Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Sorcerer dialogue... a little less arrogant?

Maybe sorcerers are just known for being very full of themselves, but I find that alot of the Sorcerer-exclusive dialogue only let's the PC come across as...well...a bit of an arse.

Could either existing dialogue be changed to something less confrontational (for example in dialogues with Gale), or one additional, and "nice", dialogue option added?

Isnt there enough nice and non-confrontational dialogues that arent [Sorcerer] specific? O_o

Sure, I choose those options instead. But it's more of a comment of why Sorcerer-specific dialogue is often so arrogant.

It’s a while since I did my sorcerer run so don’t really recall this. I think with Gale there’s a bit of wizard/sorcerer rivalry going on and Gale no doubt thinks his way is better too, but perhaps it’s a bit overstated.

I’ll look out for this when I eventually get round to my dragon heritage sorcerer playthrough.

As you said:


I mean that is just what [specific] dialogue choices are ...
You either are typical member of said group that choice refers to, or you need to pick something else.

Thats imho also rason we have so little [Human] specific dialogues ...
Since its not so easy to poit your finger on "typical Human behaviour"

Just the usual BG3 class specific lines issue, where they have little to do with class you picked and more with personality Larian came up for that class.

This! I thought it was some fun wizard/sorcerer rivalry. Gale doesn’t seem upset by it.

I would be happy to have additional types of sorcerer lines added, though. The more the better!😊

It's as Wormerine says - Larian have decided on a fir, fixed and quite visibly larger-than-life personality for each class, and they map that onto the player character with the class dialogue lines - they don't care what personality your personal character might actually have - if you want to say something relevant to your class, you have to say it through the personality that Larian have envisioned.


I agree - Gale actually seems a bit wistful about it at times, even - appreciative, but often responding in the way you might talk to someone who has something that you do not, but want.

Consider also - Gale was an arch-wizard, and developed a personal spell that allowed him to actually feel, tangibly, the flow of the weave directly - he had to develop this spell because that is something that wizards traditionally don't actually do or experience, not in the same direct way that sorcerers do... it seems like it's not a high level spell, but it is a complex one that doesn't always work quite right (or maybe this is a testament to his reduced abilities), but when he's talking to your sorcerer, he's constantly aware that he's talking to someone who just has that always-on, all the time, as easy as breathing... and what he would not give for that. At least, that's the impression I get.

This hardly seems fair ...
What are they suppose to do? Create 9 lines so each potential aligment is represented, for each class, each race, and generic stuff? That would mean 18 Dialogue options PER SCENE! :-/

I think Larian just don’t always get the balance right between giving a line that is reasonable for many different people of your class to say, and ones that come with too much baggage in the way of an assumed personality. I don’t think that every time there’s a class-specific line that it needs to be suitable for every member of the class (that would be asking for blandness) or that there always needs to be different class-specific lines for different alignments. It’s perfectly reasonable that in some situations, say, there may be something an evil rogue would say whereas a good or neutral rogue wouldn’t say anything different from any other class. But I can perfectly understand if people feel short-changed if all or most of the class-specific lines don’t feel right for their character. There ought to be lines in some situations for a chaotic good, Robin Hood type rogue, etc, as well as ones where a ruthless criminal would see an opportunity. I did play a deep gnome rogue who wasn’t a criminal, but was very stealthy and good with traps and perception, and most of the rogue lines just didn’t fit her.

I’ve generally found, though, that there have been enough relevant class and race lines I can use to keep me satisfied. But maybe I’ve unconsciously played into rather than against stereotypes and that certainly shouldn’t be the only way to get full benefit of the class flavour in the dialogue.

I dont ...
Not if that line they wish for is right there, and its just missing [class] or [race] tag next to it ...

I mean if you get to situation where you have NO way to express you acording to your character, THAT is a problem! No questions about it ...
To present some example:
- You can either accept Astarion apology
- or accept Astarion apology
- or deny Astarion apology (in wich case Astarion, rest of the conversation and whole world will act as if you accepted his apology ... therefore accept Astarion apology)
> That is bad dialogue that should be fixed.

