Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I think I'm giving up on Larian

Well, I am actually slightly worried about that (namely, verticality in puzzles/exploration).

The fact that we are even talking about a "5e mod" for BG3 is honestly rather irritating. A "DOS mod" would be a more understandable request, which could unlock everything, let everyone cast spells from scrolls, cast two Fireballs per turn and remove multiclassing restrictions. Oh, wait..

I was still expecting a faithful Core Rules difficulty setting, like in every other D&D CRPG, but of course Larian knows better. We will get Tactician mode where enemies have more fire arrows and more explosive barrels on the battlefield. Actual tactics and being rewarded for good party compositions and resource management, not so much. "Challenge" will come in the form of thunder arrow spam to push you into lava.

It wasn't unreasonable to expect a D&D title to actually play like D&D. Sucks I just don't like the majority of Larian's gameplay ideas and fixations I guess.

Echoing some of Tuco's sentiments, I think there are a few issues with some of these recent changes:

First, I'm completely baffled that they chose to make these changes so late into the game with release looming, not thinking that having EA users playtest them for balance purposes would be prudent. It feels more like a last minute big change to rope in as many illusory casuals as they can to boost sales.

Second, sometimes too much choice actually impacts replayability. I have played the BG saga on and off every couple years since they released. I have not done this with D:OS2 or D:OS1, I have played them each a couple times from start to finish. I directly attribute this to having too much freedom, why would I make a new game and try out someone else when I can respec whenever I want and try out a build for a handful of hours? It seems pointless to go through the entire storyline to get a taste of what that feels like. If a player's race is arbitrary and the extent of it is only a handful of dialogue options that occasionally creep up in conversation and it has little to do with a much more permanent experience when paired with a class, then what is the point of having multiple runs with different races other than for cosmetic reasons? I realize this point is all about player preference and is subjective, but I do feel that having too much freedom and too many choices actually can genuinely detract from a game's longevity. It's no small wonder that some of the games with the simplest rulesets have been popular for as long as they have, and games that are far too busy have not.

To pivot off of point two, I do see that these changes will have an impact on the game's longevity and I am welcome to eat my words, but making things work within the confines of a fixed ruleset has been shown time and time again to increase replayability, encourage experimentation and develop a true cult following that can last for years. The fact that people are genuinely excited that Amazon released BG2 for free is a testament to this, while the amount of people currently playing D:OS2 has dropped off in the ensuing years.

I understand that Larian is primarily concerned with telling a great story, and I know they will with this game. But I sometimes feel they view mechanics as just a sandbox experience to tinker with to create fleeting memorable moments with humor and wackiness, and sometimes forget that those same mechanics, in a game, often can contribute to a much more lasting impression in terms of a game's longevity and ability to hold interest. I do believe all of these changes will severely impact replayability as someone has mentioned. And while the chief criticism of opposing parties is, 'well then...just don't pick it' is disingenuous, simply because, fine, they want to create more choices and freedom? Give me an option that holds true to the ruleset as an option, and offer another option for people that want something else. But it seems they have overridden that option in favor of creating more choice with less structure, which, in itself, is creating less choice.

I was super excited when they announced the release date a month early, and was genuinely thinking about all the different playthroughs I would be doing to experience all the different branching paths, classes, and different companions and experiences, but if everything is customizable, I simply don't see the amount of playthroughs exceeding a small discrete amount, simply because I can change everything on the fly and experience more within one playthrough, less is sometimes more...shocker. And given this game was literally advertised as having SO MUCH to see, do, explore, choose, and experiment with, these last minute changes simply seem to say, "well, actually you can just see, explore, choose, and experiment with most of these things in a single playthrough, so why bother with more? Want to try out that gloomstalker/rogue/fighter combo for 2 hours? go for it, want to switch it up and try out the tempest/storm cleric/sorcerer? Give it a taste. After all, it's literally only 100gp to completely change everything there is to change about someone except their race, and that's only to keep a couple dialogue options consistent."

And point three, this game was marketed as two things, a spiritual successor to a much beloved series, and a genuine attempt to create a genuine tabletop experience in a video game, even more so than its predecessors. And while I have agreed, somewhat, with some of the changes they've made along the way in keeping with the rule of cool, and creating a more polished experience, it seems like they've suddenly decided to go off the deep end at the 11th hour, which just so happened to coincide with all the recent press interest. "Oh, now we got them roped in, let's just throw caution to the wind." They have pretty much gone back on what they promised, which is unfortunate to say the least.

