Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback [Feedback] Drath's report - Longer term considerations (part 2)

UI, Controls, QoL : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Roleplay, Story, Immersion : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Mechanisms : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Longer term considerations : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

CREATING AND PLAYING A (CUSTOM) CHARACTER

Roleplaying through conversations.


Could we have more dialogue option for different personalities ?

Could we have more opportunities to say a bit more than "what do you know about X", "can you help me with problem Y" and "I agree to/refuse/don't care about/want payment for this quest" ?

I would like options to express a bit more personality.

For most of the vague profiles suggested below, there are already some options here and there in the game. But they are few and far between. Examples :
- A light-hearted, uplifting, or optimistic person.
- A charming, flirty, or teasing person.
- An eloquent or sophisticated person.
- A sarcastic, blasé, dry-humoured, or pessimistic person.
- A confident, ambitious, arrogant, or obnoxious person.
- A wide-eyed, thrown-into-adventure nobody.
- A caring, generous, can-do, noble heart.
- A loyal, principled, idealistic person.
I suppose one may add "rude, unpleasant asshole" in the list. I'm not personally asking for more of these. My evil characters are usually not evil from insulting, robbing or killing everyone they talk to. But the option should probable be there as well.

Note 1 : these are just some, broad personality traits. Any reasonably complex character (let alone a real person) will likely have several of them. For instance, Astarion is flirty and sophisticated.

Note 2 : repeatedly selecting dialogue options associated with a personality should not lock a PC out of the other options. This is not meant to serve for a personality [tag] system, regardless of whether these personalities are chosen at the start or statistically-learned from our past choices.

Note 3 : a character associating strongly with one personality profile doesn't need to have an opportunity to express it in every other conversation. There should be enough options for each personality, here and there, so that we can feel like we are maintaining one personality and playing the character, throughout the story.

Note 4 : these are just dialogue options, and purely for roleplay/flavour. They absolutely don't need to lead to different conversation outcomes. It is already widely the case that several dialogue options will lead the NPC we're talking to to follow up with the same dialogue lines, with the possibility of a small prefix to react to our specific choice. And the PC is not voiced (thankfully). As a result, adding dialogue options should not cost an excessive amount of resources.


Could backgrounds have more impact, notably during conversations ?

A Background currently means selecting two skills, and not much else. This is quite underwhelming.

It would be great if the Background could provide new dialogues options.

In fact, our Background and Class should certainly have more importance than our Race in the dialogue options we are presented with.

Indeed, our Race can sometimes influence how people react to us (notably if we're Drow or Githyanki). As far as what we choose to say is concerned, our Race might occasionally give us some particular biology (elves don't sleep), or we might react differently to other people of our Race (like Tieflings). Other than that, Race-induced dialogue options generally lean toward very cliché Race stereotypes (Halflings are friendly, Dwarves are grumpy, ...), that WotC is really trying to move away from (see TCoE and Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineage).

Our Background is more important to who our character is than their Race, and thus more likely to influence what we say. I'm not requesting that any Race-induced dialogue options be removed, but we should have at least as many Background-induced dialogue options.

Note : naturally, a given dialogue option can be offered to several Backgrounds. An Artisan/Merchant and a Noble might react the same way in some situations. A Charlatan, a Criminal and an Urchin might propose the same approach in some situations.



Appearance.


The requests in this subsection are about the appearance of our characters. Some of them involve how we choose this appearance, during character creation screen. Overall, the character creation screens are currently very lacking. They are not-quite-greatly organised, both from a logic and from an ergonomic standpoints. I won't do a subsection about it, as Niara made a very good post on this. I hope these screens get thoroughly revised toward the end, once the options we have to choose during character creation (and the rules of the game) have been finalised.


Could we have war paints and tattoos/war paints on the body ?

War paints would be awesome for some Barbarians, Monks, War Clerics and other warrior classes. I'm not sure whether they should be tremendously different from tattoos in the code, but the patterns and colours are significantly different.

And it would be awesome to have tattoos/war paints on the arms and chest as well, instead of just the face, seeing as many Barbarian and Monks will go unarmoured.

Some Druids and Goblins already display such paints, so it would be sad not to be able to create the same kind of characters.


Could we have more face shapes ? And, importantly, have them not tied to Races ?

I don't think there's a good in-universe reason for this gating, so I really don't understand the rationale for this. All it does at the moment is making some Races unappealing because their selection of available faces is bad.

Besides, every race could instantly gain a handful of faces if you un-tied the faces from the race : there's a bit of animation to do, but it would not require hiring new face models.


Could we have more hair styles ? And, importantly, have them not gated ?

Some new hair styles would be cool.

But probably cooler would be if you un-tied the hair style proposed from the Race and Sex chosen. Just like for the colour of hair and eyes, you could possibly give immediate access to a list of usual suspects. And ticking a box would give access to all hair styles.


Could we have more body shapes and sizes ?

In terms of body shape, we could maybe have options like slim, fit, chubby, bulky. Given that Halsin is bulky, it would be a pity to have a Half-Orc Barbarian that cannot be larger than fit.

For size, we could perhaps have, say, 2-3 sizes per race (shorter, average, taller).

Of course, we could also have sliders.


Options for Tieflings : could we have the option of having no tail ?

If you can spare some time to give us a handful of options for the tail, all the better. But it would be really, really great if we could at least choose "no tail".


Options for Tieflings : could we have better horn styles ?

The majority of Tieflings depictions, especially in official 5E art, have a certain kind of horns. In terms of shape, they usually originate from just-above-the-eyes like one or two "eye brows". In terms of texture and colour, they usually look as if they're covered by normal skin. I think this style looks pretty cool. The horns you have given to Tieflings are more similar to that of many ungulates, and Satyrs in DnD. Could we please have the other horn style as well ?

Shape request : could we have a real "no horns" option ? The supposedly no-horn look you currently offer looks a lot more as if the horns were cut out. There's still a protuberance.

Shape request : could we have small horn ? I mean, really small horns. The lengths could be about half, and about a third, of the length of Patch 2's Horn 4-5.

Finally, could you please separate the choice of a horn shape and from the choice of a horn texture ? Hair style and hair colour are two different things. The same should go for horns. In Patch 2, Horn 4 and 5 are the same shape with different texture.

