Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

BG3 seems to have plenty of items, skills and spells to resolve situations in other ways. The situation you describe to me sais: playing badly is being punished.

I thought Larian's whole approach was to allow players to play (and enjoy) the game however they want. I strongly favor melee combat over everything else including especially spellcasting. Why is that "playing badly"?

Well quite. I prefer whichever style of combat is my "thing" at the time and would rather not be pushed in a given direction because of some arbitrary presumption of badness for not choosing it.

Okay, I'm kinda rubbish at all forms of combat but that's not really the point.

Generally the idea of tactical combat (and especially turn-based one) is to encourage well... tactical decision making. Though if that's not self explanatory then I understand why TB come from - bad combat is easier to ignore if it plays by itself. Bum rushing an enemy on a higher ground, with advantage, with all party members, with one units far ahead of others, hoping for RNG to smile you you... I think it would be an insult to not be punished for that.

With what seems like a wide range of utility items (like smoke arrows and such) I hope BG3 would allow for range of interesting strategies even with physical combat oriented party.

You haven't addressed my point at all. All you're saying here is: melee combat = playing badly. And I utterly reject that.

Larian's gaming philosophy says the player can kill any NPC in the game and still move forward within the game and complete any quest or goal. And yet, if a player chooses to favor melee over everything else in how they handle combat encounters, that's where Larian draws their line and says to the player: no, you can't do that, and we're going to punish you for it? Seems entirely arbitrary, cussed even (though I will admit I'm not completely sure that's what Larian intends for the game, versus whether it's just your interpretation of Larian's approach to combat).

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make.

BG uses class based system. Party consists of 4 characters. The very point of classes is that they are limited and work best when combined. And while there should be flexibility in possible party composition, it doesn't mean it doesn't have to be some basic level of variation. Still, the poster described a situation where melee characters were at clear disadvantage. Not trying to even the odds (either by drawing enemy out, covering the approach, regruping, using items etc.) sounds like an issue with player rather then system - the benefit of TB system is that players are encouraged to consider their options, rather then clicking on an enemy and hoping for the best. Aside from tha, the ambush player refered to was "optional" he didn't have to allow to get ambushed, and if you rock a full melee team for some reason, getting caught on low ground, with ranged enemies on rooftops to which you have no easy access is clearly not something you want. Making choices valid doesn't mean all choices work just as well in any situation. If everything is always just as good then nothing really matters.

There are very real limits on what a class can and can't do in D&D 5E and thus BG3. If I make a prominent melee character, say a fighter, and my weapon is sword/shield then any and every attack I make must be within 5 feet of my target to make an attempt to hit them. If I become an eldritch knight at level 3 then I gain cantrips and the ability to cast spells, increasing the options available to me.

Rogue and Bards tend to be able to do the most because they are the two classes that have the most skills. D&D combat has some pretty rigid rules for what is and is not allowed, so a melee attack has to follow those rules.

I think it will be more realistic. In real life, if someone were to pelt you with arrows from a rooftop, would it be easy for you to get to them in 6 seconds (1 round)? I guess not, they would have many rounds to shoot at you and eventually kill you before you reach them.

I think it's the kind of realism DnD is know for and Larian is reproducing that.

Larian does like that approach, which is why they tend to design their custom game systems as classless. BG3 is using the class-based, rule heavy D&D 5e system, which does not work the same way.

BG3 is likely going to have encounters which are composed of various enemies who have different strengths and weaknesses, instead of all sharing the same strengths and weaknesses. Thus, a team which is entirely composed of the same playstyle may have problems when some parts of the encounter are strong versus that playstyle. For instance, a couple flying enemies which can attack from range might give your all-melee team a problem. Or maybe your warriors will all fail your Wisdom saves.

I dont find any chalange so far in the game based on videos shown so far by Larian .

Maybe higher dificulty will have something else .

But like i said all chars in the party have available skill sets to deal with everything . There is so far for me no party cohesion . You want to have a party of 4 mages ....well they can jump like superheroes and wear all armor types , etc ( i get is 5E rules but srsly this might not be the best idea for an RPG video game - from fun point of view) .

Not saing the Tank , healer , dps , buffer - party type - is the best but sure was\is fun .


And since is all TB will be a walk in the park . At leasr RT could make me sweat a bit and make me play more cursive.

Why does everyone always want to interpret everything in an extreme way? I never said a totally melee party. I said I *favor* melee over all else.

Just had to point out the irony.

You cannot judge difficulty based on seeing a few videos of an alpha version of a game. Especially because those videos are there to show off content, not to show off an overtuned difficulty which keeps the player from advancing.

Your claim that turn-based is a walk in the park on the sole basis that it is turn-based is absurd.

there will be a challenge low level = low hit points = death from critical hits quite easily. Melee party may have an advantage ...ive never played 5e so im looking forward to experimentation or using these sub classes. I hope all play styles are rewarded

There is no line I can see. Larian aren’t saying you can’t do that, but that doesn’t mean they have to make it easy for you either.

If you want to play with no ranged attacks, give it a go and see how viable it is, but accept that you’ll need to close the distance with enemies who maybe hard to reach. That’s what melee combat means after all.

Because internet? :3

In pen and paper, encounters go best with good scouting, a good plan, and coordinated implementation. Further more, the DM will try to challenge the party, knowing full well if you are a one trick pony.

Personally I like versatile builds that can handle a variety of challenges. If the fighter doesn't have to constantly swap out his weapons for an arcane focus, then the Eldritch knight will be a great "Grover build".

Yes the guy from Sesame Street. He is capable both near and far, and so can the EK be, by using cantrip fire until he gets into melee range.

Turn based combat is superior in my opinion. One reason is that it is more accurate to the ruleset and breaks less of the system as a whole. However, turn based combat is inherently more difficult to implement in multiplayer, even with few players.

Because I want Baldur's Gate 3 to allow custom built modules and servers that allow at least 50 players each, it would be nice to see the option for custom servers to alternate between a turn based or a live action ruleset. If you remember Pillars of Eternity 2, they released, some time after launch, a very popular turn-based ruleset. I could see the same here, but there's so much that goes into such a decision in terms of balance alone, before you even get to the actual developmental challenges, that it isn't necessarily realistic, but not impossible.

Between the two turn based is the better option, but it leaves some unfortunate possibilities, like keeping the player numbers at 4.

Same goes for Kingmaker. The turn-based mode was not very popular for either, at least not in the sense that it distinctly improved sales.

Anyway, slowing down RTwP to a crawl works, speeding up turn-based so that it isn't banal and boring as well as fun in multiplayer requires quite a bit of work. In other words, it isn't going to happen.

Not once in my years of playing tabletop DnD5e have I found its turn-based combat boring, despite controlling only a single character. I'm not too worried it's gonna be that much worse in BG3, especially with the improvements to combat speed and fluidity that they're making. But hey, maybe that's just my preference.

I believe games are best played in the mode they were intended for by design. Pillars of Eternity was clearly made with RTwP in mind and was really fun when played that way, but its turn-based mode came out very clunky as a result. Pathfinder: Kingmaker on the other hand adapted a turn-based system to a RTwP game, which made me enjoy its turn-based mode far more than the default RTwP - it just felt so much more natural and fitting for the Pathfinder ruleset (although the TB mode was very slow, and in inconsequential fights I was very glad RTwP was still an option). Same goes for Baldur's Gate 1&2 and their real-time-but-actually-not-really combat.

By the way dlux, regarding P:K turn-based mode and sales, do you have any sources on that? I'm genuinely curious. An unofficial TB mod has been available for quite some time, I'd hoped it may have improved the sales at least a little bit by attracting TB fans.