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

It's nice to see people reasoning about how things could work instead of just getting mad.

Pure speculation,

But regarding multiclass spellcasters, the way I'm reading it is that if the character has high level slots without a corresponding high level spells known, they'll get some minimal access to the next high level spell known. It sounds too complicated for PnP, but a breeze for computers.

e.g.

Sorc2 and Wiz3 (caster level 5) with a couple level 3 slots. The Sorc gets access to say one level 2 spell known and the Wiz to one level 3 spell known.

This is comparable to a Wiz5, maybe a bit too generous even. The Sorc/Wiz has more flexibility and only a little less power. But at level 6, it becomes advantage to single class Wiz.

The weakness of multi-class spellcasters is most pronounced at lower levels and the stress point is level 5 when single-classed characters get significant power-ups. I'm guessing play-testers noticed the party gimp then.

Multiclass warrior-types at level 5 without extra attack stand out just the same. A bit surprised they weren't singled out for buffing. Then again, what can you do?

Propably said million times already in this thread. Effects to my single player game are limited only to the multiclassing rule changes.

Other changes are not even worth discussing.

Multiplayer changes the spell level change (if makes to release) will be visible in my game. Thus it should be at least an option!

Do you mean that if you multiclass you will feel the effects of this ruling, which is a fair concern, or that enemies will have it? Because in the latter I'm pretty sure it has always been like this. There is nothing in 5e that prevents from building a caster statblock with both mass heal wounds and scorching ray. Casters statblock don't even have spellslots, they just works differently.

I meant specifically change that would lead multiclass character unlock spells from their list faster than that class level would allow.

Fair concern. I personally have never multiclassed and I've never seen someone multiclassing at my table, so I didn't pay much attention to it.

I was thinking about playing a druid with a single level in monk but Larian confirmed in Reddit that monks features aren't usable in wild shape form, bummer, but even in this case I doubt I would have felt these rules.

"Its just an option" is too often a cop out for lazy or weak design. And, the insulting attitude people fir new players who may be interested in a dnd game is rather dumb. Dumbing down the game won't make any new dnd fans. Not a one.

I have introduced plenty of people to dnd. Never need to dumb it down fir them. I learned dnd at 10. I'm not a genius. I figured it out. Can you imagine if chess got dumbed down to attract 'casuals' or new players? Ridiculous.

New players should be presumed to be capable of learning how to play the game without dumbing it diqn. Afterall, if they are willing to pick it up abd play they'll likely be willing to learn.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work whenever you try something new? Learn how it works. The gatekeepers are the ones who think non players are too dumb to understand the game all of likely love. Well, unless you are a Larian first dnd second kind if fan. Then I get it. Laruan doesnt really like dnd or bg anyways. They've made that clear in the oast all the while claiming this will be a 'super accurate depiction of dnd' while changing major parts of it.


Now, this post is harsh, but it's not all bad. I've enjoyed previous Larian games. I'll likely enjoy this one flaws and all.

More than harsh is kinda unwanted to. I mean, the discussion were back to being civil and constructive, the you arrive screaming at the sky with a bottle of booze in hand like grandpa Simpson.

In Italy we say "di meno zio, di meno", which sounds like "be less involved uncle, less". Haha

I ain't the one who started a 'I'm giving up on Larian' thread. Literally made a thread about a dwarf joinsbke npc abd romance. Lol I also bragged about spending 100$ abd enjoying previous Larian games. The one being rude is yiu simply because you dislike my opinion. I also defended the honour of new players. Isn't that a positive? Why so negative? Dont be a gatekeeper. New playerscshouod be able to enjoy dnd/bg(3) like the rest of ys without feeling like they are beong talked down to.

Back to the actual thread. I personally have not given up on Larian. If I did, I wouldn't post here. I don't post on gane developers forums if I have no interest in what they do - ask BIO and Obs. They dint make worthy games anymore. Larian at least tries to.

I don't need to defend myself from yiu or why I'm here. I'm here to discuss bg3, not you or me. The fact that you joined this month but are trying to tell me I have no right to post here just because you dislike my opinion is laughable non inclusive rudeness.

Tdlr: bg3 has issues but has a good amount of good stuff so I look forward to it. Lmao

Sorry there, I just meat to joke, I didn't mean to be rude.

Your post has so many new words that I have never seen in my life. Can you please elaborate what some of these words mean?

-playerscshouod
-joinsbke
-abd
-yiu
-beong
-dint
-gane
-Tdlr

Thanks!

I really don't mind the respec thing, except for origin companions.
I really hope they didn't make their narrative incoherent for the sake of freedom. I'd really hate to see more inconsistencies between story/gameplay in BG3, especially because there were solutions to change these characters enough (eg SH subclass).

The new races bonus is also a huge mistake in my opinion as it will drastically reduce the races uniqueness. A while ago we complained about disengage as a BA / highground adv-dis / backstab and so on because it reduced the class uniqueness a lot... it tooks 2 years to change that and now they are doing the same with races.

