Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set

I remember reading that. I also remember Vinke saying he wasn't bg fan and was more into Final Fantasy and that he some limited experience a German rip off of D&D but not D&D itself.

And there a statements in the interview that make me scratch my head like:



<insert question mark meme>

Not really something that someone with a good understanding of the game would say.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let's remember that before the game came out I was saying we can't if this is DOS3 until we play. And DOS3 is an exaggeration but DOS with a BG mod captures it pretty well. Rules that buff "to hit" probabilities and comparatively nerf savings throw based attacks are problems. Sacred flame and hold person are problematic right now and that has everything to do with the changing of the rules.

Now your proposed solution is to further change the rules to buff sacred flame. Putting at "to hit" would be a stop gap that may or may cause more problems. But all the other savings throw based spells are at a comparative disadvantage. Martial cleric is the way to go, use those "to hit" spells and use food for healing. The back of the line healer / buffer has been nerfed and/or made irrelevant.

And Vinke hasn't addressed the issue that keeps coming up in the thread -- ToEE was faithful to rules, BG2 was faithful and Solasta is faithful so why the need to make them "more fun"? When will Larian address the concerns of those who don't want to play a surface based game?



Now all of this is just combat. Clearly there are some D&D fans working on the social aspects. And graphics. And lighting. And exploring. And the pushing is great and the rolls for persuasion and the like are right on.

It's the combat that has been messed with to make it "more fun" and more fun = more like DOS.

I agree with you there. That's . . . not a great quote. But as we all know, Swen loves wizards, only plays wizards, as he said in an interview. So he probably considers fighters and rogues to be "boring", as a lot of pure-caster players do. It's not a great guiding principle going into designing a D&D game, though.

BG3 hates melee character and you can feel it everywhere in the game.
Disengage as a bonus action, useless and broken AOO, number of ennemies spellcaster / archers / range weapon (incl. surfaces potions)... etc...

That's very sad because I like melee character and because they could be important part of the tactical component in such party based games.
The warrior is usefull if the game allow him to be useful... Larian's rules just don't, becausr they don't care about such classes.

Melee characters are still pretty beast in BG3. And I get Opportunity Attacks all the time, against pretty much everything except for goblins.

I'm not getting a Baldurs Gate feel at all. I created a topic and got rerouted, so I post this here.

1. Nothing to do with OG storyline (I could be wrong, haven't finished yet)

2. Menus and interface are not like BG at all.

3. 4 man party instead of 6

4. No map traveling with possible random encounters

5. Go to Camp feature. What happened to camping where you are (possible encounter) or buying an Inn bed?

6. Have yet to visit an actual town

7. Where in Faerun are we?

8. New combat system, not necessarily bad but, not like BG.

9. Can't set formation for party.

10, No day / night cycle.

I feel like we've been given the bait and switch, Last Jedi treatment. I remember the Devs saying how honored they were to be granted the BG IP then, just made Divinity 3 anyway.

This game could be anything but definitly not dos3, ı was thinking same before palying and searching around this forum but after dos2 when ı start this game, ı realized. It is so wrong to call this game dos 3

Well, its not BG so, what the hell is it?

Lets try to be positive here.

So what DOES <BG3> share in story, gameplay, sound, and graphics with Baldurs gate 1 and 2?

Or does it need not share anything with the previous games in this 2020 <remake> <remastered> world.

And how many times are ennemies attacking you with AOO ?
Let me guess... When you miss click...?

It share party creation (up to 4 only) and decision making. It shares official D&D IP. Have you played the OG's?

Honestly, I wouldn't have wasted all the resources on complex animations during dialog. This is just flashy trash. I would have kept the camera top down, with solid voice acting and a vast array of simple emotes for the character models. A close zoom is all that is needed to inspect character models, new gear and emotes.

Maybe you don't need to compare BG2 and BG3 because they are of different times? BG3 is not created just for BG2 fans. I'll tell you more, I've never played BG2 and I won't, because it's too old for me to get into it. BG3 is created not only for fans of the series, but also to attract new players. So I don't understand people who constantly compare a new game to a literally VERY OLD game, and expect same from it. Besides, I see that many people complain without even watching the first act. Wut do you mean 'Where in Faerun are we?' ??? You can find a map and Astarion will tell you how far you are from BG.

Also in my party Lae'zel and Astarion are very strong in melee. Although now there are not enough skills that would move you to the enemy, which complicates melee fight. So it's very strange for me to hear someone crying about melee. (btw gale dead 24 on 7 Q_Q)

You said it yourself. "Not ONLY for the fans of the series". But ALSO, if not primarily for them. Currently it's so far from BG it could be any other franchise. If the game is claimed (and marketed) to be a proper entry in a series, it's fair to expect it to be at least remotely recognizable as such. If they don't care about the franchise, they could just make D:OS3. Or Faerun Adventures, or whatever. It's also not a matter of "expecting same" - clearly the game is expected to be more "modern" or even "driving the genre forward" - but it can be BOTH modern and faithful to the series.

