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

I think there is nothing to worry about, here.

I was worried about stupidly OP spell levels like a moron, but it seems things are just pretty normal and closer to the rules. If they state; 'You're probably better off multi-ing if you know what you're doing' that means there is options for the advanced players. That meas they know people want to do it, they give you the option but know that 5E isn't really geared towards multiclassing, let alone with a hard cap. There is a respec for those who make mistakes. Plan your build or not, respec if you need. It's all good, man. Just wait it out, give it a go.

Another problem with this new tadpole system? Before with using the tadpole to control minds in dialogue and the tadpole powers in combat, they were more like actual temptations. You get yourself in a tough spot, there's a button there to get you out of it, to give you a potential tial edge if you don't think you can handle it. This new system? You have to already have beaten your enemy and proven you're strength. Now its potentially always a premeditated move, a calculated power grab. Before, even a good character or a character who isn't good but still wants the tadpole gone might feel the pressure in a difficult moment to lean on the tadpole. If the only way to enhance the tadpole is by putting new ones in your head, I think this presentation actually makes them less tempting than before.

I think people are sometimes overestimating ASI and feats compared to class features. With level 12 I'm quite certain you can get very far with a primary stat of 16 if you really want to (less for primary spell casters though). Also comparing for example two levels of fighter for second wind and action surge to any feat or or one to two levels of barbarian for rage (not to mention 3 for subclass access) can be very rewarding and have higher impact than most feats. I would say in 5e its quite balanced especially if you don't go above level 12. But it really depends on the player and their play style and what they are going for.

im going to refuse that tadpole like the plague, and adding more no matter how much more powerfull you get, feels... just eeew, i dont more of em munching on ma brain, iwant the one i have out of there period !

And yet here we are... I agree that mods shouldn't be needed, but as it stands I'll need them to get an enjoyable game for me.

Would I have prefered a "core rules" toggle/difficulty instead of having to mod the game to hell? Absolutely. Unfortunately I'm left with little choice if I want to experience the game the way I want and that it was originally marketed as.

I have given up on Day/Night. But please could we at least have some RAIN or cloudy weather in BG3???
Still no sight of neither is very disappointing in terms of environmental effects.
I cannot think of one single RPG that does not have this. Even Ultima 7 in 1992 did it.

Just a side note regarding the 3/3/6 build comment.

A fighter gets two feats by sixth level. So a 3/3/6 build can net two feats as opposed to one. Yes, it misses out on a third feat, but that's ideally factored into the split in some manner.

Imo it's more likely than not that Larian will change multiclassing so that you get feats at *character* levels of 4, 8, and 12. Possibly with exceptions for Fighter 6 and Rogue 10.

I think the funny part about multiclassing is that if the new system was designed to make it easier for casuals, they are actually making it harder since the restrictions were kind of a guard rail to prevent people from making inherently inferior builds. Ultimately, through playing and gaining 'experience' as a player will they begin to learn more about the mechanics. I mean sure, they will also learn by making builds that are ineffective too.

The caster progression is just gravy, but either way, respec is in so it doesn't really matter what you do, you can always fix the situation for a paltry amount. Fifth edition was designed to be as accessible as possible, and a little exploration of the PHB shows that it is pretty accessible once you learn a bit of it.

I still don't understand why they did hirelings this way, do they really assume that people would find it preferable to rolling their own characters from scratch? Is this some kind of accessibility feature for consoles? Can you respec them, yes, but now you are incurring a fee, albeit a tiny one at 100gp, to basically make your own. Baffling, I must say.

I've always explained it to people and players that the rules in something like Tashas are specifically for Player Characters. Yes, on average, orcs are vastly stronger than halflings. Most Giants are vastly stronger than orcs. A player character gnome can be stronger than both.

Player characters are not bound by the words 'most' or 'average'. They're explicitly protagonists, they're meant to break the mold.

Absolutely fascinating that multiclassing and character modifications are what's the debated topic on this forum, while the subreddit is in full civil war over racial changes to humans and half-elves. Wonder which debate Larian finds more compelling...

First post in quite some time, but after reading through most of this thread I do actually want to give my (unasked) two cents.

