So I have two things to add. First js that regardless of my feelings for this game, it's wrong to claim that there isn't a huge amount of love and passion infused into it.
Second, nothing I've seen makes me think Larian has included anything they didn't want to. It all lines up with their design philosophy of letting players pull off all kinds of silly cheese, leaving exploits in, etc. I think claiming Larian was pressured at all is just ignoring that this is the logical conclusion of Larian's prior style.
So I have two things to add. First js that regardless of my feelings for this game, it's wrong to claim that there isn't a huge amount of love and passion infused into it.
This I completely agree. The amount of love and passion Larian are putting into this game should never come into question.
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Second, nothing I've seen makes me think Larian has included anything they didn't want to. It all lines up with their design philosophy of letting players pull off all kinds of silly cheese, leaving exploits in, etc. I think claiming Larian was pressured at all is just ignoring that this is the logical conclusion of Larian's prior style.
This second part I don't know and I'm not so sure. I don't doubt they're doing the best they can no matter the circumstances but I'm not convinced WotC isn't looking over their shoulders.
You can bet everything that evil WOTC is looking over their shoulder.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
Second, nothing I've seen makes me think Larian has included anything they didn't want to. It all lines up with their design philosophy of letting players pull off all kinds of silly cheese, leaving exploits in, etc. I think claiming Larian was pressured at all is just ignoring that this is the logical conclusion of Larian's prior style.
This second part I don't know and I'm not so sure. I don't doubt they're doing the best they can no matter the circumstances but I'm not convinced WotC isn't looking over their shoulders.
Okay, I might be wrong but seriously, what about any of this feels out of character for a larian decision, because to me this all seems like exactly the kind of decisions they would make. Barrelmancy, changing control spells, shove, surface effects and armor in DOS2, they all line up with these choices they've allegedly made now; caring more about "fun" and "cool moments" and leaving in gaping holes and poorly balanced mechanics to facilitate those things. I think they got to see wizards plans early and liked them, so threw them in on top of their own silly changes because they thought it would be cool, with at best a mild nudge from wizards, if that.
Tell me honestly, what about these choices seems unlike what Larian would do? Other than the fact they don't seem good.
First post. Just throwing in my two cents that I also really don’t like these changes. For the opposing side talking about freedom of choice and just not to use these options if you don’t want to, I understand how that makes sense to a degree, but I still don’t agree that these options should exist especially in the higher difficulty levels. The idea about just not using an option if you don’t like it could be used to justify so many things that I think the majority of people wouldn’t want.
“We changed it so you start with 9th level spells at the very beginning of the game!†“Well, that seems unbalanced. I don’t like that.†“Just don’t use them then! It’s freedom of choice!â€
Or
“You now have infinite actions every round, but of course don’t use them if it feels imbalanced! Also, every fight has a button you can press to win it automatically with no resource expenditure!â€
Now to be absolutely clear, I am not saying the power level of infinite free respecs is equivalent to these examples, what I’m saying is that the exact same argument can be used to justify both. Therefore I think the argument is flawed.
What I think me and some of the other posters are saying is that clearly there is a line to be drawn SOMEWHERE between ultimate player choice and freedom, while maintaining balance and difficulty. It’s just that we disagree on where that line is. I like having a game, looking at my toolbox of options, and finding a creative way to solve the puzzle in front of me. If I need to enter the Drow base up ahead, I might use disguise self to look like a Drow. But now, I could for less resources, go and just change my race to Drow. I won’t, because that’s cheesy as hell, but the mere fact of knowing the ‘best’ solution was a dumb one that I intentionally didn’t use so I didn’t break my immersion, bothers me.
It’s the same reason some people don’t like barrelmancy, because it’s a narratively unsatisfying but extremely effective way to beat encounters. I come across what’s supposed to be a difficult encounter, I look at it like a puzzle, and go well I know I could just beat it with barrels. Or changing my class to wizard for this specific fight. Or using stealth cheese, or using double spells on Sorcerer even though that’s not how it’s supposed to work or or or…and sure I could just not use these. And I won’t, but the mere fact of them existing still makes the experience worse for me. That’s why I at least am bothered by changes like these.
This video was just released by Fextralife and it clarifies some of the the things that are being discussed in this thread. let's watch...:P
**MAJOR SPOILERS WARNING**
[video:youtube][/video]
Oh. My. God. This looks so good! The illithid power screen! And the races seem to be locked, which I like. Changing classes for companions is still present, but it locks you out from hearing their class dialogue, which makes sense. Thanks for sharing, Blackheifer.
@RIPRevan : Welcome to the forum! I agree with your conclusion, which probably means you are a smart, upstanding, good-looking person.
Two details I'm compelled to point out : 1) Fextralife's video states you can't respec race, only class, so respec can't function as a free disguise self that way.
