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

Good suggestions, Hexblade! I appreciate you adding your thoughts.

I agree. In a tabletop session, you can do any crazy thing you can think of, and the DM will generally let you at least TRY to pull it off. But that's impossible in a video game, as it can only ever offer you a defined set of pre-programmed options. So I think by implementing some of these house rules that let people do more on their turns, and take some actions that they might not ordinarily be able to take, it's kind of trying to make up for the fact that you don't have that ultimate freedom of the tabletop and live DM.

Making a single class feature something that you might not want to use as often does not break the class. There will still be times that Reckless Attack makes sense to use, and if Barbarians can get Advantage without using it, that's actually to their benefit, as then they're not giving their enemies Advantage against them.

Agreed. A choose your own would be best.

This is horrible arguement, any class can get that advantage, not only barb, so barb loses their uniqueness.

I don't think the Barbarian's uniqueness is entirely tied up in the Reckless Attack feature. And as I said, there will still be times when it makes sense to use it. Such as when you want to encourage the AI to attack the Barbarian, or when you can't or don't want to get behind the creature for whatever reason.

If every major feedback writer and tester could fill out a detail list like this it would give a lot of very useful data points for Larian, presuming they're taking these up for assessment. I want to add my agreement to most of these, with a couple of side comments where I differ.


42.1) Party control is pretty terrible right now. Agreed, and it needs fixed, badly.

42.2) Agreed

42.3) I'd favour 2 Short rests per Long rest, but agreed that more than one would be better. Long rests should also be limited somewhat – I'd recommend doing it by way of controlling where you can long rest, coupled with controlling where you can access swift travel. It's not ideal, but, if you need to get out of the long dungeon crawl you're in to rest, and you can't swift travel out and back again, then while you can still hike out, rest and hike back limitlessly, players will be discouraged from doing so, and encouraged to think more about their resource usage.

42.4) 100% agreed! Spending ten minutes searching 99% empty containers for every ten minutes of playing the game is the furthest thing from fun. The mass of empty containers existed for a legitimate reason in DOS2 – It was fuel for the lucky find ability – that isn't in this game, and the extreme mass of empty containers is just annoying.

42.5) Agreed

42.6) Agreed, though I'm hoping that's already on the to-do list. I'd also argue strongly for the removal of trap disarm kits; traps are the domain to thieves tools. One kit is all we need, and our proficiency with that kit is what matters.

42.7) Absolutely agreed. Right now, not only can you not get your sneak attack with anything but the independent skill, but formally speaking, you can actually sneak attack twice a round, if you have two actions (such as from a speed potion); stabbing sneak attack, then back off for shooting sneak attack. It's ridiculous.

42.8) Agreed on limiting off-hand attacks to once per turn, on your turn, only. However, I'm not in favour of giving thief rogues a second bonus action straight up: I think it actually creates more background code weight that it serves, since so many things need to then be given an independent once-per-turn lock, that they wouldn't otherwise need. Giving more things we can do as a bonus action to fast hands would be ideal, but we should still have to juggle the choice between them.

42.9) Agreed. On more than just dash, as well. It's a left-over form DOS2, that so many things need a second activation click, and the more of them go away, the better, in my opinion.

42.10) A thousand times agreed! Disengage is disengage – jumping is a thing that takes movement and takes no part of your action economy. This is important for certain balance factors. Jumping out of the middle of a bunch of hostiles should certainly provoke opportunity attacks from them, unless you disengaged first. Right now, you can't even disengage properly, because you can only jump once – you can't, as a rogue, dash nimbly through a room of foes focusing on avoiding their attacks, because after the first 'jump' you're then vulnerable to opportunity from everyone else you have to pass by again. They've even shown us that they HAVE a proper disengage in game, since the goblins have it. That's Disengage. That's the thing that is a standard action for everyone who isn't a goblin... why have they deliberately told us we can't do it?

42.11) Agreed! I prefer a compact vancian pop out, like NW2 used, but even something as short-hack as the way we choose our option for Hex in game now would be sufficient and acceptable. The issue comes when you add a sorcerer to the mix, since you need to be able top nominate spell, spell level, and what metamagic you're using, if any.