In fact, after some a..annoyance with some posts (not really warranted, tbh) I actually starded to recall something:
When the Enhanced Edition for BG1 was announced I joined there forum, since I really loved BG 2 -and BG1 was also fun.
Sure there where many flaws, but it was the game that actually got me into cRPGs. In fact, I played it so much that I memorized much of the script, just through playing.
Anyways, when I joined Beamdogs forum I was surprised, even shocked to find out that there where people who enjoyed combat in Baldurs Gate.
That *really* confused me, because until that point I used to say that Bioware could not make decent combat in any of their game if there lives depend on it.

At first I thought that it was just different tastes or something, but nowadays I think it is something deeper. It is the reasoning why you play it.
I enjoyed BG2 for the characters, their personality and banters. The battle where just annoying and distracted me from, well, reading that interactive story in which I can (somewhat) change the direction. I still only care about battle as a result of my action, as part of my character and the story I want to read.

But during that time in the days of the EE version, I saw that there are people who seem to care more for the strategic side of the game. Which I jsut can not understand and probably not even really describe, because it is so alien to me.

I want to challenge myself in the story, I want to play a character and see a different live. If that character lives in a violent world and violence fits that character, sure I can fight, but it is just one facet for me and not even a very important one. It my sound weird, but if I have to chose between more well-crafted and engaging fights or another romance option, I would stop reading after romance and pick that.

But if that is my focus, I have trouble to even understand *why* people are so opposed to these changes, since they are (to me!) purely combat ones?

I am actually more annoyed about the +2 proficency on explorer, because I dislike buffs like that on easier settings. Because I find anything that makes you *weaker* when you raise the difficulty is a bad idea. make the rest stronger, more numerous and smarter - but *never* change the player.
(I want to have challenge in skill roles, apparently. )


Well, for those that read till the end, thanks for reading my ramblings. =)

The balancing act with these games is so tricky. Some people lean more heavily to the combat, others want a rich story, and all to varying degrees. It seems like Larian is leaning more to the story side on this one, and the folks who want really challenging combat are very reasonably frustrated.

For what it's worth, Tactician mode doesn't debuff the player. What was announced is pretty much exactly what you describe.

Thanks for posting

Oh, trust me, I completely agree. Like I said, when I purchased the game in early access, it was because I wanted to be able to help in the developing process for a game that I wanted to be an as-faithful-as-possible-to-the-5e-mechanics game. I quickly learned that that was not the direction Larian had ever planned on actually going with it, and that my voice didn't matter. Even now, with a number of people on the forums still clamoring for a 5e game, Larian doesn't give a rat's arse. It's clear they aren't in it for anything other than trying to bring in as wide an audience of consumers as possible. That's my bad for expecting anything other than that from the jump. Duh! Any company is in it for profit. Not to cater to what they see as a small percentage of origination material loyalists.

It's sad that I have to wait for a genius technical mind to do what Larian is unwilling to do, but I have faith in the modding community, and I'm sure someone will get this right before too long.

There is people like me that enjoy the aspect of turn based combat I enjoy dealing with strategy ,resource management and crafting character builds.

Its a fun puzzle personally, I enjoy thinking in solutions for various encounter. There is satisfaction from seeing that your decisions managed to tackle the challenge, there is satisfaction from learning from my failures.


That's why I'm ranting about respecs and the change of multiclass it removes any weight power from decisions given you just simply can push a button and reset without any consequence. I dont mind those options as a custom option for those that dont wanna deal with this aspect of the game and just wanna go straight for the story. The multiclass changes harm more new players then help as already explained previously regarding stat scaling.

The casual aspect of this game is guaranteed, the market is all for you guys. I just want my crumb of good combat that wont interfere at all with the experience of the core public.

And itemization will fix any deficiency with stats for multiclassing.

A thought:
I really really hope there are comparable benefits to going all in on a single class for the whole game as there are for multiclassing. Idk what… spells, achievements, abilities, features, dialogue. But something for filling out a whole ass vertical build on one class.

Everything this. Any game I play, before I even consider multiclassing, I want a full playthrough of any class I'm considering multiclassing. I want to understand how the game and the class interact. Given the scope of the game, it will probably be a year, maybe 2, before I even consider multiclass options (other than the Absurd).

I don't know. I'm a 3.5 Veteran, so Multiclassing is in my blood. 5E doesn't really gravitates towards this; so if it's a little more viable, I probably will. Just dips, though; take two levels rogue for Sneak Attack and Exertise or something. This in turn comes at a cost of a Feat/ASI so I'm good.