Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Wolfheart's feedback on QoL

What you describe is how the game has been working since the food/long rest mechanic was implemented. The biggest impact food system made is reduce amount of healing items in combat (good!) - it made little to no impact when it comes to limiting rests. Making the process of resting less tedious wouldn't have impact on current ruleset. The rules responsible for that are as follows:

1) You need 40 food for the long rest
2) Any item can be sent to stash from anywhere
3) stash can be access during long rest
4) there is no mechanical incentive or benefit to carrying food with you

Those will remain, whenever interacting with the food interface is tedious or not. If you want to fix the problem you need to adust the rules above.

Food could be made more valuable by making it more scarse - so make it more of a limited resource, rather than have it in abundace as it is now. Maybe that's what Larian is planning - they could adjust the numbers, they could make food more expensive to acquire in later acts. Really, Larian has a multitude of ways of adjusting of modifying the system - having this system be tedious to interact with brings nothing of value. You can't even argue from the point of view of "immersion", as stash itself (and camp) defies any laws of logic. If you want to advocate modifing the ruleset - by all means do, I might even support it. But opposing Quality of Life improvements just because removing tediousness of the system would make it even more transparent how poorly designed it is? Comeon.


I have listed set of rules governing the system, but I will repeat it here:
1) You need 40 food for the long rest
2) Any item can be sent to stash from anywhere
3) stash can be accessed in the camp
4) there is no mechanical incentive or benefit to carrying food with you

It is not an exploit, unless you want to argue that at least one of the 4 rules I have listed is a bug. Poorly designed system, yes, but not an exploit.

Precicely.
No rule broken, negated, nor bypassed > not an exploit.

Same story over and over ...
No rule broken, negated, nor bypassed > not an exploit.

Your group have some capacity, and they are using it ...

Actually!
To get a bit back on track with QoL changes ...

One of things i would like to see would be:
- Either ability to asign certain item types to certain companions (aka Gale > Scrolls, Shadowheart > Food/consumables, Lae'zel > Equipment, Tav > rest.) so when i open container and press "loot all" (or spacebar i believe?) game will sort items apropriately for my party ...
- OR at very least, when my main character have full carry capacity, i want autoloot to start filling inventory of second character in group ... then third ... and then last ... when everyone is filled, start filling controlled character.
Bcs i simply want to play with my Main character all the time ... it honestly bothers me that i have to take controll over my companions to loot, when my inventory is full.

And no, that wouldnt be exploit.
This is exactly purpose of QoL features ... make easier things you would do anyway.

So if my previous definition didnt suit you ... you can aswell ask:
Would you really travel back and forth with every piece of food you find? I freely admit that i wouldnt.

//Edit:
Wormerine: Allow me to answer you by quote ...
As this is written and presented by me, all thoughts and opinions are my own. So if you disagree with something i have said, that is totally fine. It doesnt mean however that you are right and im wrong ... or vice versa.
*Said by: Lore by Night podcast guy.

And our group has the capacity to send armor and food to the camp. Our encumberance rate is a limitation, and we've given a button to push whose obvious purpose is to help us around that limitation. How is the send to camp button breaking or bypassing a rule and divvying up loot isn't? What's the qualitative difference? It's such a fine one that again, I genuinely don't think anyone is going to ever think about it when they're just playing the game, because it's so minor and easily overlooked. If it's actually not meant to be used that way then the fault lies with Larian for designing it the way they did. It's bad design that leads to a predictable outcome.

I think all your suggestions are good and useful. I wouldn't travel back and forth with every piece of food I find, no. Assuming you mean travel back and forth to put the food in and out of the camp inventory. I do in fact keep all the food on my party of characters because I don't use the camp inventory at all. I don't know which case is actually the camp inventory and I don't want to go to the trouble of figuring it out and then adding another inventory thing to navigate.

Yup, they do.

And as i said before, i dont really care if anyone uses it ... as i keep repeating: Live and let live.
Still concider that to be an exploit tho ... wich is my reason to why i dont expect, nor wish, Larian to make it any more covenient than it allready is.

Quite the oposite to be honest ...
If there should be any adjustment to send to camp button, it should work exactly the other way, make it even less covenient ... like adding a 15 minutes cooldown!
My reasons were explained abowe, i hope there is no reason to repeat them.

Party is.
DnD allways was (as far as my knowledge reach) cooperative game ... one of function for strong party memeber is being pack mule ... that is how things are, and how they allways were.

Party have certain carry limit ... there is little to no reason to concider each member separately, especialy in BG-3 where inventories in our party are shared by all means but graphic.