So all in all, I am perfectly fine if they want to add choices, but where is the choice for those of us that like to experience more in terms of a more robust structure, knowing full well that having that structure is likely to create many more possibilities than the illusion of endless choice can provide?

Echoing some of Tuco's sentiments, I think there are a few issues with some of these recent changes:

First, I'm completely baffled that they chose to make these changes so late into the game with release looming, not thinking that having EA users playtest them for balance purposes would be prudent. It feels more like a last minute big change to rope in as many illusory casuals as they can to boost sales.

Second, sometimes too much choice actually impacts replayability. I have played the BG saga on and off every couple years since they released. I have not done this with D:OS2 or D:OS1, I have played them each a couple times from start to finish. I directly attribute this to having too much freedom, why would I make a new game and try out someone else when I can respec whenever I want and try out a build for a handful of hours? It seems pointless to go through the entire storyline to get a taste of what that feels like. If a player's race is arbitrary and the extent of it is only a handful of dialogue options that occasionally creep up in conversation and it has little to do with a much more permanent experience when paired with a class, then what is the point of having multiple runs with different races other than for cosmetic reasons? I realize this point is all about player preference and is subjective, but I do feel that having too much freedom and too many choices actually can genuinely detract from a game's longevity. It's no small wonder that some of the games with the simplest rulesets have been popular for as long as they have, and games that are far too busy have not.

To pivot off of point two, I do see that these changes will have an impact on the game's longevity and I am welcome to eat my words, but making things work within the confines of a fixed ruleset has been shown time and time again to increase replayability, encourage experimentation and develop a true cult following that can last for years. The fact that people are genuinely excited that Amazon released BG2 for free is a testament to this, while the amount of people currently playing D:OS2 has dropped off in the ensuing years.

I understand that Larian is primarily concerned with telling a great story, and I know they will with this game. But I sometimes feel they view mechanics as just a sandbox experience to tinker with to create fleeting memorable moments with humor and wackiness, and sometimes forget that those same mechanics, in a game, often can contribute to a much more lasting impression in terms of a game's longevity and ability to hold interest. I do believe all of these changes will severely impact replayability as someone has mentioned. And while the chief criticism of opposing parties is, 'well then...just don't pick it' is disingenuous, simply because, fine, they want to create more choices and freedom? Give me an option that holds true to the ruleset as an option, and offer another option for people that want something else. But it seems they have overridden that option in favor of creating more choice with less structure, which, in itself, is creating less choice.

I was super excited when they announced the release date a month early, and was genuinely thinking about all the different playthroughs I would be doing to experience all the different branching paths, classes, and different companions and experiences, but if everything is customizable, I simply don't see the amount of playthroughs exceeding a small discrete amount, simply because I can change everything on the fly and experience more within one playthrough, less is sometimes more...shocker. And given this game was literally advertised as having SO MUCH to see, do, explore, choose, and experiment with, these last minute changes simply seem to say, "well, actually you can just see, explore, choose, and experiment with most of these things in a single playthrough, so why bother with more? Want to try out that gloomstalker/rogue/fighter combo for 2 hours? go for it, want to switch it up and try out the tempest/storm cleric/sorcerer? Give it a taste. After all, it's literally only 100gp to completely change everything there is to change about someone except their race, and that's only to keep a couple dialogue options consistent."

And point three, this game was marketed as two things, a spiritual successor to a much beloved series, and a genuine attempt to create a genuine tabletop experience in a video game, even more so than its predecessors. And while I have agreed, somewhat, with some of the changes they've made along the way in keeping with the rule of cool, and creating a more polished experience, it seems like they've suddenly decided to go off the deep end at the 11th hour, which just so happened to coincide with all the recent press interest. "Oh, now we got them roped in, let's just throw caution to the wind." They have pretty much gone back on what they promised, which is unfortunate to say the least.

So all in all, I am perfectly fine if they want to add choices, but where is the choice for those of us that like to experience more in terms of a more robust structure, knowing full well that having that structure is likely to create many more possibilities than the illusion of endless choice can provide?

I don't think the Larian gameplay design team understand RPG's, or gets why the class system, item system or resting system of D&D is great. They want to give you a familiar fast food gaming experience full of modern tropes like itemization, constant gear upgrades, instant gratification in the form of free respeccing, puzzle combat and flood you with micro-progress. They just don't get how the "videogamey" parts or meme combat moves undermine the storytelling of a serious story-driven RPG, or how less could ever be more.

