Originally Posted by ExarchofJustice
Originally Posted by NinthPlane
Originally Posted by lamaros
Let's be real, BG3 is a far far far far far better game than Solasta.

Solasta does some stuff well that Larian can learn from, but only in select areas.

If better cinematics, a complex story, and player agency = better game then okay.

But, Larian is SO MUCH BIGGER than Owlcat and Tactical Adventures. So, I don't understand why we can't have as many subclasses as Pathfinder and a combat system as well done as Solasta along with the BG3 cinematics.

Because Pathfinder works with top down sprites low quality models with a good but not complete range of voice acting.. BG3 uses motion trackers for theyre 3 models's facial expressions and most animations. AND most of pathfinder subclasses only reuse mechanics from other classes for the most part. Bloodrager is a Barbarian/Sorcerer, Skald is a Barbarian/Bard ect. While DnD 5e bring in brand new mechanics that needs to be programmed in.

Not to mention that we'll mainly (or even only) get the subclasses from the PHB, which drastically limits the subclass choices that are available. Some of them also would make little sense in EA, since we're limited to level 4. Take the third subclass for Fighter, for example... the only feature he'd get at this point is increased critical range (19-20). Hardly something that requires testing in EA. Sure, they could add the missing caster subclasses (which admittedly would make sense), but aside from them most classes have just 2-3 subclasses in the PHB.