In your Hotfix #3, you teased us because the characters we were creating didn't use demon eyes, tails and horns often enough. The thing is, the choice of horns you gave us and the way it's presented at the moment aren't exactly top notch.


More clothing options (especially for Wizards, at the moment).

At the very minimum, it would be great to be able to choose the colour of clothes. Especially for something like mage robes. Those green robes are so plain.

It would also be great to have various robe cuts.

And, you know ... Wizards could wear clothes other than robes. Like what the default Warlock wears. Just make this garment not be an armour : it doesn't really look like one. But it looks cool and it looks like something a Wizard might wear.

(I mean, what's that thing with Wizards and robes anyway ? Maybe we make boring Human Fighters, but you make very boring Wizards too !)


Wearing casual clothes.

For the armour-wearing classes especially, but for all classes really, it would be great if they could wear a normal set of clothes, as opposed to just underwear, when they are not wearing armour.

By "armour" here I mean anything we can put in the armour slot in the Equipment screen. A Wizard not wearing a robe, or a Fighter not wearing armour, would then be in casual clothes.


Changing the appearance after character creation.

It would be nice to have the option to edit our appearance after leaving character creation.

Some changes might be fully compatible with immersion (changing the make-up, or the hair-style if hair length is not increased). Some changes would not be compatible (face shape, tattoos, eye colour). But so what ? This would clearly be a purely QoL/cosmetic feature, and completely optional.


Could we avoid having to cycle through a list ?

For instance, the hair style, facial hair, tattoos and make-up options would greatly benefit from being organised differently.

A rotating list, like there is currently, becomes impractical to cycle through as soon as there are about 10 elements in it. So, for voices, it works alright. But with 30 hair styles, it's horrible.

The way we choose skin colour is much nicer : visual and grouped by categories (it would be even better if the categories could all start to the left of the line).



Deities.


Everyone should have a deity.

Druids, Rangers and Paladins usually have their spells granted by deities, just like Clerics (I know, it could be a domain, ideal, philosophy, etc, but generally their magic comes from a god). So having them select the deity who grants them spell should really be the bottom line.

Now, almost all of the inhabitants of the FR have one deity they worship more than others. So it would be great to have the option to select a deity for everyone, regardless of the Class.

Naturally, the option "none" should be offered in the list of deities (just like you can choose "no hair", "no make-up", etc). This would apply to everyone, including Cleric and other Divine Casters, so that players can play characters who don't particularly follow a deity.

The deity should be written on the character sheet : it's useful to remember/understand a character, and it encourages roleplay.


Please, give us more deities to choose from.

The following are well established deities, and I'd say their inclusion is between fairly important and pretty much required : Sune, Lliira, Sharess, Lathander/Amaunator, Torm, Talos, Umberlee, Auril, Malar, Sylvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Chauntea, Milil, Gond, Deneir, Azuth, Velsharoon, Red Knight, Garagos, Valkur, Uthgar, Mask, Tymora, Beshaba, Waukeen, Loviatar, Talona, Leira.

Note : you have made us encounter a Druid circle dedicated to Sylvanus, a Cleric of Loviatar, an inn called Waukeen's Rest, etc. Since you mention all this lore, it would be a pity if players cannot have access to it as well.


Non-Humans should have more than one deity option.

Non-Humans are currently neglected. When creating a non-Human Cleric, we currently have the choice of either going with the only racial deity given (or the only two, in the case of Drows), or going for a much rarer story of a Cleric worshipping a deity from another society.

Maybe there is no need to include the whole pantheon for each race (although ... maybe not), but it would be nice to guarantee at least 4 deities per race, just to say that players had a real choice.

Suggestions : Berronar, Clangeddin, and Dugmaren ; Solonor, Rillifane, Sehanine and Hanali ; Vhaeraun ; Baervan, Baravar and Callarduran ; Arvoreen, Brandobaris and Sheela ; Gruumsh, Luthic and Obould.


Evil worship options.

The following are generally not considered deities (except Asmodeus), but they have worshippers : Asmodeus, Mephistopheles, Glasya, Zariel, Demogorgon, Orcus, Graz'zt, Malcanthet.

It would be cool if our character could worship them (especially useful for a Fiend Warlock).


Could we have deity-related dialogue options ?

Obviously, there are many deities (more than backgrounds), and I'm requesting yet more deities (see above). Writing unique dialogue lines for every single one of them would be unreasonable.

But firstly, the deities can be grouped in clusters : the Triad, the Gods of Nature, the Gods of Fury, the Gods of Knowledge, the Dead Three, etc. Often enough, a dialogue options will be relevant and could be provided for a whole cluster.

Secondly, many dialogue options will be related to the general portfolio of the deity, creating more overlapping. For instance, an adept of Mask, Shar, Lolth, Vhaeraun, Baravar, or Brandobaris could suggest a discreet or duplicitous approach.

I also mentioned earlier (about the redundant tags) that the worshipped deity could code for alignment (if you need character alignment at all), giving godly characters (not just Clerics) dialogue options as well.


There should be no restrictions for the choice of a deity.

It is entirely possible to create sex-race-domain-deity combinations that are unusual or do not make much sense. (Examples range from the Light domain Cleric of Shar, to the male Drow Cleric of Lolth, to the Half-Orc who is a Storm domain Cleric of Hanali Celanil and a cruel murderer.) That's fine. Aerie was a weird combination, and perfectly justified.

People who don't know the lore but still want something that makes sense should be helped. Two suggestions :
- In the description for each deity, the text could mention the domain associated with that deity, as well as the typical sexes and races these deities usually grant favours to.
- Similarly to the system used in the Character Appearance tab, for the choice of eye, skin and hair colours, there could be a limited list of lore-compatible deities that match our sex-race-domain choices. But players could actively decide to click on "Show All" to access the full list. So they would know that, if they pick something else, they go unconventional.


Better presentation for the list of deities.

This is the same problem as with the lists of hair style, facial hair, tattoos and make-up. It is really not convenient to cycle through a long list.

For the deities, currently, your list isn't even sorted alphabetically, or by pantheon, or anything obvious (to me). It feels as if you just dumped new options on one side of the list as you added them. Please organise the options. For deities, grouping them by pantheon at the first organisation level is probably the way to go. Then, within each pantheon, alphabetical sorting, or some thematic grouping could do.