So divvying things up is moving things within the "box" ... our inventory.
Sending things to camp, is trying to keep our "box" clean by obtaining another transdimensional box with unlimited capacity.
I dont really know how else to explain the difference here.

/shrug
I dont think anyone demanded that, so ... w/e i gues.

Maybe ...
And maybe it was designed this way on purpose and there is no fault.

And no, that people are using it corectly and im utterly wrong is not the only interpretation of that ... its one of them, yes, and i bet its the first one that come to many minds.
But another may be that Larian simply wanted to see how would players act if they get such options ... you know, observe our behaviour and gather data ... just as they said they do.
Another one, wich seems most probable to me, is that they simply dont really care ... since this game (lets be honest) indeed is one HUGE sandbox, where is tons and tons and tons of potential exploits on every stepp.
And maybe, juuust maybe ... its something entirely different. xD

Thank you! ^_^
I wonder if you still feel this way after reading this post. Maybe not "all of them", huh?

Same here ... i mean for food.

Im storing there just those items that i know i will never use again, but just dont want to sell bcs they are too pretty. There is enough gold in EA, so why not. :P

I totally agree with Ragna about food.
Send to camp chest / automatically use the food you have in the resting screen is the cheapest solution to the food supply system.

Still QoL, but QoL for a bad system ! No QoL make the system at least a bit more meaningfull even if more tedious.

A system should not be located between tedious and meaningfull though...

Thanks for the mod idea : Supply Value of all food except camp supplies = 0. Less tedious to manage... more meaningfull !

Even if "sent to camp" was entirely removed, the underlying problem still wouldn't be addressed or even masked.

Assuming one doesn't handicap himself by not using the stash, a player would likely adventure until their inventory is full, than go to camp drop unnecessary items (including food), rest and go on adventuring. "Send to stash" option just allows to do it on a go, spreading tedioum into smaller chunks, rather than one big inventory management every time we rest. At the moment, food is a resource that simply doesn't have a role in the adventuring phase of the game, and is hardly a consideration in the rest phase.


You are entitled to your opinions, including liking the current food system but I will keep ccontesting easily disprovable facts, like calling game's intended ruleset an exploit. I do get what you are saying though - stash trivializes the food system. But as usual I see it as a failure of the game, while you blame players for not coming up with workarounds.

Sorry folks, I’m getting confused now. What is the underlying problem or failure here? Are we now talking about issues with camping and resting as opposed to QoL features? In that case, can we move further detailed discussion to the camping and resting megathread?

Personally I don’t have any issue with Send to Camp, and find it occasionally useful to save me having to revisit camp to drop stuff off. I recognise what Wolfheart says about not being able to right click on items not in containers and send them directly to camp, and can see why some folk might want to be able to multi-select and send to camp or send all food to camp, but these aren’t things I tend to want to do often so while I can imagine scenarios in which I might use that functionality were it available, it’s not high priority for me.

Personally, I see Send to Camp as a QoL feature that can be exploited by players if they wish to circumvent encumbrance and/or loot unrealistically huge amounts of stuff, or can be ignored totally or partially by other players if they wish to make managing encumbrance part of their experience. I’m somewhere in the middle: I like having the option to send to camp when I can justify it to myself as a shortcut, but generally prefer not to loot everything or avoid encumbrance entirely as that spoils my immersion. It took me a while to find a balance that works for me, but I’m now happy the game engine lets me do what I like while also letting those who prefer to strike the balance elsewhere have their fun.

As to the point at which using Send to Camp becomes an exploit rather than simply using the game as intended, that seems a bit fuzzy to me but also unimportant except possibly in multiplayer where participants may need to agree what is and isn’t acceptable for consistency. I’d see using Send to Camp to avoid encumbrance entirely, or to collect every item of food available, as an exploit as I find it hard to believe that Larian intended players to use it that way. And as I don’t think that avoiding encumbrance or collecting massive amounts of unnecessary food are good things to do, I’m not in favour of making changes specifically to make doing so easier. But nor am I in favour of making changes specifically to make these “exploits” harder, when those would remove or restrict a QoL feature that I find helpful. In short, the fact that a particular feature can be used to do stuff I’d personally see as an exploit (though others might just see it as playing the game) isn’t for me a reason to restrict it, as long as I can also see what I think of a valid use case for the feature, which I can for Send to Camp.

In a universe with bags of holding... better inventory management such as send to camp isn't an "exploit", just QOL.
In fact it will be even more important to have better item selection, movement, collating etc.

Ok, moving on.

How do you people feel about spells that combine Action and Bonus Action?
I mean, there are two aspects of this ...

