Originally Posted by Isenthal 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.
I see your point and it can be true, but I don't feel like this at all, personnally.
To fundamentally change the whole build during a gameplay just to adjust to objects, I would feel like cheating, and then what is even the point of playing? Better to take a +6 to all stats and +6AC rings from a mod and rush everything... No it's not for me.
Especially, sometimes in RPG we loose all of our stuff, temporarily (jail) or permanently (we appear in a whole new place, we start a new campaign after having lost everything...) so I would not count only on the available stuff (and I would not know all what is available at my first run)
Though, I admit that for a second or third run, at the character creation, I might optimize my stats according to the expected magical items that I can get my hands on (typically Dex or Str), but not repec as much my stats during a game.
Personnally, it's more a matter of : Oh I took this feat but it's actually really not so good as I thought, while there is much better, for the specific subclass that I am currently. By example typically when I play Pathfinder, I'm easily lost between all the feats and subfeats that match well or not for the multiple exotic class (Zen Archer... Silent Hunter...) and I'm glad if I can at some point at least one or two time fix my broken character.
Sure I don't need that my character is absolutely perfect, I can live with some drawbacks, but I would be disappointed by my main character if I did mistakes that I could not guess from the get go.
No matter how you slice it, if the things we've heard about multiclassing are true, in order to not use it you will need to not use multiclassing.
I have no problem simply house ruling the game in order to get it back closer to core D&D rules. In fact, I like some of the homebrew. But having to forego multiclassing entirely is a huge ask. Too much of an ask...
Apologies, I'm having trouble quoting for some reason.
Um. Nevermind. Your quote just showed up, literally while I was typing in a blank quick reply. These forums need a new foundation. Too creaky when it gets windy outside.
Anyway...
Originally Posted by Flooter
Originally Posted by JandK
I really don't follow.
I doubt I'll use respec at all unless it's for something I want to test.
I won't even notice it unless I talk to Withers. Same with hirelings.
I was thinking specifically of multiclassing. (Respec and hirelings don't bother me at all).
I get a good deal of enjoyment out of just sitting and thinking out the ramifications of particular build decisions. I like comparing tradeoffs, seeking out synergies, etc. If it turns out that multiclassing is always better than not multiclassing, then there are fewer real decisions to be made. If the value of a game (to some gamers) is tied to the number of interesting decisions it contains, then reducing the number of interesting decisions reduces the value of the game (to those gamers).
There may be some dramatics in expressing this or similar sentiments, but I'd say that nobody likes to see their expected value go down (or perceived value, as the game aint out yet) and that holding interest in a game for 1000 days of early access requires some level of passion. Strong emotions come with the territory.
Yeah, I love to build characters and lose myself a little bit in the process.
As far as the multi-classing concerns:
1. I don't care about the stat requirement stuff.
2. The spell progression issue is something we need to learn more about. Right now, I'm not sure we have anything official about the way it's working. But yes, if you take one level of Wizard and then 11 levels of cleric and end up with 6th level spells in each, that will probably end up getting addressed in a future patch. It's just, that sounds so ridiculous to me that I don't think it's worth worrying about until we know what the actual system is.
Echoing some of Tuco's sentiments, I think there are a few issues with some of these recent changes:
First, I'm completely baffled that they chose to make these changes so late into the game with release looming, not thinking that having EA users playtest them for balance purposes would be prudent. It feels more like a last minute big change to rope in as many illusory casuals as they can to boost sales.
Second, sometimes too much choice actually impacts replayability. I have played the BG saga on and off every couple years since they released. I have not done this with D:OS2 or D:OS1, I have played them each a couple times from start to finish. I directly attribute this to having too much freedom, why would I make a new game and try out someone else when I can respec whenever I want and try out a build for a handful of hours? It seems pointless to go through the entire storyline to get a taste of what that feels like. If a player's race is arbitrary and the extent of it is only a handful of dialogue options that occasionally creep up in conversation and it has little to do with a much more permanent experience when paired with a class, then what is the point of having multiple runs with different races other than for cosmetic reasons? I realize this point is all about player preference and is subjective, but I do feel that having too much freedom and too many choices actually can genuinely detract from a game's longevity. It's no small wonder that some of the games with the simplest rulesets have been popular for as long as they have, and games that are far too busy have not.