Skills.


Could we choose the skills given by backgrounds ?

Currently, each background gives a fixed pair of skills. However, it is often tremendously easy to imagine a sensible backstory for a character of a given background justifying perfectly certain skills which are not the ones given by default. One could consider associating to each background a list of skills, as is the case for classes, but that idea would immediately run into the same problem : a character's backstory that justifies perfectly certain skills which are not proposed. So my suggestion is rather to go straight to :
- pick a background,
- choose any 2 skills.

As a matter of fact, this customisation of backgrounds is suggested in the PHB.


Please give a broader list of skills to the Clerics.

Their list of skills is the shortest of any class. Which is pretty disappointing when the variety of cleric profiles is among the greatest, roleplay-wise. What is more, and the really annoying part, is that their list of skills has the very narrow-minded profile of "knowledgeable, soft-spoken, robe-wearing healer" painted all over it.

How come a former Urchin and now Trickery-domain Cleric who knows what makes people tick cannot have Deception ? This problem can be resolved with flexible skills-choice with backgrounds (see previous item).

But if my character is poorly educated, not too bright in general, bad with words, but a faithful, fearless and battle-hungry Cleric of Talos, Valkur or Tempus, I'm not sure what I could pick from the current list and still make sense.



Ability Scores and character builds.


Could we have the option to Roll for our Ability Scores ?

This is introduced as the default rule in the PHB.

It is far from being the most urgent work area, but I just wanted to request this option for the full release.


Could we have the option to use the Custom Origin rule our Ability Scores ?

Technically, this rule is from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and you only ever described the content of the PHB as the scope of the options you will provide (in the base game). But it's probably a rule that WotC would want to have in BG3, if they wanted you to avoid alignments. And it probably doesn't cost much to implement.


Please allow Multi-classing.

If not by default, at least make it available as an option.

And if you really don't want to (I would have difficulties imagining the reasons but it doesn't matter), at the very least make sure that Multi-classing will be doable through mods.

In the Infinity Engine of BG1-2 and IWD, no amount of mods and game editor could give us a multi-class with 2 kits, because of engine/hard-coded limitations. It would be sad if multi-classing in BG3 was similarly impossible.

COMPANIONS AND PARTY

Please add some Non-Origin Companions.

It would be great to be able to have a few more companions, beside the 8 already announced.

These additional companions would not be Origins Characters, and they would not have a tadpole (well, not necessarily). They would be, you know, just companions. People that we managed to convince to join us and help us in our adventure, who have a personality, who are nice to spend time with, who banter with other party members. They could provide the more casual and humane backstories.

I'd say 4-5 Non-Origin Companions would be great. Several NPCs that we have already met would make wonderful such companions.
- Halsin, the Elven Druid with the countenance of a bear, is one of the superstars. He has already made the arrangements needed for the Grove to keep running while he goes on an adventure with us. He has his own initial objective of cleaning the shadow curse over the land near the Moonrise Tower. Once this is done, he may find that he needs to oppose the plans of the Absolute, due to his faith and ideals.
- Alfira, the Tiefling Bard, is another one of the superstars. She has been through a tough loss. She may want to come with us, see the world and get inspired, instead of settle in Baldur's Gate and brood. And she has to finish her song, a work that seems intimately linked to the journey of overcoming the loss of her teacher.
- Minthara, the Drow Cleric (currently of the Absolute), complete the superstar line-up. There is a lot of potential for her to be a companion. Either if we start by helping her destroy the Grove. Or if we capture her instead of killing her, and she is made to realise she is infected by a tadpole : like the other True Souls, she is not aware of that infection, and probably would want to get rid of the tadpole like we are trying to.

Some other people we've already met could be cool too, like Sazza. Perhaps someone from Aradin's crew can be convinced to overcome being level 2 and losing at their first encounter with goblins. Perhaps Lia, Cal or Ronan (though they seem to have their own little arc). There have been many requests on the forums. There sure is demand.


Could we have the option to create a Custom Party ?

It is already possible to play with a Custom Party, although it is a bit acrobatic to do so. It would be great if creating all of our party was given as an option, in the single-player mode.

There has been little detail given about mercenaries, just the mention of the name and that they might be implemented. It sounds as if allowing a player to create a party of Custom Characters would have all of the same benefits. But it sounds somewhat preferable story-wise : we would control 4 characters with the same tadpole issue, and thus a very good reason to travel together (if they didn't know each other already). Whereas I feel I'd have to pay a mercenary really good money for them to accept traveling with someone who risk turning into a Mind-Flayer.

One option doesn't exclude the other. But I hope that the option to play with a Custom Party will be readily available, as a priority over mercenaries.

Hey Drath, thanks for continuing to fight the good fight ^.^

I wish I had the focus, time and energy to sit and chat these things over with you properly, but I don't at the moment - I'll probably edit this post or jump in fresh when I can, but I did want to drop in to say thanks for continuing your efforts!

UI, Controls, QoL : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Roleplay, Story, Immersion : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Mechanisms : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Longer term considerations : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

DEVELOPING WITH THE FUTURE IN MIND, AND LEVEL PROGRESSION

I feel that your approach to game development is very much that of gardeners (in GRR Martin's terminology), but it would be great if you could be architects just enough to make sure that what you do today will work with what you may want to do later, i.e. that you future-proof a number of things.


≤

We know that the level cap will be more than 10, though there is no new official cap. Now, you may want to later release an expansion (or two) for BG3. Please, have a clear idea of how much additional story you could or would release, what level you would see our heroes reach at the very end, and thus work out what maximum level we should be able to reach in BG3.

For instance, let's say you envision an expansion (or two) providing a (combined) total play-time equal to 40% of that of BG3, and that you imagine us finishing at level 20. If we assume a linear-in-time level progression, that means we should not exceed level 14 in BG3.

Throne of Bhaal had a lot of road to cover to wrap up the Bhaalspawn saga, but Shadow Of Amn had left us around level 19. So ToB took us to crazy level 40, and Bioware had to make up the high-level progression. Please don't find yourselves forced to choose between going over level 20 or making massive cuts to your intended story.


Level progression is way too fast at the moment.

