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

Yeah, that's funny, but is this confirmed? I seriously doubt this. She was portrayed with twin scimitars on her back. No Druid/Sorcerer would equip twin Scimitars.

Yes it is a serious question because your original statement said that these changes should be relegated to Story Mode and anyone who wanted these changes should only be allowed to play in that mode.

Yes I know how difficulty levels work in video games so I know that they do not all work in exactly the same way, e.g. hard mode in one game is not exactly the same as hard mode in the another. Some games, such as Solasta, have set difficulty levels while also allowing the player to tweak various elements to get things how one wants.

One does not 'beat' a game, one completes it. It is designed to allow you to complete it, not to stop you completing it. From what you just wrote it would appear that some 'newbie' 'beating' the game on the same difficulty as you is an affront to your masculinity or self-esteem.

I counter you with the Souls games, that are notoriously hard and unforgiving and don't coddle you in any form, yet people flog to them like moths to the light, so much so, they became their own genre.
You don't have to dumb down games to be successful, just make them engaging. And it's not like DnD is a niche product anymore, everyone knows about DnD nowadays thanks to media, so that should bring in the customers.
I understand the need for tweaking some rules to make it work better in a videogames, but there was nothing wrong with multiclassing according to RAW, you could still make very powerful characters and it is not hard. No need to dumb that down.

Yeah... this incredibly dumbed down multiclassing is not necessary. The existing story mode and free full resets are all Larian needs to offer to handle players unfamiliar with the rules

Was it something to do with the spell she cast? Or was it datamined?
I was wondering how a druid/sorcerer would work stats-wise. Not exactly an intuitive dual-class pairing.

Multiclassing in 5E isn't rocket science, there's absolutely no reason to make it easier.

Even if it isn't rocket science, I believe they are doing this for those that never played a DnD game before.

We are living in times when attention span is 10 seconds. I can totally see how people could just avoid multiclassing for being 'too complex'.

With all due respect, it's not logically easier that one (1) level wizard and 8 levels of a half caster give you every level 5 wizard spell.

But this change isn't making multiclassing "easier to understand", especially since there was hardly anything cryptic about it.
This is just making multi-classing more powerful, which is questionable in terms of fairness, since they apparently plan to remove most of the opportunity costs that came with it.


Speaking of "gatekeeping" that really shouldn't be for you to decide.

Souls-like games have next to no story or plot; next to no dialogue; next to no companions; next to no settlements with any sort of community; next to no NPCs; next to no lore; and no real tactics other than working out the moves of each opponent which are the same every time you meet that particular creature. They are dumbed-down to just being fighting every 100 metres. They are a niche market within gaming and many, if not most, are not big budget AAA titles.

First of all - I did not say that they should only be 'allowed' to play in story mode. I'm not the video game police running around telling people what they can and cannot do. I said people cannot be labeled as gatekeepers when a game already has a mode that makes it super accessible to everyone and that no one is criticizing that modes existence in the game. I do not think that unlimited respec should be available in the regular game mode or in tactician in this game - if it is there should be a cost associated with it that aligns with the difficulty setting. That doesn't mean people are not "allowed to play in those game modes".


This is an incredibly odd thing to say and it seems you are rather upset about something. First you think I am saying people are not ALLOWED to play certain difficulty modes and now you are trying to turn me into some person who puts all of their self worth in video games because I have an opinion on how respec should be handled. You can use the term beat the game, finish the game, complete the game or whatever else you want. It doesn't matter to me how you describe it. Nor do I tie up my self-worth in video games.

I personally played on the regular difficulty setting in DOS2 and a modded version with added some health to the regular version because I didn't find tactician to be appealing - because the crowd control mechanics got to be a bit much for me. I guess I don't see how that makes me any better or worse of a person, any more of less of a man than someone who spends way less time playing games and played easy mode or who enjoyed tactician and beat it.

