ruth size homerun...but please....please...don't ruin the whole game with team initiative. That is so, so, so bad.

>critical part of dnd turn based combat
i disagree.
I actually wish DnD was balanced for this because holy shit would it make combat faster.

But i agree that it should be ther eas an option for those that dont play Multiplayer

True, party-based combat would make combat quicker but, IMO, more unbalanced. Teams could either one-shot strong enemies or get one-shot by a strong enemy group. Character-based initiative can still allow that on terrible rolls, but it's unlikely and very uncommon. But I'm all for keeping party-based initiative, just please add in an option for everyone that wants character-based initiative.

Team-based initiative is legal according to the rules. Initiative by character makes perfect sense in the tabletop game because each player controls one character. Here, there's 1 player controlling all the characters.

I believe the idea is to make coordination with party members easier because you can split up your actions and movement based on what another party member does. However, I think it's at least worthwhile to explore the concept of individual initiative in the Early Access.

As long as it does not impair Assassins, fine.

I'm surprised by Larian trying this on since the DOS2 initiative system emphasized balance over realism: Only the highest initiative acted first and the subsequent turns alternated between enemy and team depending on who started. Team-initiative is neither balanced nor realistic. I see no real upsides to team-initiative in a cRPG, and many negatives. Such a system would almost dictate the player to create a character optimized towards that regard while allowing the rest of the party to ignore it. The entire team acting first or last would be very imbalancing and very hard encounters would become nearly impossibly hard just by losing a single dice roll. This in turn would lead to the save scumming Larian have stated they are mindful of avoiding by not overly punishing bad luck on rolls.

The interactive environments I'm more for having played and quite like the combat of DOS2. It adds an extra layer of tactic to the encounter. As you say, it's easy to ignore if you want, just don't plan on the enemy to be so courteous as to return the favor.

Its not all the interactive environments that I disagree with. Like the big rock overhang in Swen's playthrough, i like that. Its a natural way to interact with the environment. But dipping an item into lava is, IMO, too much. Again, I don't care too much about that because I can just ignore it. And if it turns into an issue by enemies getting too much of an advantage by using those things then I might change my mind.

People expecting to play BG3 as if it were a PnP campaign are going to be even more disappointed than the people who want RTwP combat - which, btw, is a more accurate representation of the real time simulation of D&D combat.

Computer games cannot ever be 100% ports of D&D. It isn't possible. Bioware knew this when they innovated RTwP. Larian knows this as shown by their changes to 5e rules.

I'm not sure your science is up to scratch. The lava ejected from a volcano is between 700-1200 C, while lava flowing from a volcano can be as cool as 300 C - not much higher than a pizza oven. In comparison, the temperature of a candle flame ranges from 800-1400 C. Even insanely hot "magic lava" could potentially ignite, but not incinerate, an arrow just by holding it above the source of heat.

Where my concern somewhat align with yours is over how this will impact the spells that similarly increase weapon damage and cause elemental or other extra damage. I agree that the emphasis should be placed on somewhat realistic environmental effects.

Muh RTwP! I hatez turn-based combat! So you should hatez too! xD

So you mean real-time combat (with or without pause) is more accurate representation of the real time simulation of D&D combat. M'kay. How about turn-based combat being a perfectly accurate representation of *actual* D&D combat? How about real-time combat being completely and utterly incompatible with D&D 5e?

that isn't at all what I said.

I said that people expecting a PnP experience will be as disappointed as the people who prefer RTwP.

How does that turn in to an excuse for you to act like a 5 year old with ad hominem attacks?

Also, combat in 5e is based on 6 second rounds within which you can have an infinite number of character/enemy turns, so that is wholly and utterly compatible with RTwP combat.

How do bonus actions and reactions work in RTwP? They are an integral part of 5E.

What you said can hardly be construed any other way. You obviously just used the opportunity to vent about turn-based combat. If that is a straw-man, well hello Mr. Scarecrow! Your claim that RTwP as a more realistic interpretation of D&D 5e than turn-based which is so patently wrong it's downright silly.

Why would people expecting P&P experience be disappointed at all? Let alone as disappointed as the people who prefer RTwP considering they tend to vehemently DESPISE turn-based combat?

you can put your own words in my mouth all you want, it doesn't change that you misread my comment.

people like you are why I don't post here often.

I'm sorry if my tone wasn't to your liking. My initial response was obviously rather tongue in cheek to your digression. It made no sense to me whatsoever and it honestly still doesn't even after your follow-up post which incidentally *was* the very ad hominem attack you accused my tongue in cheek of being. Which further took it into Bizarro world for me.

I'm perfectly willing to chalk it off to a misunderstanding. Let's both try to keep it a friendly place. Please explain why P&P enthusiasts would dislike/hate BG3?

This alone is a good reason why this game must be turn based.

Back to topic:
I disliked the initiative system of D:OS2.
Each character rolling for initiative independently would probably be best.
But I can understand why they did it turn based. It makes combat faster and it makes it easier to coordinate as team, especially in multiplayer.

Maybe the problem is that the game tries to be great for single player and multiplayer at once which leads to some strange things.
For example I disliked that you cannot pause the game in DOS.

Bonus actions and reactions are contingent upon certain criteria making them available. When the ability is available, you pause and issue the command. This is the most basic kind of if/then logic. Additionally, bonus actions and reactions are largely "instant" abilities that do not required any sort of timed animation delay.

i swear that most people think that RTwP is some bubble stuck in 1998 and couldn't benefit from two and a half decades of technological improvement just like TB has.

Also, TB combat is -objectively- slower than RTwP combat. And people have been playing coop BG for 20 years without issue.

How does counterspell work in RTwP? Its a reaction that negates a spell being cast. I also dislike the idea of having to constantly pause the game to make sure im not missing anything. But its a moot point as BG3 is confirmed turn-based. I'm an advocate of them adding RTwP as an option for those who want it as im hoping they add character-based initiative for those who want it as well.

Keep in mind that this is just my hypothetical, because no one has innovated RTwP in some time.

Casting a prepared spell in 5e takes about a second - think of how it plays out narratively at the table; sorcerer begins chanting and making movements with his hands, eldritch patterns glowing in the air around him; this is your queue to counter spell.

RTwP is a more narrative presentation of combat. When you see the sorcerer casting the spell, you pause and cast counter spell manually.

How will counterspell work in single player turn based? will the game stop and prompt each time?

That's a good point, worth getting clarification on. I'm still waiting to see how Larian is going to implement reactions because of that reason. It wouldn't be a fix-all, but if you could set your reaction to happen automatically I think that would work in most cases since most characters dont have multiple kinds of reactions. A mage's counterspell is normally their only reaction but then again shield is popular too. And since either of them can be used, it wouldnt make sense to have to set it to only one...unless they build out their reaction system to allow for an if/then scenario.