Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I think I'm giving up on Larian

Alright, so now that I'm done rolling my eyes at claims about "this generation" ruining games and D&D - something I'm sure has been said about every generation regarding those things, since it's said about every generation regarding everything - I will say that while I don't personally care about a lot of system stuff, I agree that Larian are poor rules designers, I've thought so for ages. They're just throwing everything in with no consideration for what that'll do to the game. I support tweaking things to make it harder to get trapped into a bad build, but ultimately the sheer number of changes like this make for an inconsistent mess that I probably don't care about rules enough to fully appreciate or notice once I'm playing.

Okay, we all know don't we that while it's perfectly alright to be annoyed at any changes and to say so emphatically, it's not on to be rudely sarcastic or dismissive of other forum members? And we are all perfectly entitled to our views on the game and to express them. If we disagree with someone then we can say why and what we think instead, but it's not helpful to scoff at them for their opinions.

Which doesn't seem to be happening too much lately in this thread so apologies for perhaps trying to moderate something that happened hours ago, but I've just woken up and read it and my coffee hasn't had time to properly take effect yet!

I also don't think it's helpful to start blaming the modern world or young people nowadays for decisions a gaming company makes about their engine, but as long as it's kept friendly, we keep a sense of humour about ourselves, and doesn't start getting out of control, that's less as a moderator than as something that I just personally find less useful then debating the pros and cons of specific changes. And it feels as though some of these really need debating.

And on those new changes, do we have a source for the ability to change starting class details for companions? I was surprised by this given that in the build I played it wasn't possible to change starting class when selecting them as an origin but I guess (1) that may not have been final and (2) Larian might have decided to handle things differently for companions.

But I also wonder if there might be some confusion with hirelings, for whom at the presentation I attended on the morning of the PFH, Swen said there was one for each class, but then said we could use them to create a party of, say, four barbarians, implying that their starting class at least can be changed.

I feel there's plenty of things to be concerned about without getting concerned about possible misinformation as well, so if anyone can point me at what Larian have actually said about companion starting classes that would be appreciated! It doesn't seem to be in that Italian article shared.

I made an account just to reply to this.

It is extremely worrisome if what is translated here is correct. I can 'live with' Larian eliminating racial bonuses being locked to certain attributes, which I think is bad because it has the opposite effect of encouraging diversity. If all races get the same bonuses then what makes them special? I can also 'live with' removing stat requirements for multiclassing, when taking into account the level cap. I also think this is a bad idea but it's tolerable at least.

What is, however, absolutely bad design is to allow for full spell progression by multiclassing. This kills any opportunity cost and will guaranteed pigeonhole every choice into multiclassing. If this is true then there is not a single reason to ever go pure single class. There has to be some rhyme and reason to complexity and accessibility. If you stray too far on the accessibility front you will end up with a shallow combat system that will not keep the player engaged in the long term. What happened to encouraging players to learn a ruleset or system? Why does everything have to be dumbed down in the name of accessibility? So tired of this design philosophy in modern gaming.

It's more than likely that the change to racial ASI has nothing to do with Larian, but comes on orders from WotC like the removal of alignment did.

WotC want to get people used to not having racial ASIs. They are being phased out in the PnP game and will most definitely be gone in OneD&D (the 2024 edition).

My biggest concern with Larian's game rule changes is that if they are the only choice (not an option), then all Larian's NPCs - the enemies we face - will be buffed in this way. So *choosing not to use feature X* is simply not an option, if you want to have a reasonable gameplay experienced without lots of frustration. The existing 5e systems (core, not splatbooks and the like) are reasonably balanced, and what I expected from this 5e game.

In particular, you can bet you bottom $ that we will face many multiclass enemies exploiting their spell casing boost (should that be confirmed).

Also making fundamental changes like this with no warning on consultation is really disrespectful to the part of the community that actually wanted a BG **5e** game.

I also don't think you should be able to repsec origin characters - their builds were part of Larian's vision. Do they not have conviction in that? Isn't being a wizard integral to Gales story? If that is what they mean, that makes no sense.

