Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback This game is far too easy to cheese

Hes not wrong tho ...

If my cat take a dump in the middle of the room, I prefer to clean it up, rather then just walk around it. It's not a big issue, but I would rather not see it, and not have to walk around everytime I want to cross my room. Just a quirk of mine, I suppose.

Wow. Kinda crazy how it blew up like this.

So, here I go again. Let's get something straight first. I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out why yes you can blame the game. It was simply an observation based on personal experience.

If you play basketball with certain rules, like the actual rules, for years and then someone comes along and tells you that you can suddenly just grab the ball and run with it without dribbling, that throws off your entire game. It's therefore not your fault, per SE, but the fault of the one changing the rules.

If I play Tabletop and everyone is pulled into combat and gets 1 surprise round, even if you aren't able to attack because you're in the next room and unseen by enemies, and that's how 100% of turn-based cRPGs play as well, then it messes up your gameplay when you play BG3 and suddenly that's not how it is. You don't LOOK at who is actually in combat because you expect everyone is. So you take your turn and watch your enemies move and then suddenly realize, "Holy crap! They're all attacking my MC because my other characters aren't drawn into battle too, and none of them have had a turn yet and it's already round 2 of combat and my MC is now mostly dead. Well frick!"

This has happened to me numerous times since I started EA, and it's gotten better but still happens. Yes. After over a year and a half, you'd think I'd be used to it, but when I play Pathfinder and Solasta and XCom and Shadowrun and every other turn-based game while waiting for BG3 to be released, I again get used to all party members pulled into combat when 1 is. So it's super easy to forget each time I try BG3 again.

If they don't change it, whatever. I'll get used to it, but it IS a thing.

Please don't use this line of logic to argue against the rules in BG3. Although it is true that many BG3 rules are different than tabletop 5e, using different rules isn't inherently bad. You lose familiarity for some tabletop 5e enthusiasts, sure, but this loss can easily be made up for by an improvement in rules, or just a change that makes things different in an interesting way. E.g., BG3's Ranger is different than tabletop, but widely regarded to be an improvement.

My, and many forum posters', arguments against BG3 are context-less: many BG3 mechanics are bad on their own merits. I won't repeat the reasons here because they've been stated multiple times ITT.

Or, if you really want to blame the game's changed rules, blame any (lack of) tooltips and in-game glossary. Any rule should be clearly explained in game, especially rules that differ from the system the video game is based on.

If I game every week with Timmy, Sally, and Nick and then one week Nick isn't there, it doesn't take me a round or two of combat to notice. That's all I'm saying.

I see the reductionists are out in full force – ‘if you don’t like it, ignore it’.

Same old faces, too, bar maybe one new recruit.

An exploit is a problem because it translates into a failing of intelligence on either a design or an AI level. Something a human player can do to mess with the system hasn’t been anticipated, so there’s a hole in what you would expect to be an airtight tactical experience.

In other words, it’s more entertaining if the game reacts to some attempted exploit in a self-aware way. It deepens the immersion, makes you feel like you’re playing against a thinking creature, not just a bit of binary – yes, it’s an illusion, but who doesn’t like well-crafted suspension of disbelief?

I don’t play this game as a substitute for real life, as I believe a fraction of people do, unhealthily and with some comedic pomposity about it to boot. I can’t relate to how that situation could materialise, but I do think the types who’ll cut your throat out for suggesting the game’s balance and mechanics aren’t quite perfect are merely part of a vocal minority. Most of the comments I’ve read seem to be of the ‘exploits should be adjusted’ variety.

I think part of the backlash towards addressing exploits is rooted in a fear that the suggested corrections may be taken on board. I’ve seen plenty of good ideas to tackle the exploits, so I won’t repeat any. And I’ve mentioned exploits I found myself with the familiars that should definitely invite a reaction from the AI.

Thing is, I’ve a feeling every design decision we witness now, bar some minor tweaks, is the end product until the inevitable ‘definitive edition’ that all moderns RPG’s receive 1-2 years after the full release is proven to be a balance-shitshow.