But if all you want is to answer politely to Gale ... and you have there polite option just next to [Sorcerer] *smug snarky coment* ...
Simply pick that polite option and your character remain unchanged ...
Yes, you dont play *typical Sorcerer imagined by Larian* ... question is: So what? O_o

Class and Race specific dialogue options are just stereotypes ... and allways has ben:
Paladins will be benevolent, no matter what ...
Clerics will be religious, no matter what ...
Rogues will be sneaky and trickery, no matter what ...
Etc.

And your character either fit one, or dont.

Yes but both Robin Hood and your Gnome Rogue are exeptions ... and you simply cant have prepared dialogue for all possible exceptions.

Especialy for class as Rogue is ...
I mean Rogue *can* technicaly be anything ... assasin, robber, pickpocketer, beggar, wanderer, blade dancer, acrobat, spy, thief, i dunno ... technicaly even ninja, spellcaster, trickster, charlatan, insurance agent ... options are limitless.
(And i refuse any argument about Shadow-Monk make better ninja ... Rogue can be ninja, period! :P )

How can you create class specific dialogue for something like that?
The answer is simple ... you dont.

You create good, neutral and evil dialogue ... (or you should, even tho it seems like Larian didnt do even that sometimes ... see the example abowe) ...
Then you pick some archetypes for each class and race ...
And from time to time you add that racial, or class...ial? dialogue option to mixure, to spice things up a little.
Either people will fit your archetype, or they simply need to work with what else they have at their disposal.

I fully appreciate the challenges and the limitations, but still believe there are improvements that can be made. It’s not about individually crafting dialogue specific to every flavour of rogue you might play, but by creating the illusion of this by having dialogue options where appropriate that reflect different aspects a rogue might have, such as light-fingered, stealthy, deft, murderous and so on and considering where players might reasonably think that these aspects would lead to different things to say or do. As I said, I don’t think Larian have done a bad job here, but I do feel they’ve sometimes focussed on some features of classes at the expense of others, resulting in missing potential class-specific dialogue that could be really satisfying.

Another example is the ranger, where from what I recall a lot of their specific dialogue is around nature which my ranger couldn’t give two hoots about. But he was a hunter, which is another thing many rangers are, and that didn’t seem to lead to much in the way of specific dialogue or actions, though I think it has some great potential to do so.

EDIT: I just realised I’d got carried away talking about rogues and rangers in a topic about sorcerers. Apologies! I wish I could recall my sorcerer playthrough better so I could be more relevant. I played a wild mage and recall there being some “embrace chaos” type lines I enjoyed and fitted my character, but don’t recall there being lines that might have suited a sorceror less comfortable with their magic and who felt it was threatening to control them - which could be the case for either wild mage or draconic. Maybe that’s just because I wasn’t playing that kind of sorceror, but if not then I do think it should be considered and potentially lead to dialogue options in different places and would also probably be less arrogant.

EDIT2: I also agree that there are places where there are dialogue options just plain missing for all characters, and that should be the priority for fixing. But there should be scope to do that and enhance the class/race reactivity Larian has already put so much effort into.

A simple fix is just to not have a constant tone/personality for all of a specific [Class]'s dialogue lines. E.g., Some [Sorcerer] options are arrogant, others are more neutral, others are more joking, etc. There's still only be one or two [Sorcerer] options in any set of responses.

This way, a player wouldn't *always* have to make the choice between roleplaying their PC's personality and choosing the class specific dialogue. Sometimes the [Sorcerer] dialogue would match up with your PC's personality, and other times you could pick a different dialogue option. Best of both worlds.

Edit: So essentially what @The_Red_Queen was arguing

Agreed. That was one of the points I was trying to make, but you did it much more pithily!