I think free respec for higher difficulty levels is a bad idea and bad game design, especially in the hardest difficulty as it seems difficult to balance and hard difficulty settings tend to encourage min/max. I think changing an already pretty easy system in multi-classing to the point where it might be just flat out better than not to be bad game design (if that is really what ends up happening, Larian could have implemented this well, we haven't seen the finished product yet). I also think it doesn't make sense to let us completely recreate origin characters when some of their backstories are completely tied to their class, where as some other companions/characters it does make sense for them to be more flexible.

If you think that means I have low self-esteem or that I believe my masculinity is being questioned then I think it is more a problem with you than with me.

This is also why I brought up difficulty settings. Not every game has to be a Souls-like, but there are people who like a difficult experience. There are also people who enjoy just playing through for the story. There are going to be people who want to play through without the ability to respec... or when their character dies, they stay dead - it is why things like 'hardcore' mode got so popular in Diablo 2.

For all of the talk of choice the champions of choice sure do want to remove the choice from everyone else to have game modes or an experience tailored more toward difficulty and traditional 5e rulesets.

I see what you mean in terms of power. I think an issue that might present itself with new players that have never played DnD is the mixing of two classes. Such as a Ranger/Druid where they are very similar in regards to nature but one is more magic based than the other. That might be confusing to some, as to say why not just be a full Ranger or a full Druid.

Firstly, I agree that you shouldn't need to research D&D to be able to jump into BG3. And you currently don't. I didn't, and I've been playinn EA with only... 2 or 3 sessions of D&D under my belt.

Now onto the important part, I still firmly believe that what Larian is doing isn't "making multiclassing easier for newbies." Respeccing does that, and I'm fine with respeccing at least to level one. No, what Larian is doing seems very obvious to me as trying to make sure players do all sorts of crazy combinations of multi-class because that's their idea of fun. With the items they're throwing around and whatnot. Think about it, if you're new to the game and D&D, you're not going to find most of those items they're talking about sprinkling around. So if a newbie tries to multiclass, isn't it more likely they're going to walk into a bad build ratherthan less, in that case? I'd argue that the 13 attribute restriction is probably more a help than a hindrance, because it makes sure a newbie isn'g going into a multi-class woefully unprepared for what they need.

Look, are any of these workings confirmed? Becasue the way this topic reads is as if I can be a Cleric 1 /wizard 1/ warlock 1/ paladin 2 / ranger 2 / Arcane Trickster 3 / Druid 1/ Sorcerer 1 and effectively be a Cleric 12 / Wizard 12 / Warlock 12 / Paladin 12 / Ranger 12 / Trickster 12 / Druid 12 / Sorcerer 12, ast least where spellcasting is concerned.

The full caster classes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard.

Under this ruling, you can be a bard-cleric-druid-sorcerer-wizard with no additional cost. The only question is what buffs to spells you want and what it means for your casting stat

If you pick a half caster, it only counts as half a level of wizard, cleric, etc.

If this was a custom option, you wanna engage in the circus mode. Click the checkbox be happy with it.
But making it core even for Tactician? Makes zero sense and just makes the game designer looks lazy, I understand that 5e has serious issues regarding character identity and customization, but this is due to some factors.

Feat selection and progression.
Class choices and interactions
Weapon interaction and maneuvers (Larian fixed this thankfully by adding maneuvers)

The optimal way would had been homebrew new feats for BG3 and add 3.5 feat progression.

1st
3rd
6th
9th
12th

Basically you would have more interesting ways to define your character build without resorting to lets make pure classes useless. Because with this Multiclass no restriction you need to be a sucker to go pure class.

You say that about a game that was advertised as authentic experience to said pnp RPG.

Not a single word of this is of ANY relevance to the point she was making.

What you are missing on the other hand is that they are very popular and commercially successful games, despise hardly compromising on their defining "lack of hand-holding".
Not only they climbed up to sales numbers that Larian would probably be ECSTATIC to replicate (Elden Ring being above 20 millions, most of the previous Souls ranging to the 5 millions or so each on average), they can also boost a surprisingly high completion rate among players, with a percentage of roughly 40%.