I haven’t played the game properly in months, mind – so either way, I don’t care whether they balance these exploits. My world won’t come crashing down if they don’t. But we’re all entitled to our opinions, and my two cents is I’d rather they do something about these pseudo-cheats, preferably based on the reasonable adjustments I’ve read both here and elsewhere.

Ok. Fine. No Tabletop. I reword:

Wow. Kinda crazy how it blew up like this.

So, here I go again. Let's get something straight first. I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out why yes you can blame the game. It was simply an observation based on personal experience.

If you play basketball with certain rules, like the actual rules, for years and then someone comes along and tells you that you can suddenly just grab the ball and run with it without dribbling, that throws off your entire game. It's therefore not your fault, per SE, but the fault of the one changing the rules.

If I play turn-based video games and 100% of turn-based cRPGs play a certain way, then it messes up your gameplay when you play BG3 and suddenly that's not how it is. You don't LOOK at who is actually in combat because you expect everyone is in combat because that's how all the other cRPGs play. So you take your turn and watch your enemies move and then suddenly realize, "Holy crap! They're all attacking my MC because my other characters aren't drawn into battle too, and none of them have had a turn yet and it's already round 2 of combat and my MC is now mostly dead. Well frick!"

This has happened to me numerous times since I started EA, and it's gotten better but still happens. Yes. After over a year and a half, you'd think I'd be used to it, but when I play Pathfinder and Solasta and XCom and Shadowrun and every other turn-based game while waiting for BG3 to be released, I again get used to all party members pulled into combat when 1 is. So it's super easy to forget each time I try BG3 again.

If they don't change it, whatever. I'll get used to it, but it IS a thing.


Hmm. I don't see the parallel here. Seems more way off the mark and doesn't relate. I can play chess with Timmy, Sally and Nick and then one week later I can play chess with Billy and still play the exact same game with all of them because I'm playing the game by the same expected rules. Now if Henry comes along and starts making the Knight move like the Queen, suddenly I have a totally different experience.

As Fuji pointed out, it's one thing to change rules and do something different if there is a beforehand explanation. Basically tooltips. Then it's like, "Oh. This game is different than other games. They're playing by different rules. Now those different rules have been communicated and I understand them and I can rethink my play style."

But when Henry starts playing by his own rules and he doesn't explain those rules and you don't agree to them, that's when you have a problem.

Anyway, like I said, I've gotten more used to it after 500, or is it 600 hours now... By the gods!... Have I really wasted that much time on this game? I must really like it. Ahem. All I'm saying is that it is understandable that people might be frustrated that the game doesn't draw all characters into combat. And yes, because it doesn't play as expected, it can be blamed.

And what's more, getting back to topic, if the rules are easily exploited, it means they weren't well thought out or implemented, making the game broken and messy. Imagine chess with major exploit rules. "Well, the pawn can only move one space, unless he's next to the Bishop. Then he can kill everyone in a straight line in any direction. Checkmate. The king is in a straight line from the pawn and can't move because he is surrounded by his own peeps.". That's broken and boring because whoever goes first CAN always win. The player who goes first COULD play by non-broken rules, but in the player's mind he/she always knows he/she CAN simply exploit that one OP move and win. It thus really cheapens the experience.

And you are just as wrong as in every other example you created.
Of couse it is your fault ... entirely ... you said it yourself you "can" > therefore you choose to do, or do not.

This is simply not true and you know it ...

And the idea that maybe you arent doing something corectly still didnt ocur? O_o

Speaking about "NOT changing rules" ... how? O_o

I dunno ... maybe i read something wrong, but even tho i completely agree with Fuji that rules in BG-3 should be comunicated clearer ...

It seems to me that his first paragraph is basicaly trying to say Tabletop DnD ruleset =/= Baldur's Gate 3 ruleset ...
And since we all should know and see that is true ...
Maybe core of your problem isnt that someone is "changing" the rules ... maybe the problem is that you were expecting to play Chess (tabetop DnD), but sit on the table where we play Draughts (BG-3) ... then your confusion about rules is understandable, but keep complaining about that this is not how it goes in different game isnt really helping anything. :-/ How about for a change try to figure out how thigs work in THIS game? :-/
But maybe im reading it wrong.