To pivot off of point two, I do see that these changes will have an impact on the game's longevity and I am welcome to eat my words, but making things work within the confines of a fixed ruleset has been shown time and time again to increase replayability, encourage experimentation and develop a true cult following that can last for years. The fact that people are genuinely excited that Amazon released BG2 for free is a testament to this, while the amount of people currently playing D:OS2 has dropped off in the ensuing years.
I understand that Larian is primarily concerned with telling a great story, and I know they will with this game. But I sometimes feel they view mechanics as just a sandbox experience to tinker with to create fleeting memorable moments with humor and wackiness, and sometimes forget that those same mechanics, in a game, often can contribute to a much more lasting impression in terms of a game's longevity and ability to hold interest. I do believe all of these changes will severely impact replayability as someone has mentioned. And while the chief criticism of opposing parties is, 'well then...just don't pick it' is disingenuous, simply because, fine, they want to create more choices and freedom? Give me an option that holds true to the ruleset as an option, and offer another option for people that want something else. But it seems they have overridden that option in favor of creating more choice with less structure, which, in itself, is creating less choice.
I was super excited when they announced the release date a month early, and was genuinely thinking about all the different playthroughs I would be doing to experience all the different branching paths, classes, and different companions and experiences, but if everything is customizable, I simply don't see the amount of playthroughs exceeding a small discrete amount, simply because I can change everything on the fly and experience more within one playthrough, less is sometimes more...shocker. And given this game was literally advertised as having SO MUCH to see, do, explore, choose, and experiment with, these last minute changes simply seem to say, "well, actually you can just see, explore, choose, and experiment with most of these things in a single playthrough, so why bother with more? Want to try out that gloomstalker/rogue/fighter combo for 2 hours? go for it, want to switch it up and try out the tempest/storm cleric/sorcerer? Give it a taste. After all, it's literally only 100gp to completely change everything there is to change about someone except their race, and that's only to keep a couple dialogue options consistent."
And point three, this game was marketed as two things, a spiritual successor to a much beloved series, and a genuine attempt to create a genuine tabletop experience in a video game, even more so than its predecessors. And while I have agreed, somewhat, with some of the changes they've made along the way in keeping with the rule of cool, and creating a more polished experience, it seems like they've suddenly decided to go off the deep end at the 11th hour, which just so happened to coincide with all the recent press interest. "Oh, now we got them roped in, let's just throw caution to the wind." They have pretty much gone back on what they promised, which is unfortunate to say the least.
So all in all, I am perfectly fine if they want to add choices, but where is the choice for those of us that like to experience more in terms of a more robust structure, knowing full well that having that structure is likely to create many more possibilities than the illusion of endless choice can provide?
@zanos I fully agree with your take on how Larian views mechanics. Though I will say that while I may be in the minority, those dialogue choices are the main reason I'm playing this game. They could take out all the combat and builds and just make this the most in depth choose your own adventure game ever and I would probably like the game more honestly. I was genuinely a little shocked hearing the idea of someone just changing class to try out a build and that being satisfying.
- Apparently the player will be able to respec at will. But not just that, he will be able in any given moment to change everything about his character, including the stats and starting class. - Apparently, the same will apply to companions too. They'll be tagged as "that companion" by the game, but you'll be able to change appearance, starting abilities and skills distribution AND STARTING CLASS, too.
I am frustrated also. The companion respec makes 0 sense to me. What the point of having hireling then? Respec apparently is 100 gold. I wouldn't mind seeing jacked up to 2500 in tactician as well.
I can hear from here the "well you don't have to use it if you don't like it".
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.
I'll try to summarize points already stated before by many. There are two avenues to consider here.