I honestly don't think this is truly a thing done in the name of accessibility though. Learning that Larian is putting in a bunch of items specifically to make multiclassing easier and saying as much publically makes me think that they just WANT people to make absurd multiclass combos. It would fit in with their philsophy to date of stupid, crazy things being the most fun and encouraging those sorts of things (see for another example, all the items to buff spell attacks but the various nerfs to support and controll spells).

I definitely want more info about the multiclassing changes, which I confess are the ones that really worry me personally from the issues Tuco originally mentioned.

Google translate gives me ...


Which is quite ambiguous. To me, it wouldn't be "revising the use of resources a bit" to, eg, give access to spell level progression based on character level rather than class level. That would be much more than a bit. I'm not a fan of removing multi-classing requirements, but while I can live with that I'm less comfortable with the concern about the balance of multiclass characters.

I mean, I know I've seen the argument that multi-classing doesn't really come into its own until levels higher than we get in BG3 on these forums, and I could understand Larian making some tweaks to make it more satisfying up to level 12 if they agree with that take, but the snippet we have now sounds as though there's a worry they'll swing way too far the other way.

I feel like it is time for Larian to wake up and give official and factual informations on subjects that people are interested in. First we got racial ASI, which got somewhat confirmed by some streamers days after PFH, then we got the 72h thing and now everyone is dumbfounded on multiclassing and respecing. Please, to avoid any concern, talk to us.

RQ, Wolf said he heard Withers does it, so that's why you didn't encounter it

To the issue with stat points, it absolutely should be class based. Adventurers should be extra-ordinary even for their race and their years of training should reflect a honing of whatever stat they have used for this. There is no reason why a devoted cleric of some race should by rule be less in touch with their god. Dwarves have paladins of Moradin, they should be as good paladins as humans or half elfs or tieflings. It is still possible to play unusual class/stat characters, but the default should be that this person is as good at his/her job as he/she can be through the training and graft that is generally regarded as preceding a level 1 character.

But there is one strong argument for the new rules. Previously it was not possible for any human to have 8 INT and we all know that that is stretching the believability of DnD to the limit! Ha ha

It sounds like that are simply letting caster levels stack for the purpose of Learning/Preparing spells as well as number of spell slots. PnP rules are a bit woolly on that topic anyway.

As per PnP rules, it's possible for a multiclassed character to have a 3rd level spell slot, but not know any 3rd level spells to cast with it.

You’re welcome. And oh boy, you surely showed me.

“Joke is on you. I totally wanted for this thing to stink” is such a witty power move.

That adventurers are exceptional is represented by their point buy array.
But they are still members of a specific race and thus need to have the general characteristic of that race which includes being faster, stronger, more dexterous or smarter than others.

Sadly WotC in their quest for "more accessability" caved in to the combined whines of powergamer who refuse to play anything without minmaxed stats and people who want to virtue signal by screaming racism when a halfling is weaker than an orc.

You must be joking. No seriously, this cannot be real. Are you telling me I can veto Wyll's pact at any time by making him not a warlock? Are you telling me I can make Shadowheart a cleric of Selune? What the hell Larian?

I expected some respec option in exchange for gold and with reasonable limitations, but this sounds like they're just giving us the DOS2 mirror? Except in DOS2 there is a complete and absolute narrative disconnect between player skills and 'classes' and the world. This makes zero sense in DnD, it's too much even for Larian.

Am i only one who sees these changes as nothing but good? I rather have the respec option that realizing your build is trash and not being able to finish the game, nearly made me quit WOTR(i wanted the achievement so i couldn't lover the dif). Multiclassing being boosted to keep up with pure builds helps not have dead weight character until build is done is great.

Not to mention, do people complaining about game being "targeted at casuals" realize that this games is also a product made for profit and "casual" playerbase is lot larger than the wannabe "hardcore" one.


Ludonarrative dissonance is a term that exists.

Every single game franchise I have enjoyed and what made them great in the first place has been destroyed by this mentality.

Examples please.

Eh, I wish, but somehow even the WORST ideas always seem to gain SOME traction among any audience.

Yes, incidentally to describe something that should generally be AVOIDED if possible.

Dragon Age Origins -> DA:2/3, Diablo 2 --> D3/4, KotoR -> SW:ToR, Total War: Rome 1 --> Rome 2 to name a few, and more and more it's starting to look like BG1/2 --> BG3.

Your point?