And that VERY OLD game is still VERY GOOD. It makes sense to compare it, both because it's the previous entry and because it's just a great game in the same genre.

I have a previous history with Bioware games, having loved both of their Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises; I literally played through each of those games dozens of times and still pull them out for nostalgia occasionally.

Baldur's Gate 2, etc. was just a name for me, before my time you see and while I understood the significance of that game ..... Baldur's Gate 3 is all new to me. I came to it out of a sense of curiosity and after seeing the various teaser videos and snippets prior to release. However this type of rpg experience is again, new to me. I'm playing it on Stadia.

I've read many of the comments here from those who are perhaps somewhat offput by differences between this entry and the previous versions, and the comments from those representing new players that are here for the first time like myself. There is always a disparity between such parties no matter the game or format for something previously enjoyed by others and who perpetually want to see everything that they had loved about said property continue as is. I get that!

But as BG3 is going to remain in early access for some time to come, I feel that giving the benefit of the doubt is not too much to ask. The whole point of this exercise is to allow Larian Studios to see and hear feedback, to monitor what is going over well with gamers and what is not ..... isn't it?

Positive and negative feedback is the order of the day when it comes to early access endeavors such as this one, but how and why you express your thoughts or remarks will determine how the developers craft anything going forward. Consider whether you want to partner with them during the process or if you just prefer to hear yourself gripe, moan and complain for little or no return? It's all in the investment!

Whether BG3 was created for fans or not, it was Larian's decision to make it part of the series. BG2 may be old, but it was highly acclaimed at the time it came out. If Larian didn't want their game to be put next to the prequels, they'd have named it something else, but in my opinion this comparison is what they are counting on.

Also, considering the hints dropping about the Dead Three I suspect storywise they will be tying it more closely to BG2 as the story progresses.

I didn't say it was bad, I said it was old. And old mechanics can be reworked. I just see how many people argue their dissatisfaction with the fact that " BG3 is not like BG2 " or something similar. But it's normal that it's not exactly the same.

Forgive me, but the person above is literally picking on menu and interface, expecting it to be the same as 20 years ago. And this is very strange for me...
Just think about how uncomfortable old things can be for new players.

For example, I started playing mass effect 2, and later, just for fun, I wanted to play the first one. So, I hate the first mass effect, because it's just inconvenient to play after a newer game. Old mechanics can be very inconvenient. Old types of menus may look too uncomfortable, even if they make you feel nostalgic.

Another fun fact, DAO is very different from Dragon Age 2, but it's still the same series of games. And then DAi very different from Dragon Age 2. Everything except lore. Each game in the series can be completely different, but this is normal.


If we leave out the mechanics, we still have the story, the world, the characters, and much more, which in some ways is more important for series. The problem is that we can't judge these things by the first act. We don't have enough information.

Yes, you maybe right. But we come back to the fact that we don't have enough information to call the game just a DOS2 clone because of the mechanics/gameplay part. Because any games in the series are not just interfaces and mechanics.

Hey, with mods and self imposed challenges, the combat in BG 2 could be great. I personally enjoyed doing things like this.



The opportunity to cheese very much did exist though :P

I think you (and many other people who present this argument) overinterpret those criticisms by quite a lot. It's not that BG fans want Larian to copy-paste BG2, Infinity Engine included, and call it a day. It's not that they don't want ANYTHING modern in BG3. But if almost every element of the game looks NOT like BG, you're going to get "it does not look like BG" complaints. "It doesn't remind me of BG" is not the same as "I don't like that the game isn't a carbon copy of BG2". There's a lot of space between "exactly the same" and "not similar at all".

Again, it's not a call of copy-pasting, it's a call for introducing elements that bring familiarity and are reminiscent of the old games. Like I said before, you can be both modern and keep the series identity. It's not quite the same, but there's a bunch of modern revivals/remakes that do a great job of staying true to the respective series and being clearly made very recently.



I actually consider DA to be a good example of how a series changed its subgenre and went downhill.

And I'd say changing style mid-series is very hit-or-miss. Some series do well with it - like Divinity - and it's "normal" for them. They're just the type of franchise to feature very different entries. Then you have series that have "early instalment weirdness" and the first game doesn't really know what it is - like The Witcher (gameplay-wise, anyway). But some (I would say most) series are better left as they are, and if not, a spin-off can be created. Like Dark Alliance for BG. And that's fine. For a main BG entry it's just jarring that it's so different... And I'd say DA:I is more similar to DA:O than BG3 is to BG1&2.

Interface and mechanics are important too, though. I like the interface in BG3, but the party control mechanics are frankly terrible. In BG2 I could move my party around without any bigger issues, and I could easily switch between controlled characters. In BG3 not only we don't have party formations, having to chain/unchain characters just to navigate maps adds to unnecessary micromanagement.