Dipping : grease would be better... but it would also be better if the whole weapon was not on fire (including your hands, your clothes and so on...)
Grease is an AOE spell. You cant target it on just a weapon. IIRc some weapon oils excist in the game though that give you temporary buff so I cant see why you could grease up your weapon and set it alight for an ingame hour or so.
Shove : is an action in DnD, not in BG3. And you don't shove so easily and so far in DnD.
PHHB page 195. You can knock an opponent prone or 5 feet away from you. There are feats in the game that allow you to push in other ways but yeah, feats. Dont know how far you can push people in BG3 though but the last time I did it someone only moved a very tiny bit. Granted when EA came out you could toss people off roofs very easily but that hasent been like that for a while now AFAIK.
Throw : is not a specific action in DnD. Not sure you tried it but what you can do in BG3 is ridiculous (at least, was... I did not try in patch 5)
Throwing something counts as a ranged attack. Also PHB page 195. Dont know what you think is so ridiculous about it though? I havent been throwing stuff around myself, have I been missing out or something?
Crates : wierd things in BG1/2 certainly... but not crates and barrels. Ofc a bag full of armor is not really "realistic"... a bag full of crates and barrels is even less.
Consider I have infact, had barrels and crates in my iventory this point is kinda moot.... Yesterday I was carrying 3 bodies around in 1 person in his 'inventory' so id say BG1 and BG2 still have BG3 beat on this one. Specially when you consider the amount of metric tonnes that you can fit inside a bag of holding..... Ive dropped entire armories in there lol. BG3 has got nothing on that!
Climbing : Climbing a ladder in the FR has the same prerequisites as in our world : hands and fingers.
No infact, it does not. There are no rules for that. Climbing up 1 feet requires 2 feet of movement, unless you have a climbing speed in which case you use that. PHB page 182. Show me where it says you need hands for that. Bears dont got hands either but got a climbing speed for example. Have you ever seen goats on very steep hillsides/mountains? They can more freely there then we can and they dont got hands and fingers either. Is it abit silly to see a cow climb? Well yeah. But mechanicly theres nothing stopping any creature from climbing other then the DM going 'uh. No. Thats stupid' Another fun real life example is a snake. No hands on that bad boy. Heck, it even doesent have feet! Yet they move up vertical surfaces just fine...
Animation and visual effetcs : I expected something that suit better to the setting. Hulk is not a part of the FR. Jumping create an unecessary and unapprorpiate shockwave. Another exemple is how some characters are falling asleep - looks like a cartoon.
Dont see how the hulk favours in this but ok. The shockwave is more to portray the fact that you landed then anything else id say. Its a little exegerrated, I agree on that. But thats the style they went with. About the falling asleep part. Might wanna replay BG1 and BG2 and see how characters fall down. Exactly the same manner.....
Map design : the story sometimes feels inconsistent - the most common exemple being the goblins not finding the grove. The exploration is also very limited even if some things are great (lots of secret). The world is not coherent (a "forest" with 6 trees, a "swamp" that is not bigger than my garden, hostiles harpies living right next to the druid grove,...)
With a squashed map thats bound the happen. Not to say that the same dident happen in BG1 or BG2 btw. You often run into people who have a problem thats like 10 feet away from them. Or have to solve 'riddles' that are incredibly easy to solve. Like the murders in the bridge district in bg2. Seriously if you are even half competent you will snooze your way through that quest but the city guard cant? If we start looking for realisme in these games we will find most of them lacking in alot of areas... With this point I often see other people bring in Fallout new vegas as a simular comparison. And my counter argument is: would you want to slog to the real life sized mojave as the map rather then the ingame one? Dont know about you but I dont got in real life days to waste walking from location to location without running into something. These gameworlds ARE compressed, but thats because they need to be. Noone would find any enjoyment out of a real life sized map either. Then wed complain that wed have to travel for hours before finding things. They have to find a middle ground between the 2, and thats what we got at the moment.
Main character : the main character in BG3 have the same problem, the same introduction, the same goal, the exact same motivations than any companions. That's not at all how it works in other games.
They have the same problems, goals and movitations as your companions. Thats right. Because that motivation is survival. Its maybe different from other games because you arent implanted with a tickign time bomb in other games... Aside from that, your character has whatever goals, motivations etc etc that you set for it. We just only got act 1 to play off for the time beeing so we never really reach a point where we can move past the inmediate danger of our situation.
Control scheme : the chain system. Classic control works better both on console and computer.
Oh thats what you meant with control scheme? The chain system! Well I agree with that tbh. Although the chain system gives some freedom to move your party and 1 person seperatly, you could also do that with the old system. Unchaining and rechaining is abit clunky which is my biggest complaint about it. But yeah thats indeed a left over from DOS. Dont know if they will keep it but personally hope they dont. But that said, that by itself wouldnt make me move away from the game either xD
Feeling of a frozen world : no, I don't have the feeling that everything is waiting for me in other games. In BG3 even the night is just waiting for me to click on a button.
I honestly have that feeling in the vast majority of games. Maybe we play different games then? I dont know *shrug*
Cheesy combats mechanics : things that create a good way of playing and a bad way of playing, leading to repetitive tactical combats. Highground, hiding to ambush,OP shove, OP diping, OP throw,... You can play without it but it's really balanced arround some of these things (especially highground and hide/ambush all the time)
Having the high ground is a very advantageous thing though. Wars have been won in our history because 1 side got the high ground and used it to their advantage. That said, I agree its abit much atm. Maybe just giving a flat bonus (or your opponent a penalty because the high ground gives you cover) would be enough. Flat out giving advantage is way OP. Hiding to ambush. Im a DM for a pnp group. My players ALWAYS try to get an ambush. Because a round of suprise combat is outright DEVASTATING. The inventive things they try to get it are quite hilarious and if theyre smart about it il reward them with suprise. But holy shit does it make the encounters significantly easier for them... If youre doing the same thing then grats: youre using tactics.
I did not wrote "good game" : my first sentence in this message is that BG3 is going to be an awesome game.
I wrote "a game that revolutionized RPGs as DoS and BG did before".
Youre playing semantics. I replied to the quote and in there you stated 'not enter the pantheon of games that revolutionized RPGs as DoS1/2 and BG1/2 did before them' which implies that it wouldnt be a good game. Or at least not of the same ballpark. Which honestly we dont know if it will, or will not be. We dont have the finished product yet and we dont know during what timeframe it will be released exactly. Maybe when it releases it will infact move the industry forward. Or maybe it wont.