Please adjust the XP rewards and/or the XP tables (which are the 2 dials controlling the Character Level variable), once you are finished with all the story content, and in particular all the sources of XP in the game.

At the moment, we reach level 2 by merely recruiting Shadowheart and killing 3 wounded intellect devourers. We reach level 3 in the Grove, which can reasonably happen in the second or even first day of our life as an adventurer. Level 4 can be reached by dealing with the goblins. This is all a bit ridiculous. On the other hand, this situation is very convenient for play-testing, as we can reach max level within a couple of hours, and I would bet this was essentially the intent for EA.

If we assume that Act 1 will be about 1/3 of the total content, and that the level cap will be 12, then, assuming linear level progression, that means that the complete Act 1 should see us playing through 4 levels. So XP tables and rewards will have to be adjusted.


Level progression : how much of the content should be required for max level ?

There isn't necessarily a unique good (or best) answer to this question, but please come up with a good one.

On the one extreme, reaching max level well before the end of the game, like midway through Act 3, by sticking to the Main Story isn't good. It feels as if we are no longer progressing. On the other extreme, reaching max level probably shouldn't require us to complete at least 95% of the game's content. This would make all side quests feel a lot less facultative, and force players to choose between roleplay (refusing quests that their characters wouldn't naturally do) and gameplay (potentially missing the last few levels, and levels in DnD's short scale bring a lot more new, fund goodies to play with than levels in game where levels to up to 100 and only bring generic ability purchase points).

There is a middle ground to be found. Doing a fair share of the game's side quests and non-essential content, in an immersion-compatible way, should lead us within one level of max level. ( Vagueness intended.)


Expansion and writing : please plan the plot ahead.

Save that, please accept that the set of stories that will be able to be told after BG3, the additional adventures of our heroes, will be restricted by what happened (and didn't happen) in BG3. Especially if these additional adventures you propose are the continuation of the Main Story.

To take a recent example, Star Wars Episode 9 reminded everyone that pulling a "oh, actually, it was X pulling the strings all along" from nowhere, with no preparation for it, is likely to fail.

Also, I suppose that doing a continuation of the Main Story rather than an independent adventure is preferable in an RPG. Otherwise, the risk is that players are too high level for the end of the main game if they do the independent adventure first, or too high level for the independent adventure if they finish the main game first.


Expansion and new mechanisms.

If you release an expansion, in addition to new story content, you might want to add some new technical options (races, classes and subclasses, spells, etc), in addition to all the new options coming naturally from higher level. Various DnD supplements provide these.

Please plan ahead, notably in terms of how to implement those additional racial features, (sub)classes, spells, etc.

For instance, the Druid subclasses from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything have new uses for the Wild Shape Use resource. It would be sad if your current implementation of Wild Shape does make implementing these new subclasses difficult, and you end up having to resort to acrobatic hacks and tricks for a moderately good result. (Perhaps similar to how Jump is currently hacking the Throw function but the game engine otherwise makes characters very bad at navigating a 3D world.)

UI, Controls, QoL : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Roleplay, Story, Immersion : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Mechanisms : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Longer term considerations : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

MISCELLANEOUS

Quality-of-Life features.


An option to pause the whole game.

I would like to be able to pause the game in one way or another.

Currently, the game is not paused when I go in the management menus, and it's nice this way : I can survey the map or my inventory to pass time while my character are medium-fast traveling.

However, sometimes I want to have a break from gaming, but not quite go back to main menu, because then I would have to go through a (very long) loading screen when I resume. So being able to just pause the game would be great.


An option to skip the prologue.

The prologue/tutorial may be short, especially for EA veterans, but it's still a bother.

The best would be, perhaps, to be given the option to skip the tutorial after character creation, so that we can decide again for each new character (instead of this option being a parameter of the player profile).



Cosmetic & UI requests.


Please improve the look of the conversation skill checks.

The UI for skill checks in conversations is currently very underwhelming.

- Please show the dice rolling around, on the surface of the screen. Currently, we are shown a dice rolling on itself, floating in space. That's not very evocative of how a dice tolls on a tabletop.

- Let us to roll-away the dice with a click + mouse movement to give the dice its initial rolling direction. It is more fun than a simple left-click. Naturally, left-click (with no mouse movement) could remain an accepted input.

- Allow us to choose the colours of our dice ! Plain red is boring, and really only good for the default Vault Dwellers. The colour should be customisable for each party member, instead of for each Player Profile. After all, on tabletop, each player has one character and brings their set(s) of dice.

- Perhaps reduce a bit the duration of the roll of the dice. Currently, it feels a bit too long if you wait for the animation to complete. And it feels un-natural to stop the rolling dice with a click.

- Option : after the dice result is determined, and a short time was given to read it, the transition to the rest of the game could be automatic. Currently we have to click to leave the dice roll screen.

The suggestions above are inspired by the game Pathfinders Adventures Card Game, which has a much better way to show us dice rolls. See here and there.


Option for skill checks in conversation : display DC vs roll target.

Under the hood, it's all the same : saying that d20 + bonuses >= DC is equivalent to saying that d20 >= DC - bonuses. Currently you are displaying Target := DC - bonuses. This has the advantage that it is easy to translate the roll target in the success probability (roll target 9 means 60% of success, etc). Displaying the DC has advantages too :
- It forces players to learn the mechanism and think about how to get bonuses.
- It gives a better sense of how difficult the task fundamentally is. And it gives us a sense of growth when a DC 15 was seen as risky in early game becomes a lot more doable in late game.

So, please give us the option to switch the default display from one style to the other.


How about allowing the dual wielding of rapier + dagger ?

I know, I know, a rapier isn't light, hence why this combination is currently not possible according to the 5E rules, as written. But it looks damn cool for a flamboyant, swashbuckly Rogue, Bard or Fighter.



Writing and writing-related requests.


Please, don't overdo Minsc.

Minsc was endearing and funny enough in BG1-2. The DnD comics have managed to give him a level of mental simplicity and one-dimensionality that would make a 5-year-old child feel like a deep character in comparison. I wasn't exactly excited to hear that BG3 would allow us to play as Minsc, travel with him, or even potentially (gasp) romance him.

