|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2023
|
This thread reminds me of the "SE added a jump button" FFXIV thread.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think you're looking at it from a different angle than it's intended. Instead of considering it a change of class, consider it more like retconning the class. We're changing who they've always been. Sure, it's immersion breaking, but it's also immersion breaking when I get up to refill my glass.
The option being offered is "hey, so you think Shadowheart is more interesting as monk or druid? Knock yourself out!" It's just a different way to tell the story I mean, I see your point but you can already make Shadowheart a druid or monk via multiclassing. It's bad enough that you can also make her any other class just as easily and I would personally leave unrestricted multiclassing and removing that 1 cleric level to mods. Before someone asks 'but what's the difference if a mod does it and if it's a built-in feature?', I'll try to answer that too: It's a way for Larian to set respectable boundaries. That way they say "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar. This is our vision for her and if you choose to deviate from it somehow, the game may respond in incoherent and immersion-breaking ways." This is a message I'd respect. Class respeccing and the removal of multiclassing requirements is more like saying "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar but you know what, who cares, make her a barbarian or wizard if you want lol". I can understand that to some this is simply Larian being inclusive and wanting everyone to have fun, but to me this is them being a DM who can't say no even to suggestions that break the lore of their world. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I open Kingmaker and ask "hey, Valerie has great stats for a Paladin, can I make her one?" and the game firmly says "NO", I have much more respect for it and its creative vision than for a game that lets me turn a githyanki soldier into a bard or remove all druid levels from a literal archdruid. I'd like to say though that viewing it as a retcon didn't occur to me and it helps me see a perspective from which this is not so horrible. I liked how Deadfire handled this - each companion had a set of 3 lore-friendly class and multiclass options to pick from. This was a fine compromise that allowed some variety while keeping everyone restricted to options that made thematic sense for them. Shadowheart isnt a devoted cleric of shar though. She's far too nice, doesn't commit ritual murder, and she never actually commutes with shar at night like a devoted cleric would. Infact she exhibits more traits of a sorcerer, strange inharent glowy magic that sorcerer pcs recognize as sorcerous magic. She likely only thinks she's a cleric of shar she's probably a divine soul sorcerer or something similar in reality
Last edited by N7Greenfire; 13/07/23 07:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2021
|
I think you're looking at it from a different angle than it's intended. Instead of considering it a change of class, consider it more like retconning the class. We're changing who they've always been. Sure, it's immersion breaking, but it's also immersion breaking when I get up to refill my glass.
The option being offered is "hey, so you think Shadowheart is more interesting as monk or druid? Knock yourself out!" It's just a different way to tell the story I mean, I see your point but you can already make Shadowheart a druid or monk via multiclassing. It's bad enough that you can also make her any other class just as easily and I would personally leave unrestricted multiclassing and removing that 1 cleric level to mods. Before someone asks 'but what's the difference if a mod does it and if it's a built-in feature?', I'll try to answer that too: It's a way for Larian to set respectable boundaries. That way they say "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar. This is our vision for her and if you choose to deviate from it somehow, the game may respond in incoherent and immersion-breaking ways." This is a message I'd respect. Class respeccing and the removal of multiclassing requirements is more like saying "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar but you know what, who cares, make her a barbarian or wizard if you want lol". I can understand that to some this is simply Larian being inclusive and wanting everyone to have fun, but to me this is them being a DM who can't say no even to suggestions that break the lore of their world. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I open Kingmaker and ask "hey, Valerie has great stats for a Paladin, can I make her one?" and the game firmly says "NO", I have much more respect for it and its creative vision than for a game that lets me turn a githyanki soldier into a bard or remove all druid levels from a literal archdruid. I'd like to say though that viewing it as a retcon didn't occur to me and it helps me see a perspective from which this is not so horrible. I liked how Deadfire handled this - each companion had a set of 3 lore-friendly class and multiclass options to pick from. This was a fine compromise that allowed some variety while keeping everyone restricted to options that made thematic sense for them. So if Larian put a big fat warning up whenever you want to respec a companion away from their default class, letting the player know that they're breaking this particular character, then it's all good?