Firstly, there is choice and consequence. Your ability scores, race and class are a choice you make. The easier it is to undo such a choice, the less weight it has. For example, if you can change your choice of class on a whim, there is no real importance to having made that choice in the first place and it's literally demoted to the level of equipment.
Secondly, there is the issue of using self-restraint to make up for holes in the system. There is a significant difference between 'not liking a feature, therefore not using it' and 'knowing a feature is exploitable but choosing not to exploit it'. To illustrate, let me offer an example of both:
Some people don't like to play mages. Magic is an optional feature of the game, just like martial combat, and they don't have to use it. This is okay.
The broken stealth system lets literally anyone wipe entire encounters without recourse. You can choose not to exploit it, but each time you get stuck in combat you'll know there is an easy way out. Policing yourself to make up for bad design is not okay.
Some of us see respeccing entire classes in the 'stealth' category. I hope this gives you some perspective.
And that’s great for some people, myself included usually.
But I’m guessing most people who buy the game will only intend to play it once. Many will probably not finish at all. So Larian are catering for people who aren’t going to want to start a new play through if they get 50 hours in and think they made a mistake before the game even started, including people not familiar with the D&D rules. Respecing is a way of doing that. I imagine there will be fairly hefty cost for doing so as there are in most RPGs to dissuade using it as an exploit.
I wondering is it’s a very gamey system or if they’ve tied it to the story? Since the origin characters have all been infected by literal mind and body altering parasites, it could be actually be the latter.
I had assumed that changing companion character classes would conflict with the story, but what if it didn’t?
I understand the sentiment of changing 5e to be more customizable from Larian but this definitely the wrong way to do it.
Character identity is built through feats, one thing that 5e did to minimize the Ivory Tower and just add the always right choices was to make feat progression much slower and have a really limited pool of feats. Larian could had changed the feat economy through leveling and add a pool of feats that remove certain limitations from classes like Barbarian can only rage with certain gear limitation, casting spell conditionals, new ways to crowd control that is not limited to only spells(But Larian was on point with adding weapon maneuvers to each weapon type).
I havent read a single post in this topic ... But i dont want to start new one, and this seems like good place to say it.
I just realized something about Larian ... I dont want to straight forward call them liars, but they certainly dont feel honest right now.
They praise BG-3 vertikality ... And yet, i had several prooves that game dont understand Z Axis at all ... and many damages and effects affected several of my party members, even tho each of them was on different floors, or just high. I certainly hope this got fixed!
They praise BG-3 for choices ... And yet, any rule that was presented as optional is set in stone and we get no choice at all ... yes, im talking mainly about curent Racial Ability Bonuses ... yes, im talking about Book of Shadows for Warlock ... yes, im talking about proficiencies for Lore Bard ... And im sure there is more. I certainly hope this is just missunderstanding.
And as i wrote this, i lost my thought ... damn, i know there was one more thing that felt bad, but now i cant remember ... will add it later, if i will remember.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
They praise BG-3 vertikality ... And yet, i had several prooves that game dont understand Z Axis at all ... and many damages and effects affected several of my party members, even tho each of them was on different floors, or just high. I certainly hope this got fixed!
If that can reassure you, Fextralife told us that verticality will be more present after early access zones :
He is most likely talking about the mountain pass exit I think.
I have seen the video, what he is talking about is that game uses option to set parts of puzzle on some "elevated surface" ... Im not woried about that at all.
What im talking about is, that game often fail to recognize that there is vertical difference between you and your target, and allows you to use touch spell, or spell that should never reach your target ... bcs it dont understand Z Axis, it only counts how far you are horizontaly ... something like when you climb a ladder, you dont loose even a single step of movement. Or that you have one character in ground level, and another on balcony right abowe the first one ... again, vertical difference at least 3m ... enemy throwed Alchemist fire and both got damage (so far acceptable, it probably explodes in shape of sphere) ... but then only on ground level there is puddle of fire ... and yet, both gets damage from it.
