Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Missing dialogue choices.

Giving the artefact to Minthara or the gith patrol should be possible, or at least we should have dialogs options to even if something happen right after.

It would probably screw the whole story... But it makes absolutely no sense that I can't give it.

Especially for those who sides with Minthara.
Especially for those who wants to trust Lae'zel and the gith (you would get it back after their attempt to purify you by death, if they weren't any dragon...).
Especially for those that aren't aware or just don't care about SH's mission.
Especially because it's utility does not look important at all for our character. I have vision without it... And what ? Why should I absolutely push back those visions ?

Err....i know what you are getting at. I would like the option but it would be an instant game over. Back in my PnP times, when you screwed too much with the GM he simply killed us off at times. We have a Story to follow otherwise it would be impossible to create.
The "evil" way is already a nice option but it takes you closer to the absolute, where we do not want to be. That part needs still a lot of work.
I would like to see choices that end in a game over, like letting Astarion drink too long. (only there is a comeback) Choices always have consequences. Or should have. (the tadpole dream is meh, you pretty much always get the same lines, no matter if you refuse or agree, boring)

Exactly ... i would like to see many more dialogue traps.
Those are awesome opourtunities.

Say who?
I mean yes we players can see that could potentialy be bad idea ...

But think about it from other perspective..
Deep Gnomes, Goblins, Drow males ... maybe even Tieflings ... to them this cult might seem appealing compared to life in slavery or represion.

Says me.

It is a logical conclusion since our chars are aware of the tadpoles and also aware that the other true souls are controlled, which they do not want. It is the main plot so giving in should be the said game over option. In that we agree
Using the tadpoles brings us closer to the absolute winning imo so we can go that way to a certain degree, any more would break the story i think. Not that tweaks to that are not possible, but maybe a but too much for a way that is not intended storywise.

Regarding that i had another messed up conversation last night:

Astarion and the tadpole, If you talk to him about the tadpole he clearly states that he does not want to be controlled by either cazador or the grey things, which makes me think that his acceptance of the tadpole powers must have limits.
Yet everytime you agree with the others that you should stop using the powers, you get his disaproval even after it is clear that its a Mindflayer trap. At least so far as i tried.

Exactly ... OTHERS are controlled. :P Not us.
That is the thing, being closer to the Absolute dont necesarily means being controled by her, nor even bow to her.

I mean i can totally imagine some evil character wanting to "seems like" he wish to serve some powerfull deity, only to twist things in the end, betray her and become far more powerfull than anyone expected ...
I could even imagine he would possesse some incredibly strong magical artefact that this deity would desperately want, but it would also protect him from that deity, so she would be unable to take it from him by force ...
His name could be for example Raistlin Majere (have you read "Dragons of the Hourglass Mage"?).

What is messed up about it?
He want the power, but dont want consequences (as he multiple times tells us during gameplay) ... wich evil character dont fit such description?

Anyway back to the topic ...

Here is another one:
When you save Barcus Wroot, he acuses you either from wanting to rob him ... or (if you are Drow) of wanting to Enslave him ...
Just a single reaction later, he also sais that "ignorance is alive and well i see, deep gnomes are not restricted to the Underdark you know"

I would love to be able to tell him something like: "Excuse me?! You are the one to talk, you just acused me from being thief/slaver seconds ago!"
Then it would be awesome if conversation could be prolonged by few more sentences just for the joke:
Barcus Wroot: "Yeah ... i gues i own you an apology ... that was rude of me, sorry."
Tav: [1] "Its okey."
[2] "Good ... now give me all your valuables! / [Drow] Good ... now, on your knees, slave!"
Barcus Wroot: *shocked* "What?"
Tav: [1] "Just kidding ... have nice travel."
[2] *attack*

I wouldn't call it messing with the DM given the way things are presented at the moment.
The DM doesn't give me a mission with this item. He just put it in my pocket, don't explain why, why I should keep it and why everyone is looking for it.
It makes no sense to have a locked item in our inventory without any obvious story reasons.

I'd hate game over dialogs options but it would be more interresting and eventually coherent to be able to give it before the artefact magicaly teleport back once again in my pocket (like on the goblin's camp bridge when SH is not in your party).

This would at least mean that you're "the artefact's chosen".
At the moment it's like saying to your DM "I show her the artefact" and the DM answering "no, you can't".

With messing i actually mean willfull ruining the planned adventure. normally a GM knows the chars his group takes into the adventure and how they should react to certain situations. That way you can build a nice, working campaign. Players usually know at some point which way the story goes and what the main goal is.
I have had players annoy me to no end avoiding stuff planned out for them and forcing me to improvise again and again. Even as a DM i want fun playing. (i was never that good a DM). Some DMs are just awesome and can come up with coherent stories on the go. But if you put hours over hours of work of your free time
into buildin an adventure only to have it smacked into your face by the players, thats no fun.

and that teleporting SH artefact is bull if you ask me. lazy solution since they give you the option to not take SH along. First time she "ran" after me. "good that i arrived in time". i frowned but could live with it. The teleporting cube? no thanks.

There are way too many conversations that need more fitting options like this sadly.

Well, i agree to a point. I guess it is a tightrope how far you can go exactly. I guess there are characters who think they can win against the absolutes control, or be able to outsmart her. Lots of stories in that regard. I must give that to you. But either Larian actually creates that way or there has to be a point of no return that
takes you to the game over. I actually would love to see the way where you use the tadpole and become the absolute in the end. But from act 1 alone i have no real idea how this is going to continue.