No? Just keep class options relevant to the class itself. Your job is not your personality. Alas, it's not like Larian will rewrite entire game, so it is what it is.

I dont say its impossible ... my english is nowhere near enough to judge that.
But im not entirely ure if you really can make any dialogue choice reflecting any of those things ... WHILE you continue in dialogue ... AND dont reflect any characteristic. :-/
And the only way i can imagine would make our characters dull. :-/

Actualy i think this is perfect example ...
It wouldnt probably be hard to write some responce for Hunter ... but how to distinguish that line for Ranger-hunter, from Rogue-hunter, or Fighter-hunter?

See what i mean?
Anyone can have high dexterity and primarily use a Bow ... therefore they are hunters (actualy even person with high Str and Spear can be a hunter, but not the point here) ...
So what distinguish Rangers from them?
They are hybrid spellcasters > they have connection to Nature.
And thats what their dialogue options focus on ...

Even tho i would apreciate option to tell that Tiefling practicing with sword in grove, that maybe he should try Bow instead.

Yeah i was kinda expecting someone will say this ...
And dont take it as if i disagree ... i would call my standing to this aproach, careful ... that sounds like good word.

Since once you start adding flawoured options, people will allways demand more.
There will allways be yet another person demanding different option bcs "nothing quite fits his character well enough" ...

I dont say that this would be bad aproach, not at all ...
On the contrary it might be the best one ... but still, you need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise you stuck in endless loop ... and as long as there are "less arogant" options (as OP asked) present, just not marked with [Sorcerer] ... i wouldnt call it necesary.

As i said abowe, if there is a dialogue where you get stuck in situation where your character cant pick any option at all ... well, thats a problem that should be fixed asap ...
And if Larian during that fixing finds a way to give there another class, or racial dialogue option ... even better!

But as long as there is present option to pick ...
Im sory if that offend anyone, but it seems like making a mountain out of a molehill (translation suggested via google) ...

And since i know there is LOTS of conversations where Larian is simply pushing us into corner and forcing us to pick out of not-suitable options ... i would honestly preffer them to focus there first.

I'm on the opposite side of the scale, I love the snarky sorcerer dialogue as that is how I personally imagine sorcerers. Is it a beaten trope...sure...is it beaten enough...hell no

I think the issue really is that Larian's class-specific dialogue kind of pushes us into playing one brand of that class, and if we're not playing that class, then the solution is to pick from the same dialogue as everyone else, which takes away some of the fun of that class. It's not an issue that I tend to come across in other games that offer class or background specific dialogue, such as Pillars of Eternity. I think one way that Larian could improve is to add more class specific dialogue that's just talking about things your class would know. There will always be edge cases of course, but if there were situations where say, our sorceror can, without arrogance, identify things that they would know because of their connection to the weave, then that'd go a ways to improving the situation, I feel.

There are two different kinds of feedback: (1) this is broken, please fix it and (2) this is a really nice feature, with a bit of work it could be great. To achieve its potential as a game, BG3 is going to have to fix the broken things like scenarios where there’s simply no suitable dialogue option for some characters, but also have stand out things that it does brilliantly. For me, dialogue specific to characters’ race, class and background has the potential to be one of those things, but isn’t there yet. You ask some good questions, to which I believe there are good answers, and also say there’s going to be a limit to how far Larian can go in in adding this flavour, which is obviously true. But we clearly disagree about whether we’ve already got to the point where diminishing returns make it not worth investing further time and effort in a feature.

Given that you don’t think it’s a priority, and that I’ve probably done enough off-topic discussion of the character-specific dialogue in general in this thread, I won’t respond to your points in detail. But I reserve the right to my opinion both that there are cost-effective ways that the feature could be improved and that I believe it’s worth Larian spending some time and effort implementing them.

Perhaps it could help if they simply remove the tag title from the dialogue option. The options to say the same things will be there depending on what you are playing, but the potential disconnect for the player would not exist since the game is not attempting to tell you what it thinks you "should" say.