On the one hand, he was handled so poorly in the comics that you can hardly fail at writing him better. So I guess that's good. On the other hand, it would be nice if you set the bar higher, at the level of BG1-2 at least.


Dialogue options for a Sorcerer.

Super very minor, I know, but can you make sure that a Sorcerer has a couple of good lines for Gale and his "considerable talent" (which of course doesn't hurt) ? Yes, yes, yes, he may be very talented. But he can't beat just-having-it-darling.


Kinkiness.

When we choose to receive a penance from Abdirak, could our PC bend forward a bit more, and could Abdirak target the butt ? You've put a clearly kinky scene here (and there's full sex elsewhere), please don't be shy and stop half-way through. We demand kindly request more sexy kinkiness.



Spells.


Please have Spider Climp be in the game.

I'm not sure whether you will implement all the spells from the PHB. Spider Climb would be really cool, and certainly play upon verticality. So I'm hoping it will make it.

UI, Controls, QoL : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Roleplay, Story, Immersion : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Mechanisms : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Longer term considerations : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

COMBAT : VARIETY, ENCOUNTER DESIGN, AND DIFFICULTY

I'm aware this part is about combat Larian, and you are not too concerned about some aspects of it (I won't pronounced the b word). Still, it would be great if you gave this a thought.

Currently, the game incentivises the Ranged strategy too much. This leads to a less varied and less interesting combat.

The design of encounters could be improved a lot, in order to be more interesting roleplay-wise, more tactically interesting, as well as to provide variety.

Also, the AI could benefit a lot from showing more variety. And I would like the AI to be a major factor in the game's difficulty options (as opposed to an uninteresting nerfing/buffing of enemies' stats).



The game currently favours the Ranged strategies too much.

In DnD, there are at least 3 strategies/styles for combat : Melee, Ranged, and Magic. Of course, most parties will mix and match, with character specialising in some styles. And in BG3, we have additional strategies : Surfaces, and Consumables. Currently, Ranged has a disproportionately large appeal. And I don't think it's a great state of things.


Some reasons why the Ranged strategy stand out above the others.

- It is mechanically very strong. As I explained earlier, we get Advantage on our attacks and the enemies get Disadvantage on their attacks. There are possibly ways to deal more damage, but this one also means being hit a lot less.

- Its effectiveness is easy to discover. The bottom-left corner indicator teaches us the rules, and we'll end up having High-Ground or Low-Ground sooner or later. (By contrast, I would have taken a lot more time discovering about Super-Surface-Fighting and Barrelmancy if I hadn't heard about them on forums.)

- It is very easy to implement. Everyone can use a short bow or a ranged-attack cantrip. No long-term party building and planning is required. Some characters have bad Dexterity ? No worries ! The mechanism of Advantage gives a bigger boost to a raw chance of success of 50% than to one of 80%, thus reducing the difference in efficiency between a mediocre archer and a good one.

- It is usable almost everywhere. Most battlefields are designed with high-ground areas, and thus let us thrive if we are playing the game with a party built for Ranged combat.

- It is hard to avoid using. I can easily abstain from using surfaces and consumables. But if I don't run for the high ground, enemies will take it (when they don't simply start on it). That's a tactically bad position, and the simplest way to avoid it is to take the high-ground. Also, while I'm not a great expert in behavioural science and psychology, I would wager that most people feel more mental discomfort when experiencing a malus (Disadvantage on attacks) rather than when not benefitting from a bonus (Advantage on attacks). In the end, it is quite hard not to fight from the high ground.


Why this is a problem.

- It does not encourage variety. When there's a dominant strategy, most players will converge toward it. It feels as if you thought "Ranged Combat is so fun, and we can use verticality, let's incentivise everyone to go Ranged !". And that in the process, you forgot that DnD 5E has other fun things to offer. I feel it would be fun to just let other things, like class abilities, speak from time to time.

- It makes combat become boring faster. Fights currently seem vaguely intended as tactical puzzles : instead of having tons of grindy, trash fights that we can sleep-walk through and that might even be randomly generated, every combat encounter is a hand-crafted set piece. Which is overall good : quality beats quantity. But once you've discovered the Ranged hammer, every fight looks like is a nail. Move to high-ground position, rain arrows, win.

- It leads to meta-gaming and reduced immersion. I'm not playing in-the-world, I'm playing a mind-game with the designers. At every new encounter, I consciously look for the high ground spot, knowing full well that the designers have almost-certainly included one somewhere. And in the few instances where I find myself surprised and without a high ground spot, I can often find barrels ...

- It makes for a weird mix of genre and setting. The combat often feels like that of a Tactical Shooter. This would be fine if the adventure took place in a Western setting like Desperado or a Sci-Fi setting like XCOM, where we expect guns as the default weapon. But it's less thematically appropriate for a Middle-Ages and Renaissance setting like the Forgotten Realms. Throw in the cartoonish jump over enemies, and it becomes even weirder. Of course, I don't have to travel with Shooting Squadron Zero, and turn all battles into a 3D, all-guns-blazing shooting. It's just what is encouraged. Meanwhile, classic knights in heavy armours fighting with melee tactics are allowed to exist in BG3, if they are fine with Jump destroying a lot of the positioning considerations and Backstab being an immersion-breaking joke.



Designing encounters for a more varied combat.

I have previously discussed mechanisms. But even under a given set of rules, a lot can also be achieved through encounter design. Act 1A is what it is, but hopefully future encounters can be more varied.


Less predictable combat encounters.

I would like to be more surprised (as a player) when a fight starts.

Currently, a majority of combat encounters takes place on a battlefield that I can survey before the fight, against enemies that I can see, count, observe and downright Examine (however ridiculous that feature is). This trivial scouting is partly caused by the camera and its absurdly-large radius of action. The consequence is that we are encouraged too much to sneak around, judiciously position the party and trigger the fight when we are ready.

By contrast, BG1-2 had many fights start right after entering a new area (room, house, cave, etc). Also, it used a symmetric line-of-sight : if I can see the enemies, then they can see me, and they can start the fight.

BG3 is a video game (with saves and no perma-death) so, unlike the tabletop 5E, there will naturally be die-reload-retry cycles. But I should not be able to start nearly every new fight with as much insight as if I had already died once.