1) As far as i know, most Paladin Smites (actually all of them, except Divine Smite) should work simmilar to Hex, or Hunter's Mark ...
Meaning they should only cost Bonus Action, and their effect should appear after target is hit.

But Larian merged them with their attacks ... minor change, basicaly just QoL ... one button instead of two, right?
One could say that is makes them potentialy slightly better, since when we miss no resource is consumed and we dont have to hold concentration til next round in order to even use them ... but thats not the point here.

I just wonder if we could get same treatment for Hex and Hunter's Mark ...

I freely admit that i quite often forget to apply them before i attack, so have Hexing Strike, or Marking Strike that would simply merge them with regular attack would be most welcomed for me.

2) Spells that take both Action and Bonus Action should be somehow more distinguished on our Hotbar!
I know its a rookie misstake, but i cant even count how often i planned to use Hail of Thorns ... but i insinctively aplied Hunter's Mark on my enemy ... just to see Hail of Thorns become unusable.

Its really uncomfortable to either try to memorize all our spell costs, or keep checking whole hotbar before each decision. :-/

I remember there was a suggestion some time ago, to either shape spell icons, or use different layer collor ... depending on wich resource they use (action or bonus action).
Something like that would be most appreciated.

---

And since we are allready talking about QoL, i just repeat one thing from my coment under Wolf's video that is really important for me.

I don’t have a fully formed opinion on them, but I did run into an issue you describe - planning to use an ability, but using bonus action before releasing that a follow up ability requires it.

You use hotbar far more than myself so you would know better what could be done to improve it. Considering I tend to access skills through drop down menu, adding combined “full/bonus action”would make more sense to myself, but that’s also very problematic - as full/bonus action aren’t a separate resource.

I do wonder, if it would be possible to remove the streamlining - use reaction system, or make it a separate bonus action cast & attack, depending on the skill in question.

Hail of Horns for example is a bonus action spell that augments your next attack - decoupling the two could allow a more flexible action management - use bonus action in one turn, attack the following turn. As buffs require a double click with animation inbetween, it would be tedious to use, though.

Wich reminds me!
(Thank you btw.)

Aproximate one, or maybe two patches back ... Larian decided to remove spell level indicators from spell icons ... you know, those little Roman numerals in bottom right corner of icon ...
Dont really know why ... but i would certainly like to ask them to give them back!
Especialy since icons with those Roman numerals are still part of the game, bcs when you try to cast a spell, those icons are exactly what you get on special upcasting bar!

And when they will be at it, i would like to ask them to set it so icon shows lowest possible spell level usable ... rather than highest, as it was in the past.

I mean come on ...

Every single spell in whole game *can* be upcasted (sometimes it dont make any sense since it dont bring any value, but it still can), so surprise surprise, all spells you have on your bar (except cantrips ofc) showed that they can be level III. what walue had such information? O_o

Now, we see our spells ... but dont see anything ... so the situation is even worse, bcs now we dont even have any difference between Cantrip and Leveled spell icon.

However IF!!!
They would show lowest possible spell level ... we just look at our bar and see imediately ... aha, this one have no ruman numeral, so thats a cantrip ... aha, this one have I. so if i wish to use it i need I.st level spellslot ... aha, this one have II. so if i Misty Step behind my target, this one will no longer be usable for me, since i have last II.nd level.

I mean, it should be no brainer, shouldnt it? O_o

Well, on bar there are two simple solution that was suggested long time ago ... make either different shape, or collor for icon ...

Or maybe when you activate spell in order to cast it, all other spells that use same resource (action / bonus action / spellslot of same level) could gray out in advance so you clearly see wich wouldnt be usable afterwards.

As for drop down menu ... maybe there could be some interactive button in between Actions and Bonus actions that would filter spells that require both?
Dunno, i dont use that.

I was thinking about the same ...
If nothing else, it would allow us to combine it with Elemental Arrows, wich (as the game stands now) are usable only with regular attacks ...

Then i was wondering if that wouldnt cause colision between concentrating on Hunter's Mark and preparing Hail of Thorns ...
Wich lead me to idea if Hail of Thorns shouldnt (logicaly) also require concentration ... so i checked this ... and yes, it should.
So i checked ingame version ... and it dont!
And not just that, Hail of Thorns is straight forward broken, since the explosion happens even if you miss!
(Or at least so the tooltip says, i didnt manage to miss. )

And gues what?
Ensnaring strike ... exactly same story.
Should take only Bonus Action ... should cause concentration ... should proc with your next attack.
Is merged with your attack, so it takes both BA and A ... dont require concentration so you can still hold your Hunter's Mark ... and it dont consume spellslot, when you miss.