2) Because BG3 lets you swap party members in and out, you already had the option of tweaking your party makeup for specific encounters. This isn't new with respec.
What I think me and some of the other posters are saying is that clearly there is a line to be drawn SOMEWHERE between ultimate player choice and freedom, while maintaining balance and difficulty. It’s just that we disagree on where that line is. I like having a game, looking at my toolbox of options, and finding a creative way to solve the puzzle in front of me. If I need to enter the Drow base up ahead, I might use disguise self to look like a Drow. But now, I could for less resources, go and just change my race to Drow. I won’t, because that’s cheesy as hell, but the mere fact of knowing the ‘best’ solution was a dumb one that I intentionally didn’t use so I didn’t break my immersion, bothers me.
It’s the same reason some people don’t like barrelmancy, because it’s a narratively unsatisfying but extremely effective way to beat encounters. I come across what’s supposed to be a difficult encounter, I look at it like a puzzle, and go well I know I could just beat it with barrels. Or changing my class to wizard for this specific fight. Or using stealth cheese, or using double spells on Sorcerer even though that’s not how it’s supposed to work or or or…and sure I could just not use these. And I won’t, but the mere fact of them existing still makes the experience worse for me. That’s why I at least am bothered by changes like these.
But you do agree, that having choice is good, yes?
I mean, look at this from another perspective. Content creators. Sometimes you see people playing through an entire act just to take a perfect sreenshot. Sometimes they need to see the outcome of a conversation for their video. And bam - they can do it with a few clicks, no need to go through all of that to get that one reference you needed.
While you can simply not do it, and enjoy your game with what you find satisfying.
Regarding respec as free disguise self, I don't think it ever would have done that because it's so onerous. Sure you're not spending a spell slot, but you're spending your own real life time. You'd have to redesign and remake your character, then do it again to change back.
Regarding respec as free disguise self, I don't think it ever would have done that because it's so onerous. Sure you're not spending a spell slot, but you're spending your own real life time. You'd have to redesign and remake your character, then do it again to change back.
What I think me and some of the other posters are saying is that clearly there is a line to be drawn SOMEWHERE between ultimate player choice and freedom, while maintaining balance and difficulty. It’s just that we disagree on where that line is. I like having a game, looking at my toolbox of options, and finding a creative way to solve the puzzle in front of me. If I need to enter the Drow base up ahead, I might use disguise self to look like a Drow. But now, I could for less resources, go and just change my race to Drow. I won’t, because that’s cheesy as hell, but the mere fact of knowing the ‘best’ solution was a dumb one that I intentionally didn’t use so I didn’t break my immersion, bothers me.
It’s the same reason some people don’t like barrelmancy, because it’s a narratively unsatisfying but extremely effective way to beat encounters. I come across what’s supposed to be a difficult encounter, I look at it like a puzzle, and go well I know I could just beat it with barrels. Or changing my class to wizard for this specific fight. Or using stealth cheese, or using double spells on Sorcerer even though that’s not how it’s supposed to work or or or…and sure I could just not use these. And I won’t, but the mere fact of them existing still makes the experience worse for me. That’s why I at least am bothered by changes like these.
I honestly have trouble understanding any of this. I'm not trying to be rude; I'm just saying this is entirely alien to me.
"I don't want to do this dumb thing, but it's an option. So now I feel like I have to do this dumb thing because it's an option? Or if I don't do the dumb thing that's an option then I'm unsatisfied with the non-dumb thing I did because I could have done the dumb thing instead?"
None of this makes any sense to me. I don't even know how to sympathize. I mean that sincerely, not in an antagonist, snarky, or rude way.
There are numerous dumb things you could do in life. The option to do the dumb thing doesn't mean you have to do it or feel unsatisfied about doing the other thing.
It's like, imagine this. Your kid comes to you, upset. "What's wrong?" you ask. And they tell you that the video game they're playing lets them change their stats when they want to.
"But why are you upset?"
"Because I don't want to do it!"
"Then don't do it?"
"You just don't understand!"
"Um. Okay."
*
Larian made a game for the masses. I see people talking about how it's "lazy" design to let people respec because "options" somehow translate to lazy design?
Except it's obvious Larian is not lazy. They have put tons of effort into this game. It looks amazing. It looks complicated and full.
I am very glad that apparently race is locked! And so just to reiterate, for those talking about freedom of choice, would you be happy if even at the hardest difficulty the game gave everyone infinite spell slots? If not, why? For what rationale would you dislike that, but be happy with infinite respecs? All I am saying is that both of those situations are on the same spectrum, and where you draw the line is where the disagreement is, no? Or maybe I’m wrong and you would support infinite spell slots as well. If so, I’m not sure we have any common ground to discuss on lol
Ok, 23 pages in two days are a lot to take in, so I haven't read all of them.
That being said, after these changes to the multiclassing system I've come to see BG3 as "a turn-based cRPG based on the 5th edition of D&D, set in the Forgotten Realms".