42.12) It seems like this is partially in, but not currently working fully properly. Sometimes we can slide through our allies spaces. Sometimes we can run through our enemies spaces, and there's not a lot of rhyme or reason for when when and why of it. Passing through an ally's space should cost extra movement, but you should absolutely be able to do it. When it does allow you to pass through another creature's space, you can see the line for pathing, and if it's the limit of your movement then you'll see the error – it won't let you stop in their space. But, it's really hit and miss right now whether it shows it, and it works for allies and enemies alike. IT also has the additional bug/break/cheat that occurs in conjunction with the way targets interrupt their own movement when you highlight a creature with your mouse. It's silly that they do that, but it also means that you can just highlight the creature you're intending to attack when your character is halfway through the creature's space, and they'll stop right there anyway.

42.13) Very much agreed! Tooltips in general, in fact. Information, in general, in fact. Currently this game teaches you very little about itself. Often we have tooltips which are taken directly from the PHB, despite the fact that the way the item or skill or spell works in game doesn't actually reflect that at ALL, and is completely inaccurate. We have tooltips that don't explain anything at all, and just restate the effect name in so many words, without giving actual information. The have mountains of things completely lacking a tooltip, or giving a nice fluffy, and exceptionally unhelpful description. The game has no lore book or information source, either – we need a way to check the rulings on things. A glossary of status effects and what they do, as just one example. Sometimes an attack is listed as “has advantage on attack” or “Has disadvantage on attack” and someone who isn't a player of D&D isn't going to have any idea at all WHY... because the game doesn't tell you. This game needs to be accessible to everyone, not just D&D players; even if a large percentage of folks came here on the promise of a D&D game, a large percentage come from other sources too. The game NEEDS to explain itself, and properly.

42.14) Agreed. The game needs a more robust event log in general. The current one is so lacklustre that it's actively inhibiting some elements of play testing. We need to be able to chance what we're rolling, every time, for everything, in the log. We need to know both die rolls on advantage and disadvantage. When my halfling 'critical misses' on an advantaged attack, I want the event log to show me that, yes, Indeed, you rolled four natural ones in a row... because if I didn't, then that's wrong anyway... but right now I can't confirm that lucky isn't actually working properly and everywhere it should (it's not), because it doesn't show us.

42.15) Agreed, as above; all of these things, including non-combat rolls, should be traced by the event log.

42.16) I'm on the fence about vision cones. They're a nice mechanic, but at the same time, they're a symptom of the abusable problems with stealth right now. They should be clearer, though, if they're sticking around, and their clipping with objects needs to be improved as well.

42.17) Agreed.

42.18) Sometimes the creatures are stump-dumb, and stand around getting shot. Sometimes, despite never seeing you at all, and not even being the one who got shot at, they will, despite you being hidden, know exactly where you are, run around and up to you, then look directly at you once or twice, to see if they can break your stealth. This needs to be fixed, and needs to be consistent.

42.19) Agreed! If you're out of opportunity attack range, the you are no longer threatened, by definition. Fix This, Larian.

42.20) Agreed; status effects need to be tracked to their PHB descriptions more accurately, all over, but incapacitated creatures can't threaten, and that's a pretty big one.

42.21) Agreed! Initiative should remain while there is danger, and a downed person is in danger, if they're making death saves.

42.22) Agreed most strongly! I've had SO many perception checks that have left me scanning the screen going “What? What did you see? Why is it relevant?”

42.23) Agreed, yes... though with a side note that I wasn't aware that this was an issue, because, despite having Astarion as my only darkvision character in my main party... I've never used a torch... and I don't usually control Astarion either.

42.24) Agreed. Camp storage needs vast improvement.

42.25) Agreed that mage hand should be able to do all of the things that mage hand is really designed for doing. I also hate that it has a psychical attack, and can usually do more damage by shoving and surface exploiting than an actual attack action or spell.

