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

Thats exactly why it is so important to make sure that your subsystems i.e. story/gameplay/visuals/worldbuilding/level design etc. compliment each other and always double check on each other for being a cohesive system as a whole. For example allowing you to change your companions to the point of making them the exact opposite of what they are (making SH a Githyanki Selunite Life Domain cleric for example) is good for the gameplay but bad for the story and overall results into an average if not bad system in general. Also allowing anyone to multiclass with no ability requirements is in some aspects good for gameplay but bad for world building, because it contradicts with how world presents different classes as someone with at least a portion of experience in their field of expertise. And so on.

It's not confirmed that she is a druid/sorcerer by default, in one of the clips they showed she was in the party as a level 9 druid/sorcerer multiclass but chances are they just chose to build her like that when leveling up, my guess is that she is just a druid by default.

Exactly, but I think, that user doesn't want to acknowledge the point, I was trying to make here.

Yep, had they been smart they would have tied this to difficulty settings where easy/story mode allows you to go full clown mode and re-spec to your hearts content. Tying this to every difficulty level means that for players looking for a challenge they are by design required to engage with the systems, in particular being forced to multiclass if they are going to objectively make that choice better than pure class.

People going against this in the name of choice are ironically limiting choice themselves.

Some people would have all restrictions gone, and ask us to do "staff only" runs if we want a challenge. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk! All hail the wooden stick! I'm feeling so free right now under this artificial self limitation that requires me to neurotically check if every staff is 100% wood.

Clearly very little. You answered it well before you edited your reply. It'll be the other stuff. So, firstly these changes will have minimum effect on sales. Currently steam spy has BG£ at between 2-5 million, up from 2-3 million. It'll be a big seller. You seem to think the optional rules will be a turn off though. I disagree. And I can point to the other forum of committed BG3 fans, reddit, and say the subject hasn't even made a splash there. Normies will give even less of a shit imo.


The people annoyed at these options tend to see a game system as a whole and if something is added that they see is holistically to the detriment of the system even if optional, they think it as bad choice by the devs. Most of the time here it boils down to how far they stray from 5e. Not just 5e mind you, PHB because they tend to disagree with Tasha's which is a core part of it now. It's a fair opinion, nobody can say someone is wrong for feeling that way. Saying just don't use them is not understanding why they don't like it and really isn't a valid counter argument. But it is only an opinion and no-one is speaking from authority, even if they obviously have convinced themselves otherwise.


The people who think different think it's all about choice. And that what Larian do too as Swen went into a lot of detail explaining, that it is their goal for a successful experience. But honestly for games like this, or even ones with light rpg elements, this is in fact one of the core design philosophies of a lot of developers. That's not an opinion, it's a fact you can tell from playing them and it is confirmed by interviews and youtube videos they make. Highly dependent on publisher, budget and technical issues, but it is very high on the design philosophy. Larian being Larian push the goofiness and cheese, but that is again a matter of taste only.


The existence of difficulty sliders and story mode even shows how the holistic approach just isn't as high up as people think. BG 1 and 2 changed the core mechanics of the rules and BG2 normal (default) difficulty was with party damage from spells removed. You had to actually change it to core if you wanted the proper rules. Even Elden Ring has a robust summoning system which most of it's hardcore players think goes beyond easy mode and borders on cheating.


I know a bit about DnD and all I care about is can I get it as close to it as I can. I'll ignore the cheese, exploits and optional rules. The only rule I'm worried about is the multiclass spells one, which I hope will be made optional. I think it's fair if some people think differently, But to be honest I think BG3 is going to be a bitter sweet experience for them, maybe not even sweet. Most of us are gonna have a ball for the most part. There's always the chance of patches, but I just don't think enough people care about an option that can be ignored and I don't think they'll make major changes before the Xbox/playstation crowd arrive.

If your game requires players to police themselves for balance that does not speak well for the quality of your work.

...but I didn't edit anything out of my reply? You are probably confusing it with some OTHER reply I wrote.

...Nope?
I wasn't even remotely arguing sales until other people came up with the BULLSHIT excuse that "these changes are necessary to access a bigger audience", Which I THEN argued against.
I was arguing that these changes are a turn-off for me *quality-wise*.
You are probably making some confusion here.

Most games are like that.....

Exploiting and breaking games is its own subset of gamer culture look at all the speed runners and the like.

You are confusing glitches and exploits with balance, no?

Probably the best way to put it.

Well we can start with Divinity: Original Sin 2 outselling Wrath of the Righteous, Kingmakers and Crown of the Magister combined on Steam by double the units and 3x revenue and still having more active players than all of those games combined despite being several years older...

Eeh... this isn't always true. I know plenty of games where you have access to overpowered things quite easily but it is way more fun to do the same thing in a creative way.

Not necessarily. Take souls like games for example were character builds are all built around exploiting npcs the most you can.

Or thr Skyren stealth archer which let you wash mode most combats of the game.

I know mate I was agreeing with you. That's why I quoted your reply.

The other bit you were right was in response to a previous post:
" Stuff that the OVERWHELMING majority of the "casual buyers" won't even be aware exists until 20-30 hours into their playthrough IF the devs are lucky and the players will remain engaged enough."

Maybe I read a bit more into the last bit as it seemed to me you were suggesting the changes might have an issue. Maybe you weren't though, no harm done

Still I prefer WOTR over DOS2

No, we can't, because the comparison doesn't hold up even just on a superficial level.

These are games with VASTLY different budget and production value, which lines up with what I was stating about what actually drives sales.

You could probably fund the entirety of "Solasta 2: the Biggest and Massively Improved Sequel" on the budget Larian spent on their BG3 cinematic intro alone.

Have you by any chance ever heard of a little game called Dungeons & Dragons?

It's not as simple as that statement makes it out to be, most games will require at least some extent of self-limitations in order to achieve the level of balance one may desire, which might also not be the same for everyone. Game balance is to an extent an objetive matter, but also has a subjective component, and the lines that divide these parts aren't as easily drawn as you might think.


That's one of the first things you're hit with in the original BG games. Do you believe that most players stick to the first roll they get? No, most players will keep rolling until they get something they're satisfied with, and those numbers will change from player to player.

Of these changes the only one that seems worrying is how they'll tweak spell slots when multiclassing, but we have absolutely no information of the severity of the changes and many people here just seem to be assuming the worst.

I've watched a ton of videos and read community polls regarding 5e, and from what I can tell, druids and wizards are the only classes that work really well as single class. Multi-classing isn't optional if you are min-maxing.

Do the BG3 changes make it far less punishing for spellcasters? Yep. But let's not pretend like this isn't how 5e is currently built, regardless of WoTC original intent or your personal experience. The way so many classes are front loaded makes dipping the best option for a majority of builds (many caster builds can do it without costing spell slots and only pushing back spell progression a bit).

As far as constructive criticism goes, maybe we can make suggestions on what would work to make you, Tuco, and others feel like they are getting what they paid for.

Would a "Core rules" difficulty setting or toggle be sufficient to assuage your concerns?