I will always be able to resort pre-positioning and pre-buffing if I fail too many times, but I'd like to get one chance to win the fight in a more immersive and tactically interesting way the first time round.


Fewer incentives to skip talking before a fight.

It is sometimes preferable to avoid conversations and attack straight away. The prime example is the encounter with Gimblebock and company.

If I want to experience the conversation with Gimblebock, with all my team at the "main entrance" of the scene (near the statue), then I sign up for a challenging fight. If I win at my first attempt, all good. If I lose (perhaps a couple of times), what do I do ?

A much more efficient approach is to have the team approach behind Warryn. If I then have someone go through the main entrance to talk to Gimblebock, a few things can happen. If my companions positionned near Warryn are Hiding, there's a chance they are not seen, not drawn in the fight, and that's a slaughter since my lone downstairs character might have received many attacks by the time it's their turn. If my team does not Hide, then Warryn triggers a fight and my characters have no idea why. So I might as well, Hide, pre-position and attack Warryn straight away, without talking.

But my characters have no reason to know this group is hostile ! I only know this because I, the player, have foreknowledge. This is immersion breaking. I find that the difference of difficulty is quite significant, especially for a first-time player, so there is a big incentive to ditch roleplay and immersion, and instead go for a much easier fight. I think this is poor encounter design.

I would like encounters to be designed in a way that doesn't ask me to choose between immersion and lower difficulty.


More flat battlefields, please.

Most battlefields have high-ground spots. This enables the nearly-constant use of the Ranged strategy. Designing more flat battlefields would encourage us to try more Melee approaches, more crowd-control or buffing spells, etc. Basically, more variety.


More melee fights, please.

A small minority of battles forces us to use melee combat, or to break out of melee if that tactical configuration is our team's Achilles heel.

I fear that a Class Feature like the Ranger's Horde Breaker or a Fighting Style like Protection won't be very useful. There are not so many melee enemies (in proportion) and the battlefields are usually quite large, so enemies are not often packed.

Also, having a tank or two to create a frontline and stop melee enemies from coming at my mages seems like an alien notion : there are so many ranged enemies (in proportion) and so much space for the melee ones to pass through.

It would be great to have fights against melee hordes or in tight spaces, from time to time.


More use for class abilities and party composition.

This point is somewhat a consequence and summary of the above requests. You've said in interviews that you like designing systems and tools, then throwing problems at us and letting us figure ways to overcome them with the tools you gave us.

But at the moment, some specific approaches are overly incentivised. The High-Ground rule is a massive incentive to use a Ranged strategy. The near-continuous use of the Consumables approach is enabled by the abundance of consumables. Barrels are not far behind. Meanwhile, the game doesn't encourage us to ask ourselves "ok, how can I solve this encounter with the skills of the characters in my current line-up ?". It doesn't encourage us to explore the DnD classes and the 5E system.

How to incentivise more diversity ? I don't think that ways should be found to actively encourage the other approaches. Rather, some solution methods like Ranged or Consumables, should not be encouraged that much.

In the end, I'd like the game to live up to the message shown on a loading screen, advising us to pay attention to party composition. At the moment, it feels as if the artists and advertisers who created that screen and made "Gather your party" a slogan for the game never had a proper talk with the designers and programmers.



Enemy artificial intelligence.

Of course, the AI should probably reach its final form after the full ruleset is finalised, hence why I'm discussing this only now. On the other hand, the development of rules and AI should probably go hand-in-hand, otherwise you cannot track how the game's feel and difficulty change as the rules are changed.


More varied enemy AI : targeting.

Not all creatures we meet should seek to take down the low-AC, low-HP companions first (a very sensible strategy that we, players, employ often enough). It would be great to see more varied AI and enemy tactics, especially for different types of enemies (some types are cunning, some just smash the nearest companion, etc).


More varied enemy AI : downed companions.

It's interesting that the current AI for enemies has them focus on downed targets. In the Sword Coast Stratagem mod for BG1-BG2, the author especially programmed enemies with disabling abilities (like the carrion crawls' paralysing attack) to focus attacks on characters that are not disabled. The reason was : the goal of the enemies is to win the encounter (not force the players to consume resources like spells slots and scrolls). So they should prioritise those characters that are still a danger to them and ignore the ones that are neutralised. I feel this is the good call to make enemies more believable.


Changing the difficulty settings should affect the enemy AI more than their stats.

One easy way to make the game harder is to give enemies better stats (HP, damage, etc). And do the reverse for an easier game. But that's very cheap and not a gamer-changer.

If I can steamroll an encounter with one strategy, giving enemies more HP will likely only make the fight longer. It won't push me to change my approach and find a better use of the games' rules, spells, and so on, in order to overcome the encounter.

So, please, when working on the difficulty settings, prioritise the AI more than the enemy stats.

Oh, no worries, and thanks. I announced some things in my initial feedback reports, and I didn't like the idea of leaving without completing them. Especially seeing as I had most of the points written down already. Now it's closer to finished. It's kind of sad that we can't edit old posts, as some of my initial comments were incorrect (like on Sneak Attack). But none of this has been submitted to Larian yet, so I'll edit-and-submit.

my 2 cents:
-role playing: The game reacts to race and class. Swen said they will have no reactions to background and some other things because this is a huge amount of work and if they add something they want to do it right. So far this game has more reactivity then any other game I have played so far.
- appearance: The game already has tons of options. You can chose if you want to use the colors of that race or if you want to take any color. You can select tattoos at the moment (and their color and intensity). I made a female tiefling with beard.
I admit that your look (at least the face) matters more in this game than in most others because you see your char very often, like in every dialogue.
- deities: More dieties and everyone get a diety would be nice. I would like to have the option to chose between role playing selection ( a cleric of a good god cannot select evil domain for example) and anything goes. The role playing option would be nice for new players because it is hard to remember which race has which gods and which god has which domains. I played so many games that I get confused between the pathfinder gods and DnD gods and which god is alive or dead in which version of DnD. I would not expect lots of reactivity regarding this, there are way too many deities already. Only in a few moments where it makes s ense, like you talk to a priest or cultist of a certain diety.
- skills: The game follows the rules for classes and background from the PHB. I see no reason to change this, especially since many people (including myself) think this game should stick closer to the DnD rules. To take your example, clerics were never a skill heavy class.
- characters builds: Multi classing will be there, just not in EA. I also think there will be several ways to select your stats.
- companions: I would really love the option to have several custom chars without having to open the game several times. BG1+2 had this option over 20 years ago. Non origin party members would also be nice.