42.26) Agreed, but I'll add that the buying and selling merchant system is very bad at the moment in general, and needs to be made clearer. Another one for the theoretical reference lorebook for people to check what buttons actually do and how it's working everything out. Right now, seeing the listed cost of certain things triple when you move them from the shelf to the counter is just stupid to look at. I don't really Like having our global shop prices being affected by charisma anyway. I wouldn't mind if a character could attempt a price haggle with a merchant before entering the vendor window, which would be a charisma based check.. and then have the prices display exactly as they actually will be afterwards... but having everything modified by charisma all the time is just... I dunno... bad business? I wouldn't want to deal with a merchant that charged my friend three times as much as he charged me, just because he liked my smile more...

42.27) I cannot agree with this one, sorry. Action economy and balance for bonus actions comes into play, and there are legitimate balance reasons why downgrading a bonus action task to an action is not allowed. Sure, Larian might be throwing a lot of that balance out the window already, but that's no reason to hack it apart even further. In particular, the distinction exists as a deliberate mechanical separation – BAs are not just 'lesser' actions; they're doing things that are formally distinct from your main action. Allowing downgrades breaks the game in a few specific ways, but most notably by allowing you to double up on things that you oughtn't be able to on your turn. Worth noting that drinking a potion for yourself is a downgrade of action to bonus action that is very common and one exception that I do support.

42.28) Agreed.

42.29) Agreed, and I hope this is already on the fix list.

42.30) Agreed, and again, I hope this is on the fix list already.

42.31) I don't agree with this one, but only because I'm not fond of the dipping mechanic in general. I dislike how little sense it makes, and I dislike how it devalues existing alternate and elemental damage sources that require resource expense. If dipping were to stay, then lighting your metal dagger with your own torch, or an ally's torch, and not requiring a messy ground surface would absolutely be a thing that should be a part of it, though, so I suppose partial conditional agree?

42.32) Agreed, hoping this is a bug.

42.33) Agreed, again, hoping this is already on the fix list.

42.34) Agreed – this falls into the requirement for a more robust event log. Currently it looks like a lot of the math that the game uses is oddly wonky... like, it gives you a negative equal to your bonus and then adds back the bonus in each part, to arrive at your total, according to the event log, with no explanation why.

42.35) Agreed. Strength to increase your baseline for a jump, and then stretch distance defined by your passive athletics check would be a good way to handle that in game, and it would be more or less rules-respecting.

42.36) Agreed, but with caveat that I've not used silence yet. I have heard my partner complain that many things that should be blocked by silence aren't, however.

42.37) Agreed! I hate having to steal books stealthily just to read them.

42.38) Sacred Flame has a riding effect normally, in that it gets to ignore all but total cover – unfortunately, Larian haven't given us cover rules. I'm holding off on asking for a different buff, because I'd like cover rules. I'm also holding off on agreeing with this one because I'm strongly against the automatic height advantage, and against cantrips creating surfaces that usually do more damage, hit or miss, than the cantrip itself, or achieve the same effects, hit or miss, as a 1st level spell.

42.39) Can't comment here, as I've not fought that particular fight yet (I got side-tracked into the underdark before blighted village, and have spent the past few days clearing it out instead...), however, if the pay up is as poor as you say, for what many report as a difficult encounter, then it should certainly get looked at.

42.40) I mostly agree here. Put him in noble's clothes, that are just clothes. He's a city fop, and he's previously been more about looking good than being effective. That soon changes when he's exposed to a real situation, and leather armour is plentiful in the game.

42.41) Agreed. A trickery cleric should definitely be favouring Dexterity more than Strength, and Shadow in particular should be deception proficient.

42.42) I have to strongly disagree here. Everyone with hide and shove as bonus actions is far too broken and abusable right now, and it very clearly neuters large swathes of several classes because it nullifies the value of what they can do by superseding it with the value of shoving and hiding all the time. I want disengage to actually be disengage, and not tied to jumping... and it needs to be an action for all but rogues and monks. This has come up in our back and forth already, elsewhere, and I understand that we just feel differently about this particular.


23.1) Absolutely agreed. This is basic pc rpg stuff.

23.2) Agreed, we need Ready to be put in in an acceptable fashion ,even if it can only account for a simple attack action or cantrip spell, that's still better than nothing.