The biggest flaw of BG3 imo is the dissonance between gameplay and storytelling, like they are making two different games. Writers want to present Nere as a Darth Vader type sinister and serious villain, and gameplay team wants you to be able to hilariously slap him into lava in an exaggerated arc when dialogue ends. Writers want to go deep with characters like Wyll and really explore what making a pact with a devil means, while gameplay team wants you to be able to respec him into a Bard because Bards have fun abilities. Writers want to craft a serious story about giving in to dark temptations and murder but gameplay team wants inconsequential death and incinerated PC's teleported back to camp for a cheap rez.

I get the feeling they have been fighting the D&D system until the very end of development and never truly embraced it. That would explain the late changes to major features. They don't believe in D&D or understand why it would be such a breath of fresh air with 99% of games still suffering from MMO PTSD and trying to become them even when they are not massively multiplayer.

I also fear I will be completely let down by the gameplay of BG3 and that it will kill all replayability value the game might otherwise have.

The biggest flaw of BG3 imo is the dissonance between gameplay and storytelling, like they are making two different games. Writers want to present Nere as a Darth Vader type sinister and serious villain, and gameplay team wants you to be able to hilariously slap him into lava in an exaggerated arc when dialogue ends. Writers want to go deep with characters like Wyll and really explore what making a pact with a devil means, while gameplay team wants you to be able to respec him into a Bard because Bards have fun abilities. Writers want to craft a serious story about giving in to dark temptations and murder but gameplay team wants inconsequential death and incinerated PC's teleported back to camp for a cheap rez.

I get the feeling they have been fighting the D&D system until the very end of development and never truly embraced it. That would explain the late changes to major features. They don't believe in D&D or understand why it would be such a breath of fresh air with 99% of games still suffering from MMO PTSD and trying to become them even when they are not massively multiplayer.

I also fear I will be completely let down by the gameplay of BG3 and that it will kill all replayability value the game might otherwise have.

What’s the starting salary for virtual testicle physicist?

So, since this thread seems to be about multiclassing... im curious, in 5E, your level in a class decides when you get a feat, for example if im level 2rogue, and level 3 fighter, i wouldent have got a feat yet, as in DnD 5e, its tied to having 4levels in a class...and giving you a feat every four... so the franken build of muticlassing as 12 classes wouldent in 5E get any feats... do anyone know how larian will handle this ?

Yes, this seems to be the case. I’m not sure if many people realize this is how the game works. I’ve seen lots of people posting builds that are like 3/3/6 and wondering if they realize they are limiting themselves to 1 feat or stat boost. It’s for reasons like this that respecing is necessary.

<SNIP>
Also yeah the status req removal will just make people get confused with scaling. Dont understand why their spellcasting is being ass or why his weird wizard is not managing to hit anything because he dumped STR and decided to pick levels in fighter.

No need for a respec to every fart you do, just put a warning window when you pick your first multiclass level saying YOU NEED 4 LEVELS IN THE CLASS IN ORDER TO GET YOUR NEXT FEAT. In bold red letters.

Also yeah the status req removal will just make people get confused with scaling. Dont understand why their spellcasting is being ass or why his weird wizard is not managing to hit anything because he dumped STR and decided to pick levels in fighter.

Yea, if they even realice they missed out on the feats... im fairly sure some will play through the game not realicing why their struggling, or how feats work...

i mean you can do a 4/4/4 and get all feats as of 5e...
but a 3/1/3/1 would not get a single feat as of 5e...
or a 2/3/7 would only get one feat as of 5e...

my point is, do people understand its class levels that give feats and not character levels in 5e...

The biggest flaw of BG3 imo is the dissonance between gameplay and storytelling, like they are making two different games. Writers want to present Nere as a Darth Vader type sinister and serious villain, and gameplay team wants you to be able to hilariously slap him into the lava in an exaggerated arc when the dialogue ends. Writers want to go deep with characters like Wyll and really explore what making a pact with a devil means, while gameplay team wants you to be able to respec him into a Bard because Bards have fun abilities. Writers want to craft a serious story about giving in to dark temptations and murder but gameplay team wants inconsequential death and incinerated PC's teleported back to camp for a cheap rez.

Yeah, I love to build characters and lose myself a little bit in the process.

As far as the multi-classing concerns:

1. I don't care about the stat requirement stuff.

2. The spell progression issue is something we need to learn more about. Right now, I'm not sure we have anything official about the way it's working. But yes, if you take one level of Wizard and then 11 levels of cleric and end up with 6th level spells in each, that will probably end up getting addressed in a future patch. It's just, that sounds so ridiculous to me that I don't think it's worth worrying about until we know what the actual system is.