Also on astarion you are ofc right. But the wording of that conversation is not too good then. I will try to reproduce but i think i talked to astarion that we should stop using the tadpoles. Then i talked to another char about the exact same thing and get dissaproval from astarion. that annoyed me.
A lot of conversations do not really impact another. I have had that a lot already.

It always feels like the connection between the PC and one OriginChar. Not between all. Like when all 4 stand before an NPC and you talk but it feels really like you are alone.


Edit: Dragonlance chronicles was the first D&D Book i read. I also read the story of caramon and raistlin but that was so long ago. time to refresh it seems. Just re-read huma and kaz so that would fit)

Im aware ...
And point of this topic was to point them out specificaly ... until recently it was working quite well. :-/

I dont want to say that i forbid discusion here ... i just dont want specific points to be lost in hunderts of "yeah thats right" and "that is not the only one" :-/

TBH I suggest to be able to give the artefact as a consequence of the "lazy" (to quote you) story arround this item.

The game cannot allow us to side with Minthara without giving us consistent reasons not to give it.
I can tell her where the grove is to attack together because she wants to find this powerfull thing BUT I cannot just tell her that I have it in my pocket.
I can also choose to embrace the power of the absolute (if I'm a drow, if not we just agree to become Minthara's evil minion) but I have to keep this thing to push back the visions or whatever it is.

It just makes no sense at all. I'm not against being "railroad" to keep it of course, that's obviously a part of the story. But only if it make sense.

sincerely sorry for that. It's simply too easy to write such "useless banter". especially as an addon to another thing mentioned. I have tried such posts too at times and even if you ask for specific behavior it usually ends up like this.

What we would need is a sticky with all messed up conversations and storyboard mistakes we find, without any discussion in addition to this topic where missing possible answers are discussed. We would need a moderated thread for this though so that the unproductive

posts can be removed. Sadly, even if i want to only write something ontopic, all too often i get carried away and end up somewhere totally else.

The conversations that made me cringe the most atm are when playing a githyanki yourself. Talking to lae'zel or the others mostly feels like you are not actually a gith...you know nothing about ceremorphosis or crechés most of the time.
Feels really awkward imo.

Say, have you tried giving the Artifact to the Kithrak?
Until yesterday i did not know you could try that. It was my first time playing as Gith and after i took the conversation from Lae'zel i could actually decide to give the artifact to Voss. Interesting. Personally i am not sure what to make of the outcome.

Other thing i was annoyed about was when entering the goblin camp for the first time. I had no Option to recognize the artifact to be of gith origin. 2 gith in the party, both oblivious, great.

Normally, given laezels character she should intervene by herself. Like in most other conversations, she seems to be not there. Brings us back to conversations almost always happening between 2 characters with the only impact beein the approval.

Another thing that came up during a druid playthrough is that after uncovering kaghas ties to the shadow druids, there is noone to talk to that about other than her. I did not manage to tell halsin nor zevlor. If i do not want a confrontation but still want to use that information it would be nice to be able to give
them to someone to comeplete the quest.

Next thing are druid responses during astarions little "bite me" sesssion. As far as i know druids should consider vampires abominations. No dialogue for that. Ressurecting connor works like that too. Even as a druid you can simply raise the zombie and let her traipse away with him...

In front of the teahouse there is that Gur monster hunter...you interact nicely with astarion there, yet after finishing that talk you cannot even mention it to him (i hope thats just due to EA reasons).

During the talk with ethel after you clobbered her down there is a dialogue option for a seldarine drow: "i do not care for that human. etc..." I always thought the seldarine are good gods...corellion larethian is part of that...so...should that be there this way?

I just use this mention for yet another missing option ...
If you help Kagha to her redemption (or simply kill her) she (or Rath) will give you quite nice staff ...
(wich you will probably not even use, since quarterstaff is not versatile in this game and it would mean that you loose precious 2AC :-/ but that is different topic)
... and litteraly tells you:
"When you speak, the circles will listen. Among druids your words will shine brighter than sun."

It would be nice to have option to use this new autority we have over them to at least have option to [Persuate] them to join defences against Goblin attack.

Even better would be to have option to [Persuate] them in both cases, but being Faithwarden would be giving us either bonus ... or situational advantage. :3

As my personal quest to harass, oppress, and humiliate Bards continues ...

I find out that there is yet another missin dialogue choice i desperately need ...
When Alfira tells you that "music can help in the ways that *silly blade* cant" ... and a moment later she admits that her master was killed while "playing her lute ... so they didnt hear the gnolls coming" ...

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE im actualy beging you Larian ... allow us to say that seems like situation, when *silly blade* would be a thousand times more usefull than a *superb music*.

So ... i finaly explored the whole Grove during Goblin attack ...
Cant say im surprised that Druids sealed themselves in their inner sanctuary, but i still have to ask:

Why are they all hostile? O_o

I mean it would make sence for Kagha (the angry one) ...

But after her redemption? She promised to provide safety to refugees. :-/
Nettie begged us to help her find Halsin ...
Rath begged us to help him find Halsin ...
Findal thanked us for litteraly saving his life ...
Kagha (or Rath, depends on situation) litteraly named us Faithwarden ...

Does anything of it mean something? :-/
I mean even for all our merits, they will attack us on sight? O_o

//Edit:
This is weirder than i originaly expected ...
When those Druids attack me on sight, and i kill them ... Tieflings start to attack me on sight too. O_o

Very important missing dialogue!!!

When we want to get Nere out ... we can do that wich explosives, but that is something we can only offer with first meeting with Sergeant Thrinn.
We could really use option to say it any time we talk to her. :-/