//Edit: So ... im not worried at all about not having enough elevated spaces ... im sure Larian map designers go wild as we go on ... especialy in the city.
What i am woried is that the game fails to recognize we are acutally on floor 2, and will punish us for things that are happening on the ground level. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 12/07/2306:31 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
But I’m guessing most people who buy the game will only intend to play it once. Many will probably not finish at all. So Larian are catering for people who aren’t going to want to start a new play through if they get 50 hours in and think they made a mistake before the game even started, including people not familiar with the D&D rules. Respecing is a way of doing that. I imagine there will be fairly hefty cost for doing so as there are in most RPGs to dissuade using it as an exploit.
The problem isn't the respec option itself. While I'm unlikely to use it, I can see the necessity for players unfamiliar with D&D. The problem with the respec is that it has only a nominal fee attached (100 gold apparently, though it's unclear if it gets more expensive at higher levels).
And admittedly I'm not a fan of being able to respec companions. Especially not when the classes of companion characters are so strongly tied their stories.
They praise BG-3 vertikality ... And yet, i had several prooves that game dont understand Z Axis at all ... and many damages and effects affected several of my party members, even tho each of them was on different floors, or just high. I certainly hope this got fixed!
If that can reassure you, Fextralife told us that verticality will be more present after early access zones [...]
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
It does not ...
I have seen the video, what he is talking about is that game uses option to set parts of puzzle on some "elevated surface" ... Im not woried about that at all. [...]
Well, I am actually slightly worried about that (namely, verticality in puzzles/exploration).
If the camera controls aren't greatly improved, then our ability to explore our surrounding will be affected. In EA, camera controls were very subpar and I, the player, occasionally missed things that my characters, in the world, would not have missed, because they weren't hidden at all. Just hard to see with the camera I often wrestled with.
Aside from this bit, I share the other observations and worries described by RagnarokCzD in the rest of his post. The game's logic struggles with elevation.
In order to allow all your wildest dream class combinations, we've removed Ability Score Prerequisites. So there's no more need to get your Charisma up to a pesky 13 if you decide to make a soul pact with a playful archfey or dangerous fiend. You can Multiclass into anything your roleplay and build desires demand. In short, this means warriors will be able to wield arcane spells, rogues can master divine magic, spellcasters may dabble in martial prowess, and you’ll have the freedom to build the exact class that you want.
Essentially: "we recreated our classless system from DOSII."
Additionally of note: - No mention of whether you can specifically change Origin Characters' level 1 class - No mention of any changes to conversations (e.g., switching the "talker" mid conversation, or providing QoL changes to multiplayer) - No mention of how exactly spell slots will work for multiclassed characters
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.
This, 100%. There is no way that BG3 should even be allowed to claim to have any association with the 5e ruleset. Funny thing about that is, I don't know that any of their recent communications have indicated that it is. You don't hear or see a lot of "5e" references anymore. Instead you see a few "D&D" references. BG3 is based on D&D only in that it takes place in the fictitious setting of D&D lore. It's not a "D&D 5e" game, it's a "D&D" game. Here's my personal problem with that. When I purchased it way back in early access, three years ago, it was specifically because I thought it was going to be a "D&D 5e" game. Will I play BG3 and enjoy it? Sure, it's a beautifully rendered D&D-ish game that has some compelling narrative elements and challenging combat. Would I, personally, enjoy it more if there was a toggle button somewhere that locked everything in to be exactly like the mechanics laid out in the 5e rules? Yeah, I would. I just need to keep remembering that people like me make up, so it seems, a rather small percentage of the larger consumer base for this game. For my own part, I'm going to be watching for some enterprising minds in the modding community to create that toggle button for me and those like me. So even if Larian doesn't care about the "strictly 5e" thing, there's still a chance I'll be able to have that option after release anyway.
RIGHT how DARE this 'evil company' put in completely _OPTIONAL_ features that serve to make the game accessible to a wider audience. SHAME ON THEM!........ (Seeing the threads here, i kind of understand why Larian Opt to not participate themselves it also reminds me why there's like 1 or 2 people at most from the group i used to Pen / Paper with as a teenager that i still have any sort of contact with today as an adult.)