- Swen said they raised max level above 10 but we will not reach lv20.
Anything above this is speculation.
- I think it is OK that you reach lv3 fast and then continue to level up slower.
Lv 1 chars can easily be one shotted and they have little abilities.

It depends on what you want.
In BG1 you started as lv1 char and you levelled up very slow. Early in the game every enemy could one shot you with a lucky hit. It was engaging but it could also be very frustrating and the loading screen was your best friend.
On the other side, in NWN2 you are lv3 at the end of the tutorial and you could skip the tutorial and start as lv3 char.

- you can pause the game now by entering turn based mode.
But I agree that a normal pause option would be nice.
- Your suggestions for dice rolling are nice but I think there need to be one thing:
Please give us the option NOT to show us the rolling dice. We select an option and we see the result, no visual dice rolled. Its like this in Kingmaker and its fine.
Please give us also the option NOT to show the dice when rolling a natural 20.

Great points!

I just want to stress that I am in no way a part of this "we" mentioned above.

That particular phrase is an on-going forum joke, Job.

(But I for one would certainly appreciate more versatile animation that varied based on how we choose to react throughout the penance. ... And the ability to invite him to our camp when he tells us he's clearing out, so that we can take sessions with him on the regular if we so wish...)

That first part of your post, all about ranged combat ... seem to me like:
"I don't want to play it like this and I want you to change your game so that I can use all the things you have allowed me to do, but I don't use them because I don't consider them effective enough compared to what I don't want to use.". o_O
Kinda odd attitude. :-/
It reminds me all those ppl who are talking about savescuming being bad, and need to be removed, since they dont have enough self-moderation to not use it. :-/

This i hope for too ...
For example for beasts it would make perfect sence, that they would attack closest enemy, instead of low-AC ...

Take Owlbear for example, you have high-armored warrion next to her cub, that she is "protecting with her own life" ... and what does mummy owlbear do to protect her baby from this threat?
Jump out to smash your Wizard that is standing up on the cliff. :-/
Its even funnier if your Wizard didnt get to his round yet.

You just made me thinking ...
How cool it would looklike if you start battle with some millitary group, like Duegar slavers, for example ... when their mages and shooters would run to get high ground, and their shielded fighters would form a line protecting them. Sounds really goood.
As long as you dont realize that Lae'zel would be perfectly able to jump over that line and strike down all those casters with single Sweap attack.

This sounds good ...
As long as we dont have no way to get downed member back in action during single combat. :-/
Otherwise it seem to give huge benefit to player hands. :-/

Im not quite sure if your companion sucess in 3 rolls after downed if he return to fight, or if he simply wait there for your help, but its stabilized ... since it didnt happened to be in patch 4 so far.
But even if he dont, all you need to do is heal/help him and he is back up, ready to fight ... even if we let go the fact that you are completely able to use such companion as tank, since every enemy who choosed him as his first target before, will choose him again, and all you need to do is help him up on feet every round to redirect all damage to him, instead rest of the party ...
It just feels odd, isnt it?

Cunning Goblin / Bloodthirsty Gnoll / Hungry Owlbear / ... dunno, insert any enemy you wish, except Honorary Paladin ... will knock your on your knees, you are no longer able to fight or defend yourself, your fate is completely in his hand ... he raises his weapo/claw ... and run out to fight someone completely capable of defending himself, since you are no longer interesting oponent. O_o

Also, in therms of Downed and Dead companions ...
I honestly hope that Talkative Sceleton will be removed in final version of game, or preferably, his services will cost much more (at least thousand per ressurection). Since right now, even death is nothing more than minor nuisance. -_-

Holy cow! And I thought I wrote a lot.

I'm not sure people are going to actually read your posts since they are so long. Maybe 1 or 2, but...

Cant say im against it ... more like dont care honestly if this will or will not be implemented.
But i would really wish to know why?
I mean its not like there is some patrol, running around the map, that can attack your group when you are gone ... and even if they would, the game will simply run iniciative and wait for your first move, when its your first character turn. No matter if you are sitting by that game or not. O_o

So what purpose exactly should pause have in this game? O_o

If this option will be implemented, i honestly hope it would be made as part of story ...

As if Lae'zel managed to bring the ship down all alone, before you even could leave that room where you start ...
- so you have no idea that ship was in Avernus ...
- so you have no idea, Mind Flayers can be turned by pull of lever ...
- so you have no idea now many people that Mind Flayers abducked ...
- so you never meet Shadowheart before she is attacking those doors on the beach ...
- so Lae'zel is talking to you like total stranger and she realize that you have tadpole when she is caged ...
- so you are either unable to offer Omeluum to describe him the Nautiloid, since you didnt explore it ... or that roll change from Performance, to Deception, since you are making up the whole story ...
etc.

I honestly kinda like how Dices are done right now ...
And since i was asking if it can be allowed us to roll all our dices at once. :-/ And those two options seem to be excluding each other. :-/ I honestly hope that Larian will concider my wish to be better.

Since if you would be rolling 2d20 & 1d4 for skillcheck with advantage and active guidance ... it just sounds like a little mess, and also i cant help the feeling that it would not look good, unless those dices will reflect from each other.
And try to simulate realistic dices, just for rolls "look pretier" seem like wasted efford to me. :-/

I dont get this one ...
Its long enough to build a little tension when you are trying to do hard roll ...
You have option to stop that animation and get to result instantly, if you wish to ... yet you refuse to use it and demand rework once again. O_o

I would say allow us to leave by clicking anywhere ...
If im suppose to leave proof of my epic roll without screenshoting it ... i want to do that by my own misstake, not bcs some virtual stop-watches decided that i was looking long enough. :-/

Oh my now you tempted me ... and all i can think about is ingame, preferably in combat conversation between Gale and Sorcerer:

*Gale casts a spell* > Sorcerer: "That was cute."
*Sorcerer casts a spell, spell backfired, bcs of Wild Magic* > Gale: "What were you saing?"