23.3) I'm on the fence about this one. There are good reasons why you can't do this normally in 5e... The biggest one is allowing you to artificially extend the duration of spell effects and class abilities, and force targets to take more damage or make more saves against them than the ability or spell level intends. Some are benign, some are very breakable. Here's a consolation I'd make: One your FIRST turn in combat only, you can choose to “Delay”. Delay must be taken Before you take any other action, bonus action or movement, on that turn. It then ends your current turn immediately and moves you down the initiative order to a point of your choice, beginning from the second round onward. Yes, that means you functionally skip your turn for the first round as you focus on slipping yourself into the timing and rhythm you want.

23.4) Agreed. Dodge is essential.

23.5) Agreed: I'd like a more robust dialogue system in general that lets different characters cut in when they have something to say more often than currently happens. Being able to nominate a character to take over, however, would be a good thing as well.

23.6) More freedom to shortcut and keybind is never a bad thing.

23.7) Agreed. I'm hoping this one is 'coming soon' already.

23.8) Can't agree here, sorry. Different roguish archetypes get different extension to their cunning action. Rather than granting new ones to everyone or taking ones from some subclasses and giving them to everyone, I'm just very strongly in favour of returning the ones that got passed out to everyone in the game, back to rogue. We've spoken about this elsewhere, and I know we just have different opinions on this one.

23.9) I'd favour proper cover rules instead – remember that cover rules also account for line of sight, and enable better hiding by default, if they're properly implemented.

23.10) Wait... you can smash potions on your allies at range to heal them? What ridiculousness is that.... Hehe... Oh well. Yes, I agree, we need to be able to use our action to administer a potion to an ally.

23.11) I'll hold off on this one: the UI in general is garbage and needs a lot of work, so I think I'd rather save my comments for that if I do a full UI break down at some point. I've not done it yet, so I don't know what I'd favour overall.

23.12) Agreed absolutely.

23.13) Agreed. I believe this is confirmed as on its way.

23.14) Agreed as a QoL thing. Not high priority, I don't think, but difficulty settings on a variety of aspects of the game, independent of each other, would be very nice.

23.15) Agreed very strongly. Currently the game has the 'finite xp and resources' problem. Random events help alleviate that.

23.16) Agreed strongly, however that comes with the caveat that I want to see ALL of the Phb races, and have them followed with all of the subsequent official book races for the realms (maybe the other realms after that).

23.17) Agreed! More uses for useful inventory items would be good. Also better markings for their usefulness.

23.18) Agreed. We're supposed to be making acrobatics checks to avoid falling prone when we jump or fall further than our jumping distances... right now we just splat, universally, and it's very bad.

23.19) Agreed; we should have the full phb spread of weapons available eventually, which includes slings.

23.20) Agreed: Searching is one of the things that I'm in favour of the safe-space take-20 option. Sure, it's not 5e, but this is one of those video game pace over hard rules points, to me. If you're not in immediate danger, you should be able to nominate to search an area, and take 20 on the check. It should take a moderate induction time, but not long enough to feel tedious.

23.21) Agreed, though I'm filing this one under UI complaints for now.

23.22) What... you don't like my little halfling lighting up literally every clickable object between here and Baldur's gate and making the game an incandescent eyesore? Awwww... But yes, we should be able to cancel our light spells if we want to.

23.23) You know, I found it distantly amusing that one of Ethel's potions was considered an esoteric witch brew, when every midwife and wise woman in every tiny farming village on the sword coast knows the tinctures to safely and discretely deal with certain female-oriented issues. That said, I found the potions interesting and fun, and being able to do more with them would be neat. Learning their recipes, for one thing.

No comment on the bug reports, since they're bug reports, except to say that more documentation is always good to see.

Feedback_wizards's comment on the parasite question: I agree, the quest title should be “Deal with the Parasite” that way, our player's intentions are left sufficiently vague.

