Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Origin balance?

That's my issue, with all of these "gotcha!" moments, it's just save scumming. As Twerp said above me, Larian is the DM here, and a normal DM would say "uh, so..is anyone going to try to help them..?" but Larian isn't doing that, it's just a game over screen.

Actually a lot of my issues with Pathfinder was constant saving because who knows what the hell was about to gank you with level 30 stats. It turns rpgs less into roleplaying, and more into a trial and error puzzle. to be fair, that can be fun, but it should be somewhat limited imo.

I hope the devs wouldn't listen to that person, at least blindly/using only that reasoning. People reloading a save to re-attempt something doesn't mean they dislike the original difficulty of the thing, especially for an EA game where we're explicitly here to test out everything.

E.g., if there's an optional but incredibly difficult encounter, you're going to see a lot of reloads from people dying it and then trying again. Now, maybe the encounter is too difficult. But maybe it's at a good level of difficulty, and lowering that difficulty to prevent people from needing to reload just makes the encounter less noteworthy as there's no longer a sense of accomplishment from beating it.

In this specific case, in addition to being a hard fight that challenge-seekers might want, the MF eating your brain is a good teachable moment: doing dangerous things can have consequences.

+1 More, not easier, options please.

I've previously suggested that if you fail that persuasion check, you can still notice the intent of the snake to attack (maybe requiring a perception/insight/nature/animal handling check). Then you have the choice to:
- step in between the snake and Arabela, taking the hit
- pre-emptively attack the snake, angering Kagha
- keep trying to persuade Kagha, in which case the snake attacks Arabela

Basically, fail forward. Failing shouldn't strictly remove content, but provide different options for new content (with possibly more consequences).

It is, by the players that don't want to save scum. At least, it should be, right? If "I don't like a certain playstyle" is a valid argument, then "Don't do it" should be as well, right? My "save scumming is limited to things like big fights or boss fights, where I may not want to replay several hours of the game if something in one of those encounters goes sideways, or if the game crashes, something that happens quite a bit in FO 4 for example. How many times do I have to replay x amount of game hours because someone else doesn't like save scumming, and managed to get a "you can only create a hard save every x hours"? When I neglect to do it in FO 4, and the game crashes, or worse, I die, I don't just automatically replay 3 hours of game. I quit, and go do something else.

I have previously suggested the same.

That ... plus post-bite option to either Heal Arabella (sacrificing spell slot) or Neutralizing Poison, for wich we also have spells (i just dont remember the name ).

Not saving Arabella isn't a game over screen. It gives you a solid reason to side with the tieflings in a major conflict against the druids.

These days, I feel like you practically have to try to let Arabella die. I don't remember the last time I wasn't able to save her.

I'll grant that the mind flayer scene was harsh, but it taught a valuable lesson, and let's face it, you're swimming in revivify scrolls. Which I never actually have to use, by the way, cause I can't remember the last time I had a character die in the game.

As for Nettie's poison, that's also not a game over moment. There are ways to neutralize the poison. That scene made Nettie an interesting character. She was willing to kill you and spark a serious conflict because of the tadpole. That scene had meaning and purpose in the game. Now, like the Arabella scene, you have to try to get her to poison you. You have to carefully navigate the options choosing the unlikely path that leads to that outcome.

Not exactly the point ...

Its about options ... to have enough choices so you can roleplay the character you want and so those choices have meaning.

Like here ... you either persuate Kagha ... or snake persuate Kagha for you ... but if your character is particulary bad in persuating you are screwed and forced to watch child die.
It doesnt matter how easy the roll is ... what matter is what you can do.

It is easier to see on other examples.

Take Tiefling kids ...
You can either lie that you never ever seen any kids ... wich alone is quite stupid in camp that is crawling with them ... or you can acceptthem framing you for harassing them after you didnt let them steal from you.
How can you roleplay honest paladin with those options?

Take Grymforge ...
Unless you have agreement with Duergar before you save Nere ... no matter what you say it allways end in fight with them.
I mean its okey if multiple chpices leads to the same rwsult ... but if its all of thwm then there is no choice. :-/

Take first meeting with Astarion ...
You can either accept his apollogy ... or accept it ... or accept it ...
And i just have to add its not even credible one. :-/

---

In general ... and it pains me that i have to say it again Swen is a bad DM.
Personaly i believe that in GOOD RPG where our decisions matter ... players should allways have option to say "no i dont accept this" ... and when they do the game should respond with "okey ... here is what you can do about it".