This is a mostly reasonable take...mostly. And most of those are just options that can be ignored and I have no problem with that stuff. If I can ignore it then great. But there is a massive problem there with the multiclass handholding and that is terrible. Now as I mentioned above, I never liked multiclassing, even in D&D 5e and I had no intention to multiclass in BG3 so this doesn't really affect me. But I am also aware that there are people who like multiclassing and they meticulously plan their character progression with multiclassing in mind...those changes will completely ruin the game for those people. I think that just not allowing multiclassing in BG3 would have been better than this system...at least that way people know how to plan their playthroughs...it will be terrible for those who multiclass when the game launches only to find out after the fact that it ruined their character.
It's funny that this angle on multiclassing came up, because I was thinking about this as I read through the thread to here, and my conclusion was, quite simply, that I remain unaffected. If I'm going to use the feature, then I'm going to spec my character accordingly. There's a reason for minimum stats aside from just being a requirement for multiclassing. Things like spell slots, save bonuses, attack bonuses, HP, etc. etc. Anyone else that's deeply invested in theory crafting builds will have the same mindset, and will also be unaffected by this.
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.
This, 100%. There is no way that BG3 should even be allowed to claim to have any association with the 5e ruleset. Funny thing about that is, I don't know that any of their recent communications have indicated that it is. You don't hear or see a lot of "5e" references anymore. Instead you see a few "D&D" references. BG3 is based on D&D only in that it takes place in the fictitious setting of D&D lore. It's not a "D&D 5e" game, it's a "D&D" game. Here's my personal problem with that. When I purchased it way back in early access, three years ago, it was specifically because I thought it was going to be a "D&D 5e" game. Will I play BG3 and enjoy it? Sure, it's a beautifully rendered D&D-ish game that has some compelling narrative elements and challenging combat. Would I, personally, enjoy it more if there was a toggle button somewhere that locked everything in to be exactly like the mechanics laid out in the 5e rules? Yeah, I would. I just need to keep remembering that people like me make up, so it seems, a rather small percentage of the larger consumer base for this game. For my own part, I'm going to be watching for some enterprising minds in the modding community to create that toggle button for me and those like me. So even if Larian doesn't care about the "strictly 5e" thing, there's still a chance I'll be able to have that option after release anyway.
Yeah, I'm hoping for a 5E core rules mod as well. Let's hope it doesn't take too long for such a mod to appear.
This, 100%. There is no way that BG3 should even be allowed to claim to have any association with the 5e ruleset. Funny thing about that is, I don't know that any of their recent communications have indicated that it is. You don't hear or see a lot of "5e" references anymore. Instead you see a few "D&D" references. BG3 is based on D&D only in that it takes place in the fictitious setting of D&D lore. It's not a "D&D 5e" game, it's a "D&D" game. Here's my personal problem with that. When I purchased it way back in early access, three years ago, it was specifically because I thought it was going to be a "D&D 5e" game. Will I play BG3 and enjoy it? Sure, it's a beautifully rendered D&D-ish game that has some compelling narrative elements and challenging combat. Would I, personally, enjoy it more if there was a toggle button somewhere that locked everything in to be exactly like the mechanics laid out in the 5e rules? Yeah, I would. I just need to keep remembering that people like me make up, so it seems, a rather small percentage of the larger consumer base for this game. For my own part, I'm going to be watching for some enterprising minds in the modding community to create that toggle button for me and those like me. So even if Larian doesn't care about the "strictly 5e" thing, there's still a chance I'll be able to have that option after release anyway.
It seems they haven’t fixed sorcerer. So that’s off my list as a potential class. I can’t wait for Larian have enemies throw two fireballs and pretend it’s an encounter design.
But you can sure that any high level enemy sorcerer Larian builds *will* happily throw two fireballs a round at your party....and therein lies the rub.