Regarding the magic items, however... would you be surprised to know that the twisted circlet if intellect is actually weaker than the DMG circlet of intellect, an official item of the same rarity? The normal one sets your score to 19... not a big difference for most things, but one potentially relevant detail is that 19 Int is immune to the intellect devourer's intelligence attack, while 18 Int is not. It's certainly not the most overpowered or broken magic item in the EA so far. The ring that adds a damage die to every dart of magic missile is supremely overpowered, since it turns a 1st level spell into a 3rd level equivalent spell, and a 2nd level spell into an 5th level equivalent.

Most magic items that allow a casting of a spell tend to define their own save DCs and attack modifiers, OR they tell you you can use your own, if it requires attunement to a caster. The circlet of blasting should have a fixed attack bonus, since anyone can wear it, and not use anyone's casting stat.

I think this poster was being sarcastic. They were saying instead of Larian worrying about anything on your well thought out written list they will concentrate on the romance bugs they no one really cares about and ignore you list. That is what I took from it and I am not that bright.

I have to agree I wonder how many developers cracked open the PHB or the DMG because some of the game seems to be D:OS holdovers. In my 30 years of playing every D&D edition I have never had a DM have ground effect for no reason in the middle of nowhere protecting nothing jus there to TPW.

So that means Larian can't decide it is an improvement in a tabletop to computer to add it with WotC approval?

Thanks for the very detailed feedback on my feedback! Feedbackception? (No.)

I agree with you about the attack bonuses for magic item spells, fixed would be better than using a particular stat.

That would be a perfect place to show the rolls. And the Advantage/Disadvantage notifications could still be over there, too.

Yeah, random encounters at camp is a tricky one. It could be good, or it could be bad, depending on exactly how they implement it. It would need to be designed carefully, I think, to not make the game worse.

Thanks, I appreciate your vote of confidence. Camping inside dungeons does also sound like a cool idea, with a random encounter chance.

Requiring food for rest would be great, because there's such a massive overabundance of food items in the game already. It would probably be a trivial cost in actuality, but just putting even a small cost on camping might make people take pause before always hitting the camp button after every fight. I hate the idea of having to carry arrows around though, that adds absolutely zero enjoyment to the game, to me, and it's just more stuff to clutter up the inventory.

I agree about the camp, it's cool.

Most fun I've had in an RPG for a good while, myself.

Great list. Agree with almost every single point.

BTW I think that stuff highlighted from perception checks need a sparkly purple outline. It has to be sparkly. Sparkles it needs to be. Sparkly is the main theme here. IMO of course.

Downplaying the issue a bit here. Someone in another thread compiled all the class features and spells that are rendered redundant because of Larian's homebrewing. Their number is substantial, as are the balancing implications.

For this specific example, however, it should be pointed out that backstab is apparently only intended for light weapons. It only works with heavier options because the system is not currently fully implemented in EA. The system is still bad, however, and this difference in effect on weapon types only adds further balance issues.

I have no problem with sparkles. Anything to make the thing more visible. Bring on the sparkles!

I agree with all you said but also the spells need to be done better as a lot of times when I try to cast a spell I get "Invalid target" It doesn't matter who is casting the spell. For example Gale the MU died and so I did his so-called ritual thing to get the scroll of "True Resurrection" and no matter who in the party tried using it on him I got the same "Invalid Target". this has happened with other spells for which I have tried to use whether it be on enemies Or what have you. Even tried the scroll we get when we start the game which worked before on others but it wouldn't even work on him

As to the OP #4 in regards to many lootable chests<containers>, I'll have to disagree with her/him. There should at least be more gold because the stuff you try to buy off a vender cost you a small fortune even for 1 potion of healing that your like to be able to afford 1 or two of them. we need more and better-enchanted items as well.

Do you mean Sneak Attack, the Rogue ability? Because yeah, that is supposed to be used only with a finesse or ranged weapon. But what Larian calls "backstab" is just a rear attack with advantage, which is allowed under the optional Facing rule in the DMG, and that has no weapon restrictions.

Yeah, that Invalid Target thing sucks. I get that sometimes too.

As for your issue with needing more gold, or not being able to afford to buy stuff, or needing more enchanted items...

I think you might not be looking hard enough: THE HAUL