(This what happened seem to me like one of most unfortunate strikes from moderator i have seen in last decade ... now we are suppose to discuss few dozen topics in one HUGE threat, just bcs they were all writen by same autor. :-/ )

Give me option to slap Shadowheart over her smug face ... at least figuratively ...
Few examples:
1) First time, no matter who you talk to ... Shadow demands to know your topic, claims that "your business in mine, since this thing *points at her head* connects us" ... yet every time you want to know something about that box, about her history, or about Shar ... she dodge the question and sugest you should keep your nose out of it.
I really want to remind her "your business is my business now" ...

2) When you keep asking about that box, she even threatens your character ...
I really wish to tell he "Its threason then!" and start combat.
(No intended similarities. :P )

3) When you dont recruit her at beach, you get second chance inside Druid Groove ...
Kinda odd that she is so far the only companion that you keep randomly meeting over and over until you either kill her, or recruit her ... others deserve same love. :-/
But when you meet her, she asks you if you are following her ... even if your character is just passing by and dont mind her at all. I really wish to point out that from my perspective, she is following me. Or even better tell somethink like: "Who are you again? No wait, dont care." and leave.

Im not sure what gated means ...
But if that is option to have same set of hair for both male and female, i wish to ask the same ...
It really odd that even non-dwarf females have full acess to all beards, but its unable to create same hairstyle as male. :-/

+1 for all mentioned ...
And i would like to ask also for separate options for Ears from Faces, both for Tieflings and Elves ...
Some faces i really like, but when i look at those ... i dunno how to call it, canvas prehaps? Its horrible. :-/


I presume (read as: Hope) that curent starting equipment is mostly placeholders.
Its not just Wizards, but when you look at Druid, who have such nice default armor that is just screaming to every side "i am druid" and then you look at Wizard, Rogue, Ranger ... and even Warlock and Fighter ... who are just wearing generic robe / leather amor / paddle armor / not sure what kind of armor Figher have right now ... its sad wiev. :-/

But ...


I cant imagine the ocassion for such things ...
Maybe that celebration after killing Goblin leaders, but that is all so far. O_o


I disagree with this ...
The very basic description of Cleris is that they worship some Deity and that Deity is giving them their power ...

I cant imagine Tyr to support Evil Cleric who will kill everyone on sight. :-/
I cant imagine Silvanus to support Cleric who will wipe our whole groove. O_o
I cant imagine Baal to support Benevolet Cleric who will help everyone and prevent violence. :-/

Those are not unconventional cases, those are pure b*******s. :-/

So impressed by the amount of effort you've put into this! Really well done


So as I point the few places I differ please keep in mind that this is in addition to an enthusiastic thumbs up to the vast majority of what you've said:

Yes and no on this. I want to see a one step rule that can be broken. If anyone can worship the lord of murder then Bhaals status as an evil god is diminished. Then alignment just doesn't mean anything any more. Of course we can all think of benevolent aspects of murder -- euthanasia, life changes as symbolic death and all the interpretations of the death card on the tarot. But, the way the realms have dealt with this is to allow aspects to become independent deities -- Lathander and Amanuator are just too different from one another to be aspects the same deity so they gained independent from each other. Same goes for Shar and Sharess.

Now of course, as in the case of Aerie, story trumps all and if a player wants to play as the one exception to the rule that's great. But that character's uniqueness is only made possible by the rule they are breaking. So the game -- like the DM -- would need to acknowledge the strangeness of that choice. Just like they do with drow. A drow wandering in the sun doing good acts is just odd and I'm glad the game acknowledges that.

Tav: I want to know more about your mission.

Shadowheart: I've already told you that information is not for your ears. Let. It. Rest. Besides, as worshiper of Shar you should understand the value of keeping secrets secret.

Tav: Oh, I worship Shar as the keeper and revealer of secrets. You see she also is the goddess of wrongs hidden but not forgotten. Only once these secret wrongs are revealed can the wrongs be ameliorated and a healing process begin. I worship her as benevolent force, Shar holds the secrets that will heal the world.

Shadowheart: That's, that's . . . heresy. There's no other word for it. You can't really believe that?!

Tav: I do. I don't care what the sacred scrolls say, I know what's in my heart.

Shadowheart: So I'm traveling with a heretic. Just when I thought things couldn't get worse. Look, I'm not going to respond this right now but you can be certain we will be having words in the future.

TL;DR -- if you are going to allow the rule to be broken the game needs to acknowledge that. Also, "anything goes" isn't as much fun as are exceptions to the rule.



I have other differences of opinion I'll post later but, again, really impressive work. I hope Larian implements most of your suggestions.

I agree with most of what you said. I will say that most modern games seem to avoid body sliders. I'd guess the reason for that is the old systems of body sliders from the late 90s doesn't look very good in HD. Also, a lot of animations are more specific now, and you can have clipping and hitbox problems. That said, in an RPG, a lot of those last few issues don't matter very much. I'll also say that even though it looks like garbage, almost every game nowadays still applies armor as a skin over the top of characters, with solid steel plates flexing as the character breathes and runs. With that in mind, maybe body sliders isn't the worst idea. Ideally, you'd want to create alternate versions of bodies and then use sliders from there, but that'd vastly increase the amount of work per race.

I'm not a fan of Custom Lineage, and being able to just select any two skills you want independently of background also isn't my thing... but that's not really my problem in a game like this. If some people want to do it, I see no reason why not. I was tooling around in the character creator the other day and was surprised how difficult it was to create a Cleric with trained Perception. Having more Backgrounds in the game as well as Variant Human should help many people, but if someone wants to customize, why not?

I think casual clothes might only work in certain circumstances. For instance, when going to sleep for the night or scenes in the morning. It'd even be exciting to have a combat encounter while resting, and your party isn't properly equipped. Combat encounters in casual clothes could be pretty swingy.

Changing the color of armor, though... I don't understand why so many game companies avoid this. Most "next-gen" games use a materials system for all weapons and armor, so you can pretty easily change their colors. So why not open these options to the player?

I also think that there should be options to convert from worshipping one god to another during the game, if you visit a temple or talk to a wandering priest or cleric. This might not make much sense for a player cleric or paladin, because you'd have to go through all kinds of initiations and rites that surely Larian doesn't have time to create. But most other players should be able to convert at least once during the game.