So ...
Question is if those spells shouldnt be fixed first. :-/

There is actually hot keys to rotate highlighted characters and split everyone from party. Its annoying though since when you split everyone and want to regroup, the person you highlight jumps to top of the order of characters on the screen. Kind of minor.

Also reduce mini map size.

Edit* Concentration I would disagree with, Icon's show up on the left side portrait and below the bottom portrait for the spell. Left side shows how many turns it'll last also.

Find myself agreeing with almost everything that has been said here but my feelings are best expressed by @Tuco

Wolfheart is one of the best channels and his taste in games and mine are almost identical so I give him lots of leeway. But he's sliding down that slope that all influencers do. He gets a name for himself, gets invited to corporate hq and his opinions start to shift.

The chain system is simply broken. As RedQueen says I'd rather have these QoL suggestions implemented instead of none of the but the language of "reasonable ask" is nonesense. No one actually likes the chain system. They can tolerate it, the fight can be made easier to or harder but I just don't like feeling like I'm fighting the engine when I'm playing.

10 dollars says he got the idea of what's a "reasonable ask" from Larian and prepared his requests accordingly.

I assume it has more to two with BG3 being a bit over 3 months away, than being worried of upsetting Larian.

I share your and Tuco's view on the chain system, but changing how character's move would be a major change - I don't think it would qualify as QoL improvement, and that's what the video was about.

Alright, QoL, the problem with alot of these QoL features is that they indirectly or directly affect the game systems, and why i think in some cases their extremly bad... Example, Strength in 5e is in many cases a dump stat, and when people suggest to make it even less usefull, since they want to avoid encumbrance and how much a party can lug around... that is a issue, if you want to carry more, put more into strength or invest your gold into items / spells that alow such , or have more strength on your characters...

Secondly tell me, why you should have a charater or a spell like teleport or similair, when there is QoL features that makes you do this for free ?... If you want mage like features, play a mage, problem solved ?

I think the problem is, it makes strength, a dump stat as is, even more weaker... and teleport features shouldent be given as a QoL feature, when it is a spell some classes actually have, why play a mage, when everyone can teleport stuff for free ?... dosent make much sense, then add it as a spell, and allow classes that can do such things do it...

for those with animal handling... a mule for extra storage and encumbrance... for mages, floating disc... gold can buy bags of holding... and at higher levels, some classes get teleport or word of recall... you cant add QoL features that indirectly or dirctly just nulify what some classes is, that be like, oooh well, we have healing potions, lets just give everyone healing spells, why bother with clerics memoricing such spells...

So big Nope !

I am a bit confused… have you played Baldur’s Gate3? BG3 since it’s inception in EA gives uninterrupted access to unlimited stash which players can access at any point they wish. You can also move items freely between inventory of your characters at no cost, no matter the distance, even in combat. Yes, that makes entire inventory system in BG3 quite moot, but as Moderator corrected me earlier, it is not a right thread do discuss mechanics.

“Quality of Life” refers to making existing design easier to interact with. Nothing Wolfie mentioned in his video would change how the game plays or what it allows to do - it would just improve/save time when trying to do certain things in the game.

We have a alfa that in many cases only have half implemented features, alot of what we can do in BG3 is things we are likely not going to be able to do... and it is a problem, as BG3 has themself stated they want and will try to stay as close to 5e as they can, so im fairly sure that alot of what is will change in final version... and i also beleave that a system like 5e need to keep abilities tied to classes that can do such things, or why have those classes in the game ?

So your making a asumption that incorect 5e adaptation of the rules is going to stay, and there for we can just add even more incorect 5e rules... well, i dont agree, i think and hope Larian stays as true to 5e and actually fixes those things we are not soposed to be able to do...

tell me, whats wrong with 5e features ?
for those with animal handling... a mule for extra storage and encumbrance... for mages, floating disc... gold can buy bags of holding... and at higher levels, some classes get teleport or word of recall... you cant add QoL features that indirectly or dirctly just nulify what some classes is, that be like, oooh well, we have healing potions, lets just give everyone healing spells, why bother with clerics memoricing such spells...

Did they tho?

I heard this several times ...
Nobody (at least so far) however was able to back it up with some source. :-/

Well if i recall right there was a interview with Sven in 2019 fextralife, where he was asked on what ruleset BG3 will be based upon... and Sven dirctly stated it will be based on Dnd5e, or well, as much as possible, as its still a video game and some things wont work...

i can probably dig it up... but thats one of the many that comes to mind...

actually found it
https://fextralife.com/baldurs-gate-3-interview-with-larian-and-wizards-of-the-coast/
its second question, its a straight ask, what rule set will you use... we ported all of 5e and will bla bla---