The expression "it's on me" may be ambiguous, because it can refer to responsibility (I need to do this thing) or blame (I'm the cause of this thing).

Yes, it's my responsibility to make sure the whole party gets involved in combat. It's also my responsibility to select equipment, pick spells and abilities, think about placement and targets. Those things are on me even if the game makes me do all of these things. The core design decision to include those things in BG3 is on the game.

My point was this part of the screen has exactly one piece of info relevant to combat. Between battlefield configurations, status effects, toggle positions (god forbid you have a bard) that's a lot to take in from several different zones and tabs. So yeah, I should just add the left panel to the mental checklist, even though it's not always relevant. But dang! how much admin do I need to do before I can cast my cool spell?

C) Have an invisible PC
D) Suffer a random bug

Those things are only visible when you select the character that's out of combat. By then, yeah, I'd have noticed they were missing. But if I just cycle through combat by clicking End Turn, I never get to see the change in buttons you mention.

Who's fighting and who's not fighting are different pieces of information. I'd settle for a line in the combat log : "Combat start! Gale isn't in initiative."

That's fair. Again, a line in the combat log shouldn't be too intrusive.

What do you suggest? To fix all the exploits you deem OP? Where do you draw the line there's so many of them .
BG3 obviously has alot of common with the Divinity games and having alot of freedom seems to be a core feature of Larian games in general. They'd have to rework the entire game , put countless limitations on everything so Big Brother Larian can watch over your shoulder, railroading your every step(like certain other studios), is that what you prefer? I've read exploits here such as 100% shove from stealth or character not entering combat allowing to cheese fights being mentioned on the forums time after time, yet in all my 7 playthroughs I never felt the need to metagame exploit the limitations of the game. Suppose I just approach games differently from others? Each to their own I guess.

I see it just the same as reloading quicksaves, bad roll? Fight not going your way? Had to use a resurrection scroll early on? Just reload and now I don't have to deal with consequences . Imho the biggest cheat in the game this, yet you can ignore it as well. Games is what you make of it.

Perhaps another thread is warranted such as; "BG3 and future games shouldn't be a sandbox here's why..." rather than argue about cheese mechanics in a game that is set up and designed around you being able to cheese.
For example there's a loading screen tooltip mentioned that fights can spill over to different areas, dragging more npcs into the fight.This could also be considered a cheese by luring a tough enemy into a town for ez kill... or simply as a "fun" feature.

But ... they are included ... arent they? O_o

Depends on your playstyle ... aka your decision.

Starting from none > if you keep your group together at all time.
Up to many, depending on how much different activities you do with your characters separately.

I see litteraly no difference between stealthing and invisibility ... in matter of joining or not joining initiative order.

And yes, bugs sucks ... but bugs are hardly intentional, are they?

Obviously ...

Im not sure what is your point here.
Did you really just criticized part of UI wich purpose is to control single character actions that it is focused on single chracter only? o_O

What are you talking about? O_o
The second you enter combat, those buttons change ... there is no flee combat button, if you arent in combat ... aswell as there is no end turn button, if you arent in turn based mode.
And i would dare to say "Duh" here. O_o

Sounds acceptable to me.

//Edit:
+Bzillion ... well said!

TLDR; Whether they're left in on purpose or not, exploits are still flaws and mistakes, and it's not, in principle, unreasonable to want them gone.

I think the reason this issue bugs me is less the individual exploits and more the sum of their parts. Whatever your actual opinion on them is, this game does have quite a lot of exploits. Stealth, shove mechanics, wizards being able to use every scroll, the barter system, etc. Exploits are, almost by definition, places where the player finds ways to game the system and make it do things that aren't really intended. Every game has these to some extent, and in a broad sense, that's fine. No game is perfect and no devs will be able to predict or account for the myriad ways their massive player base will be able to mess with stuff. It's unreasonable to expect the devs to deal with every exploit and flaw in their games and sometimes there isn't even a way for them to address a thing without breaking something else.