I'm loving BG3, even with all the complaints I have, but I really have to avoid thinking about it as a D&D game, otherwise all my "mechanical" enjoyment (i.e. not related to the act of roleplaying) crumbles to dust.
To be clear, I'm not mad Larian changed so many rules, only that they have created the false conception that this game was based on the 5e-system. And I'm not really even mad about it, I'm in for the Forgotten Realms more than the 5e-system, which I do not particularly love if compared with other games or previous editions of D&D.
My only fear, as Tuco suggested, is that basing a videogame on an existing set of rules and then breaking a good number of said rules for the fun-factor is almost doomed to result in a weak and exploitable system.
At this point, I only hope that all the changes Larian introduced are going to balance themself out. Multiclassed characters are exponentially stronger than single-class ones? That is because all the enemies in the game are 2 times stronger than their ttrpg counterparts, so the power creep of the player is going to be balanced by the power creep of the monsters. What is the purpose of the power creep in this case? I don't know, but it is better than having to play a broken game. This doesn't solve the problem of having to build and play our OC/companions in a way antithetical to their nature just to be on-par, but still.
I am very glad that apparently race is locked! And so just to reiterate, for those talking about freedom of choice, would you be happy if even at the hardest difficulty the game gave everyone infinite spell slots? If not, why? For what rationale would you dislike that, but be happy with infinite respecs? All I am saying is that both of those situations are on the same spectrum, and where you draw the line is where the disagreement is, no? Or maybe I’m wrong and you would support infinite spell slots as well. If so, I’m not sure we have any common ground to discuss on lol
Race is locked and humans have some new racials which is interesting. So glad race is locked.
Humans have glaives, spears, halberds, Light armor and extra 20 lbs carry weight. I guess we will see a lot of human wizards in light armor.
I guess we will see a lot of human wizards in light armor.
Is Arcane Spell Failure no longer a thing? Genuine question. It's still a thing in Pathfinder (or Owlcat's WotR at least) so I assumed it was still in D&D too.
A vast majority of the defense for these changes has been: "It's optional, just don't do it". That's not really true in all cases, and for the 100% optional things then I don't care. However, some of these changes drastically alter the balance of the game and that is not optional. Here were the original points:
1) Respec at will.
2) Respec companions.
3) Removed ability score requirements for multiclassing.
4) Giving all the good parts of multiclassing with no downsides (i.e. getting fireball the same character level as a single class wizard on a multiclassed character)
1 and 2, I don't care about. Those actually are optional. Go nuts if you want.
3 will slightly change the balance of the game as now you're able to create builds with ability scores that weren't possible before. I don't think it will be too big though, so it isn't the end of the world. Although I don't want to completely discount it without looking into it more deeply.
4 is a massive problem and that is the issue that needs to be resolved. It completely nerfs single class play, and the game won't be balanced around the worst possible build you could make. You want to be a single class wizard? Well good luck, as every other wizard gets all the same spells as you and also has armor proficiency, plus other subclass features with 0 downside.
I'm sorry to say that, but the original post claim is really an overkill exageration. Whatever if you like or not the possibility to respec, you don't have to use this option if you don't like the system!
If you don't like it, don't use it, eh? It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. We are talking about core game rules here, not optional features.
E.g. Larian have stated they have put more items like Headband of Intellect in the game that replace an ability score, to make multiclassing easier and to enable item-centric builds. That alone makes respec an integral part of gameplay if you want to play well. Find a belt that gives you a Dex of 18 > respec your Dex from 14 to 8, wear belt, enjoy your new buffed Dex AND Constitution and Wisdom scores. Such items already devalue character ability scores, but with respec it just becomes really stupid.
Knowing you can always respec takes away all weight from decisions when building your characters. You are mentally lulled into lazy gameplay mode where learning the rules and planning have no meaning. It's subconscious, but I argue that it makes the overall gameplay experience feel less rewarding. You have this feeling in the back of your head constantly that decisions are irrelevant in the end, you can always change into something else.
Respec ruins replayability. Why would I replay the game for a whole different experience using another class or build, when I can just respec into said class, or any class, nilly-willy during my first playthrough? Gameplay and storytelling are supposed to support each other, not be completely disconnected. What kind of a story has it's characters changing all time time? He was a Wizard.. no he was a Ranger.. wait no, what if he was a Gnome Cleric / Barbarian multiclass? Distracting. Larian are guilty of disconnecting gameplay mechanics and storytelling also when they demote Minsc and Jaheira, or Halsin, into low level companions. So clearly they don't get this.
For someone who really enjoys character building, planning and tactical combat, Larian are making a terrible gameplay experience. It seems like the devs want to make a dating sim with puzzle combat and the D&D ruleset is just getting in their way. When they should embrace it and understand it's a tried and true ruleset that is the game's greatest strengths.
