Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback This IS a D&D game, isn't it?

Yeah there definitely should have been a more careful discussion at Larian about whether their Character Origin idea was an appropriate fit for a series whose players often spent as long in the character creator rolling stats as they did playing game. I don't think it is, but at this point in the development, I doubt they're willing to drop it. Spending so much time on that was probably a mistake though, as it undoubtedly consumed resources that could've been used on more choices and consequences relevant to any given Custom PC.

That said, I've thought a lot about this. And in BG 1&2, most of the companions had something strange going for them. You have a petrified cleric from a time long past, a Witch and her Barbarian bodyguard from a strange, alien culture (not to mention the Giant Miniature Space Hamster), a member of what is essentially Faerun's CIA, a Winged Elf whose race is almost entirely extinct, the descendant of a dimension-hopping Archwizard, etc. There's no shortage of that almost juvenile brand of special you're talking about in BG 1&2... I think the difference you're sussing out is that in BG 1&2, nobody is as pressed for time or resources as you are off the start.

That is to say, either NPCs are recruited for the purpose of completing a quest, or they don't get in your face about their personal quest until something triggers it. It's completely different from having these NPCs sign up, and then one night of camping in they start telling you that you'd better hurry up because there's a bomb in their chest that's going to explode, or you better get moving because they have something way more important to do than talk to you going on in Baldur's Gate, etc. BG3 seems particularly aggressive about reminding you that you aren't all that important to these people, which is a weird, uncomfortable emotion to try to evoke in a single-player RPG. Weird and uncomfortable emotions are fine... if they exist to express some larger theme, and are managed with great intention. And I don't think that's the case here, it seems like these characters were written to be the center of someone's attention for the sake of the Character Origin mechanic.

In divinity if you don't pick an origin PC you miss out on one quest chain and you PC felt kind of empty. The origin was kind of an alignment, as it gave you "in character" dialog options. It was not a problem in divinity as there are no classes and every companion could be played as every class.

In a BG game the PC should be what ever character I like without missing out on content. Not just one of the companions. He should feel special like your character is for you in a P&P game and not like he is for the DM. Right now I feel not much difference between the pc and the companions...

As for the companions, that everyone has the same problem (imminent death) feels too forced for a D&D campaign. In my D&D group my players would be calling me lazy for such a group setting XD

...and they would be right. Seriously, though, I think that's another big difference petween how old school CRPG and tabletop players perceive RPGs... we are used to makeing our own characters, we don't need set character paths, that's for NPCs...

...crap, did this whole discussion just get political?

Just kidding... carry on, I made my point.

In regards to surface effects.


A) They shouldn't be an option for cantrips or arrows

B) They shouldn't occur in addition to direct hit damage from throwables or direct damage spells (your coating the enemy in a substance from a small bottle)

C) They shouldn't have guaranteed damage/debuffs or double up damage when trying to leave them (apply damage roll at turn end if inside zone maybe?)

D) They should only exist if 5e specifically states they do or at least limit them to spell critical hits (not cantrips)

E) They should have a more limited radius/quantity/duration (looking at you blood/fire)

F) They should not be nearly as widely available and accessibility/types/potencies/effects should be thematic to the creature in question (not every goblin is an alchemist)


P.S. bonus action jump/shove for everyone can screw off

nope I'm out I don't do that p stuff.

And your right it's mostly the different of views by old school crpg players, and new ones. Also between die hard fanatics, and casual players. Though in defense about Origin stories some people don't have notebooks filled with characters, or as I say a massive vault filled with them. So there is an option for them to have a glimpse into what making a character feels like, if properly portrayed in game.

It's kinda like helping new players work on their characters, though in this case you don't ask them questions, or give them hints. You just grab there hand say here this is the one your playing.

I don't have a problem with this. But it could be done better in my opinion:

1.Start with an origin story like in DA:O (not even as long) for each companion and one for self made characters (something more generic like BG I: for example a orphanage).
2. Give him something special... being a spawn of a god had a nice touch .. and involve him in a special way in the main plot

(you could even skip 1. and let the start be as it is but add some specials for the pc e.g. let him choose a origin story - with quests and all - that no companion has)

now you add non origin companion for a more natural party development in later parts of the story and I would argue it feels more like BG

100% agree.

Yup, that sounds like the right idea there... and since we got that whole "who do you dream about" stuff already in the game, maybe that is something that will actually come for custom characters. Maybe that someone is a personal from the prologue! A tragic death, followed by haunting memories throughout the story, maybe? Would explain the greek/roman outfit that character has, maybe visions from Elysium or something? I actually didn't consider that before...

I'll agree an origin story for custom characters would be lovely, hard no to CHOSEN One though, keep it simple. Not though for ones like Wyll, Shadowheart, Ast, Gale, and La (uggg remembering there names is so hard. Can't I just call them what I do in game. Mr. Overcompensating, Fickle Bitch, Annoying Emo, Needs stabbed repeatedly, Bitchy Wench) I feel it would be more hurtful to add their origin story to a proluge then the current way of slowly opening them up to your character.

I dunno, I think it would quite nice to see, say Asterion's exploits through the dak streets and bustling taverns of Baldur's Gate for a few hours before jumping into the main story...

I keep seeing people wanting it more this way or that, and this is just another example.

I think where it sits, right in the middle, is the correct course of action. Sure things can be improved, but I think pushing it more in either direction is gonna alienate too many people.
And just to be clear, IF! they HAD! to push it, the correct decision, the business decision, would be to push it toward Divinity, NOT toward a more D&D oriented game. DOS2 sold far far more copies than any recent D&D games.
So those of you fighting for more this direction or that (seems to be more complaining to push it further toward D&D TBH) just know that if they Did decide to do this, toward DOS2 is absolutely the direction they'd take.

It could also give away potential spoilers, like who his master is. things that can be kept for shock value in the game. You know the moments, also if you did that you'd be a higher level? Causing a rebalance in the fights....? ugg making me think, I now officially hate you, and I don't even know you!! lol.

Hmmm, would help some people who are currently struggling in game if they started at a slightly higher level. After all 90% (not accurate) of 1st level characters die within before reaching a higher level. slightly lower chance at level 2, etc until level 4 or 5 which most players aren't taking into consideration. (my opinion)

Hate, love, who gives a toss, as long as you read what i write.

Obviously, that would mean to raise the starting level of everything by 2-3 levels... I doubt it would be bad for the believability of the main rnarrative, though.

Valid point I personally dislike the whole hate, love blah blah blah, emotions just get in the way.

I don't really have a hard time believing the main narrative atm. It makes sense to me. Some of your points have been valid others not so much. Illithid mainly staying in Underdark is one, meeting Volo (has happened in at least one official campaign released by WoTC) at level one is another one I disagree with. There are some others that I didn't reply to, because of food. then I got lost in fighting a Hag with the Fickle one crying behind my back. Really need to gag her at times.

That's a healthy outlook on life...

Anywho. Well, yea, I wouldn't write stuff like that for a first level party... but Larian choose to do so. They are the DM around here, so to speak, so all I'm left with is b*tch about it.

I don't have a problem with this. But it could be done better in my opinion:

1.Start with an origin story like in DA:O (not even as long) for each companion and one for self made characters (something more generic like BG I: for example a orphanage).
2. Give him something special... being a spawn of a god had a nice touch .. and involve him in a special way in the main plot

(you could even skip 1. and let the start be as it is but add some specials for the pc e.g. let him choose a origin story - with quests and all - that no companion has and has a bigger impact on the main story as a normal origin companions)

now you add non origin companion for a more natural party development in later parts of the story and I would argue it feels more like BG