But again, this game has a LOT of exploits compared to most other crpgs I've played. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of exploits compared to a lot of other genre's of game. Larian may keep them in because they think they're fun, but that doesn't change the fact they're flaws. Sure, flaws can provide fun times, but that doesn't make them any less flaws, it just means they're flaws that worked out for the better. They're happy accidents. But if you trip and push someone aside before they get hit by a falling object, that's not heroism, nor do I think leaving in flaws that might improve the game experience is good game design. It's dumb luck, mixed with enough wisdom to recognize that things worked out for you. But despite all that, I have a fundamental problem on principle with the idea that we as players should just ignore flaws if they're bothering us. Larian is, whether actively or passively, allowing mistakes and flaws into the game. And I think that just on principle, people are right to not want flaws in their games. They should be realisitic in understanding that flaws are inevitable, but with BG3, I don't think it's unrealistic at all to want fewer flaws than already exist.

In my opinion these exploits are, in principle, not much different from outright bugs. I'm sure there are people who find certain bugs to be amusing. And there are things like clipping bugs in other games that people even find fun in, such as speedrunners. But that does not make them any less mistakes, things that fundamentally don't belong in the game and in an ideal world would not exist in the games. It doesn't matter if I can avoid them, I shouldn't have to because they shouldn't exist, and given the number of exploits that exist in the game and the amount of money Larian has been provided, and comparing that all to similar games in the genre, I don't believe that Larian has put reasonable effort into trying to remove them.

I also believe that not every game is meant for every person. For some people, Baldur's Gate just on its merits isn't going to be a game they enjoy due to things like the story, the graphics and art diretion, etc. I think if you don't like BG3 for those reasons, you just shouldn't play the game. Those are fundamental parts of the experience that Larian is crafting, and changing them is either impractical or just goes entirely against what Larian is aiming for with the game. These exploits aren't that. They weren't designed in, they weren't choices built into the engine, they were flaws that Larian decided to leave. If those flaws were removed, they would not fundamentally impact the game, for the most part. As a result, when people find these exploits negatively impacting their experience, I believe it's on Larian for allowing the problem to stay, not them for being unable to ignore it. It's not an advertised, part and parcel aspect of the game, it's just a thing that popped up. It's like if you bought a car and it makes a weird sound when you drive at a certain speed. Sure you could ignore it, but if it upsets you, it's not your fault for not being able to ignore it.

Sorry this turned into such a rant. I really wasn't expecting it, but that's my opinion on the whole issue of cheese and exploits.

They're included for now, in EA. They could still change (maybe?) hence the feedback.

This deserves clarification. As I understood your point, big buttons around the hotbar change significantly in and out of combat, which would make it easy to see who's in combat or not.

If this is your point, here's my counterpoint: Combat starts with your first PC in initiative, their hotbar clearly in "combat mode". The flow then follows initiative, going from hotbar in "combat mode" to hotbar in "combat mode". If I just click End Turn instead of manually selecting a PC who's not in combat, the game doesn't show me a hotbar that's not in "combat mode" before combat is over.

Relying on icons the game doesn't show in its normal flow isn't ideal. Just clicking End Turn is how I find myself going for a round or two before the "teacher's sense" you mentioned kicks in and I realize someone's on the sideline.

Ugh. You REALLY like to tell people they are wrong. I especially loved the "and you know it" part.

To all this I say, "I'm tired. It's been almost 2 years now - 2 years of people who like to keep telling me I'm complaining and act like I hate this game. 2 years of arguing when I never wanted to argue. You know, 90% of every post I ever made out here was meant to bring up observations and feedback and suggestions. I NEVER wanted to argue or debate or have a negative complain versus praise Larian fight with anyone."

2 years of getting insulted too, like I just have no intelligence. "Get gud. It's in you. Stop attacking the game."

This is a suggestion forum. Iron sharpens iron. If you want something to get better, you point out what you think are flaws. This entire post is about how there are mechanics that people feel are broken. My whole point is that I support their suggestions that there are still plenty of exploits that need fixing. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Who says they're not intended? You seem to be jumping to a conclusion here, assuming all these things you don't prefer are mistakes.

Mistakes that Larian found and thought, "Oh well, what a happy accident, let's leave it."

If these things are there on purpose then they are not, by definition, mistakes. They are features and options you don't like.

Now, it's not unreasonable to want things you don't like to go. But equally, it's not unreasonable for other people to want them to stay.


