Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback [ACTUAL FEEDBACK] 42 Change Requests, 23 Feature Addition Requests, and 24 Bug Reports

A lot of these are really nice, but I have to side with those that disagree with the action economy changes specifically due to balance. Only two classes in the Player's Handbook have the ability to disengage and dash as a bonus action, rogues and monks. Rogues are the only class that can hide as a bonus action, and monks are the only class that can dodge as a bonus action. These are base level class identifying abilities, in the same way that fighters get action surge and second wind. To take that away from rogues and monks means that they need to be retuned to account for this.. and it's a big tune in 5e because the first 3 levels are the prime multiclass levels. What do you propose rogues get for losing cunning action? Warriors get action surge, barbarians get reckless attack and danger sense, paladins get divine smite and a fighting style, druids get wild shape and their druid circle, clerics get channel divinity with their domain, sorcerers get spell points and flexible casting, warlocks get invocations, Bards get jack of all trades and song of rest, and wizards choose their school.

Many of these are class defining abilities. What makes cunning action for rogues and baseline ki abilities (patient defense and step of the wind) for monks so special is they are the only classes that don't have to choose between an action and dash, disengage, dodge/hide in most rounds and actually monks have to use their limited resources to pay for it making cunning action even better. So when you take such a class defining ability and give it to everyone and don't retune the class to account for it, you are just nerfing those classes. The action economy is about making some hard choices and the ability to do both is quite powerful.. I think the fact that you don't want to give it up is a testament to how powerful it feels. This base level class balancing really needs to be addressed if they want to continue with the homebrew they have and it has to extend to some other classes due to the ease of acquiring advantage in the game currently (reckless attack needs a huge buff, in 5e it's one of a few non-magical ways to get advantage on an attack, but you have to let all your enemies have advantage on you- again hard choices.) Rogues and Monks at a minimum need a whole new second level ability to replace what they lost and something on par with the other class defining abilities if things remain the same.

I too like to ransack everything and that is exactly why I feel the amount of searchable empty containers need to be reduced. Looking through every container and not finding anything is not fun.

Adding objects to these containers is also not the way to go. There is already too much food items in the game, and way too many pointless clutter items.




Which is why a party formation/marching order system needs to be implemented -- to either make sure that the party moves in formation all the time or immediately goes into formation upon entering combat (unless surprised, ambushed or other reasonable exceptions). I love around with my main character selected because they are who I use to interact with everything. If I'm playing a wiz or similar I shouldn't find them blocking the path for my melee NPCs when the combat starts.

I find myself agreeing with most of the points on your list. Good job on compiling it.

Love it!

+1 great points

What a great post. My respect!

Forgive me, for adding "Please balance and consider every ability and effect you are coding into the game, in the long run (10+ character levels). Let it all work together, especially - game (NPCs, quests, and journal) should recognize smart and out-of-the-box player actions, dialog choices, and decisions. There are enough smart players, which would like to be treated as such by the game, no doubt."

I . . . don't know what this means.

Out of the first 42 i only disagree with this one:



Because it would introduce a lot of bad consequences, and even more if the enemies also got this ability. Would they be able to pass through our characters? One through the other?
Should we forget about choke points in this case? Wouldn't it be clearly unfair if only we could do this but enemies wouldn't? It would be like an enabled cheat.

I agree with all the rest.



If this is a separate option i dont have to choose then whatever, but in general im against these "increase inflation!" ideas as solutions to the economy. Once you reduce the actual numbers of items a player can find this is completely unnecessary.
So far i thought the prices are decently arranged and if i didnt steal from the traders i wouldn't be able to afford most of my gear or would be able to afford it much later. Could be adjusted, but nothing extreme is needed.

I would certainly like to see less +1 and magical items in the Grove, as the situation in that location is against such opulence of gear. It just doesnt make sense to have everyone crying about a disaster and doom while two traders have wagons and wagons of weapons, health and other potions, food and magical weapons. Plus the Auntie who is, completely separate from the whole situation in the Grove or from awareness from any NPC there.

Instead we should find such gear after fighting for it.

No, I'm not suggesting that anyone could move through anyone. Only your allies. Enemies could move through each other, but not through us. And vice versa. This is how it works in 5e D&D.

And I agree with you about all the magic items that the grove merchants have.

Doesnt seem sensible even so. I prefer physical bodies to hold physical space. It seems this could introduce a lot of weird moments in combat. Mages escaping out of reach through their allies... fighters going through mages to confront whoever is attacking them and so on. Too much incoherence for a little convenience that can be handled by just being more careful.

Haven't you ever moved out of someone's way and let them slide past you in tight quarters? It's like that.

(and besides, it is in 5e rules, which is a complete, tested, balanced system, which of course could theoretically get improved - but far more easily broken by "improvements" and "adaptations").

5e is tabletop. This is a video game.
Its not the same as moving slightly aside to let someone else pass. At all. Especially in TB combat where movement has cost.
And that in no way answers the few examples i wrote.

I cant see how actually watching character pass through other characters would look good in any way, or play well in any way.

Most video games have a way to move through your party. In BG and PoE it was 'pushing' the controlled character pushes the others aside. Right now I'm using a jump as a workaround.

Being able to move through your party is essential but it won't fix everything wrong with party management -- it needs a root and branch redesign.

I don't think it's essential, really. It would just be nice.

BG and PoE were not TB systems, moving had no cost. And you did not go through other characters. Again, none of that gives answer to examples of bad consequences i mentioned. The OP list has many good suggestions, this isnt one of them.
I personally havent noticed a single instance where this was an issue in my whole time playing EA.

About the traps. I fully expect this is just an issue of an EA and all traps will work as usual in later updates.
- edit: the disarming and tiefe tool kits are very heavy and relatively numerous so they tend to eat most of the carry weight. That should be reduced.

I also very much agree with idea to have Athletics give a boost to jumping, as well as other proficiencies have a more clear value and noticeable effects.

Why? In dos2 definitive edition you still have traps like the ones we're talking about

Why is a metaphysical question and im still on my first coffee after two days of strong fever but apparently not Covid. So... dont complicate matters.

Okay I'll cut you some slack and explain it more clearly - the "undisarmable undestroyable trap" concept is not something that first appeared in bg3. It was in dos2 as well. So I don't think it's a bug, but an intentional design choice, a very poor one.