And I would HATE if multiclassing was so OP.
Multiclassing is and should remain an "advanced" rule for experienced players. Thanks to the respec thing even noob players like me will be able to try many things without consequences... but I don't want multiclassing to always be the optimal choice for building characters. I want to play a full class without it being considered by the games rules as the weakest choice.

This tends to prove that Larian's developper have great ideas in mind but that they are totally unable to balance anything without players feeedback.
I will certainly not giving up on Larian's game as I already know that I'd LOVE BG3 no matter what happen at this point... but I can really understand the thread's point.

EA was very frustrating to me in the end due to bad communication / no engagement towards the community and they were too slow to change things we reported day 1 (and they haven't changed some... like shove despite the consensus about it).

I also really dislike some of their design choices to be honnest and don't get AT ALL why some things are not done differently.
I have a lot to complain about in BG3 but I already love it and I can't wait to play.

I just hope that Larian will listen to me A LOT MORE for BG4

watch fexlife utube clip just for how damn impressed he is in act 2 & the game in general - just let your anxiety drift away ....this game is going to be amazing ....truly amazing.

To be perfectly honest, nowhere did I read, that people want the game to be easier, no one voiced concern about multiplayer by RAW would be too complicated. So I don't know, If there are whiny casuals or if that wasn't solely Larians Idea.
I'm playing Guild Wars 2 at the moment and there are a lot of casuals, but the game never holds your hand and some fights ( Caudecus comes to mind, because I did that fight yesterday) are downright sadistic. And still people, casuals included, play it. So I don't think, that people necessarily demand a game to be easier, but the studios think, they should make them easier, dumb them down for the masses.

I just don’t understand why people are so fixated on your stats being tied to your race. This change gives you more role playing options. I’m ecstatic that i can play my dwarf arcane trickster without feeling like I’m shooting myself in the foot. The choice between do I want my character to be good or do I want to play what I think is a fun idea is not an interesting decision. Races still have unique traits. The game is reportedly highly reactive to your race with lots of special roleplay options. And there is apparently even race specific equipment and gear.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but this objection completely eludes me. Wedding race to attributes is dumb, was always dumb, just like restricting classes to specific races back in the day. I’ve been playing D&D so long, I need to play weird characters just to keep it interesting. How is have each class possess a few mathematically superior race options an interesting choice? How many half-orc barbarians and gnome wizards do we need?

And the best part is, if you really feel that your half-orc wizard should have +2 to STR, you are free to make that choice. But if when given that choice, if you would always obviously always pick not to, why would you want that forced on everyone who wants to play this combination? A half-orc wizard isn’t benefiting from Savage Attacks and is missing out on the option to get a more useful racial trait, so there is still a strategic cost being payed. But at least you don’t need also lose out on a feet because you start with a defect in your primary stat.

Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk.

And another one who thinks having 5% less success chance makes a character bad and unplayable and is willing to sacrifice immersion and racial distinctions because they can't stop minmaxing...

You don't even notice your own contradiction by wanting to play "weird" characters but insisting on them having the perfect, cookie cutter, stat array for their class.
You complain about the prevelance of gnome wizards? With floating ASI everyone is a gnome wizard.

Everyone wanting the game to be perfect... in their own vision.
I'd also like to point out that the actual majority is typically silent.

I'm more inclined to ask for statistics. Do those tell us that X feature is being used in Y way too much? Oh, wait, these changes are not in the general public's hands...

It does, and I'll tell you more, a 15% more is literally "legendary". Only the greatest artefacts in the multiverse of 5e gives you a 15% more, this should help you put that 5% in perspective.

I'm a player that in my last pathfinder game played a black handed oracle (my favourite class) half orc. I literally couldn't use my hands, if not for a shield strapped on my arm. But you can be sure I had my 18 CAR as an oracle. Is that min maxing? Because at this point playing anything above 8 is minmaxing.

16-17 is the sweet spot in which a character is able to do what he do the most in 5e. If you want to gimp yourself you are free to do so but my half orc druid and my wood elf barbarian should be able to do what they do without sucking.

I'm not sure if being smug, condescending and patronizing toward the opposing point of view would count as being "civil and constructive". You spent your last replies uncharitably dismissing anyone unhappy with these changes as a lunatic "getting mad" and only people sharing your viewpoint as "reasonable".
Also, we say a lot of stupid shit in Italy, anyway.

Its not. As it was shown and calculated several times at the beginning of the EA with Larians implementation of advantage and height bonuses, anything below a +4 is as good as unnoticable because of the D20.
Having "just" a 15 instead of a 17 has basically no effect and you could count the number of times that makes you fail a check on one hand. Calling characters with 5% less success chance unusable and useless is just plain stupid, especially when you use that to demand to drain immersion and the "role" out of a role playing game.