At the end of the day if a player keeps doing this, all I can ask is, "How's that working out for you?" Is it possible things might work better if you adopted a different playstyle, one that included checking to see who all is in the initiative order?

For me, it's like saying, "When combat starts, I always neglect to equip my fighter with a weapon. So it takes me a round or two to realize he's fighting with his bare knuckles."

Regarding a line in the combat log... while I'm not against it, I can't help but think that if someone isn't paying attention to which characters they have in combat then they're probably not reading the combat log at the start of every fight.

I don't disagree with this take, if some "exploits" impact people's enjoyment of the game, it should be looked at.
But it should not come at the costs of other's enjoyment. If it's an exploit that's so obscure and only being used by players that min-max the hell out of their game, then yes it should probably be fixed because they'd feel they HAVE to utilize it to play "optimally". However there are many things some consider "exploits" while for other's it's a fun feature and just a regular part of the game. I'm worried for losing out on things for the sake of players that cannot help themselves making use of 100% optional features(or exploits depending on one's perspective).

It should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Is that meant to be a defence of how the game is? Is it the same logic that lead to "Bethesda shouldn't fix bugs because there are so many?" What's the point of EA and working in the game further? It doesn't matter if the ruleset works, it is MEANT to be broken!

I disagree that Larian games provide any novel amount of freedom, and no one I can think of is arguing to reduce amount of options the game provides. I just wish for some of those options to be governed by a finer ruleset. Larian has already addressed some of the complaints - advantage from highground, jump/disengage were combined, advantage from standing behind enemies, this is all stuff that's been in BG3, it's been changed and the game is for the better.

I am also not against having "broken" stuff in the game - it is not a competitive title, but there should be some kind of baseline decent experience. Finding a build that "breaks" the game can be satisfying in itself. My personal issue with stealth isn't that someone can exploit it, it is that I just don't find it enjoyable and rewarding to use - attacking from stealth means manually adding 4 characters into battle one by one, and hearing 4 times in quick succession battle initiation. Having characters both in real time and turn based systems just feels off to me. I have played the game for over 100h ours and it always feels wrong.


I wouldn't put it in the same basket:
1) it makes in-universe and systemic sense
2) it will require intention from the player (in my entire playthrough, I think there is only one encoutner when one random NPC might join the fight)
3) While advantegous to the player it can also have negative consequences - the risk of key NPC dying is there.

A more fair comparison would be if combat would regularly attract unintended NPC from neighbouring areas, and player would have to intentionally avoid doing so - that would be a problem and it would be annoying. That's where I feel the stealth is at - I find getting enjoyment out of it very difficult.

But. Why. Does. The. Player. Need. To. Go. Though. The. Hassle. Obviously, if I have my team nearby the encounter I intend them to participate in the encounter.

It's a computer game. The best thing about computer game is that they automate stuff. And yes, if I had to equip weapon on my fighter before every fight, because he used a potion it would be really annoying. I don't see why putting a character in stealth mode, should require me to manually add him to combat. The gmae does it for unstealthed characters, it can do it for stealthed ones. Same result, less hassle => better play experience.

But I don't see it as broken, that's my point. Obviously people have different ideas of what is "broken" and what is not.
The OP's example for instance. I agree that should probably adjusted because under normal circumstances players will not utilize this cheese unless they know about it and have a strong urge to play "optimally".
Other things, such as shove from stealth I think is kinda fun, you push an unaware enemy off a cliff. Makes sense. Not so sure this should be changed.

I feel like you have it backward. If an exploit is obscure and only being used by the most extreme min-maxing players, then it's by definition not affecting most players and thus doesn't need to be changed. But if the exploit is tied to a core game mechanic and is very obviously noted by casual players, then that's stronger reasoning for it to be changed if a large number of those casuals dislike it.

I agree it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis; for each mechanic, ask: "would changing this exploit to be less OP increase overall enjoyment and engagement in our game." And for myself and many others, the answer to that question is "yes," which is the reason why we're posting on this forum to say so.

Many of the exploits present in BG3 either cannot be avoided, make the player have to create rules for themselves, which isn't fun, and/or remove a possible playstyle from the player's repertoire of options.