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
|
Class respeccing and the removal of multiclassing requirements is more like saying "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar but you know what, who cares, make her a barbarian or wizard if you want lol". I can understand that to some this is simply Larian being inclusive and wanting everyone to have fun, but to me this is them being a DM who can't say no even to suggestions that break the lore of their world. That argument makes a lot of sense, certainly. It also makes me think of another way to think about reclassing companions. "Hi, DM, you know that cleric NPC that we all love, well I've got this cleric build I've been dying to try out, would you consider turning your cleric into a rogue on our next campaign?" Obviously much easier with humans than computers. I definitely understand the "this is the Larian BG3 Shadowheart. Modders will make theirs; this is ours" argument, and I think it's neat that Larian chose not to be too precious about their characters.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
Class respeccing and the removal of multiclassing requirements is more like saying "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar but you know what, who cares, make her a barbarian or wizard if you want lol". I can understand that to some this is simply Larian being inclusive and wanting everyone to have fun, but to me this is them being a DM who can't say no even to suggestions that break the lore of their world. That argument makes a lot of sense, certainly. It also makes me think of another way to think about reclassing companions. "Hi, DM, you know that cleric NPC that we all love, well I've got this cleric build I've been dying to try out, would you consider turning your cleric into a rogue on our next campaign?" Obviously much easier with humans than computers. I definitely understand the "this is the Larian BG3 Shadowheart. Modders will make theirs; this is ours" argument, and I think it's neat that Larian chose not to be too precious about their characters. There's always going to be people bothered that their favorite companions have non-complimentary classes. When you're on your nth play through, you may not care so much about keeping SH lore friendly. The thing is, this is Larian pretty much straight up admitting you'll have a hard time in the realistic and probable scenario you dislike half the cast. I see this as a damage control policy. Like many of their features, it's not thought through, balanced or well implemented. It's going to be part of a wider issue, while meaningless in itself, but nonetheless contribute to the trend. I just think fixing this won't save the game. That ship has not only sailed, it's sunk somewhere near an iceberg.
Last edited by Silver/; 13/07/23 08:22 PM. Reason: Autocorrect
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jul 2017
|
This thread reminds me of the "SE added a jump button" FFXIV thread. It certainly turned out more interesting than anticipated
Nobody's perfect... I'm a nobody.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Yes, that was my expectation at least. I don't know about others, but I fully expected either a "5E core rule" toggle or gameplay mode. Now I have to rely on mods and either have to learn to mod BG3 myself rather than spend time playing it or I have to trust that someone does a mod that accomplishes what I want. Getting to 5E core is a bit of a journey, considering we stepped off that path so long ago. I suspect the biggest problem will be balance. Consider what happens once you return ranged weapons to what they used to be in 5E. Eldritch spear should mean 300 feet eldritch blast range. I'm pretty sure that will break just about any encounter in the game, because the AI just can't see that far. But then the AI gets those abilities too, and suddenly encounters might well begin to overlap. I don't see Larian really changing their map layout approach, which means everything is so ludicrously compressed, which means 5E distances will almost necessarily get really weird. And to fix that, it's going to be necessary to compromise on the rules. The point is, once we start changing the rules, the logic of encounters changes, and trying to fully grasp what each change does to each encounter across the game is sufficiently enormous that I can understand why Larian don't care much to support multiple different sets of rules. I imagine this would also be an enormous problem for a modder. I think we're all aware of the fact that a 100% translation of the PnP wouldn't work. But still a "5E core rule" toggle/gamemode would have been good for anyone who actually wants a 5E game, it would have been a lot better than having to mod the game. As it currently stands I absolutely have to mod the game to enjoy my playthrough. At the very least I need to restore the original racial ASIs (and maybe the variant human) and changing Shove to a full action among other some other changes.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
|
This thread reminds me of the "SE added a jump button" FFXIV thread. It certainly turned out more interesting than anticipated What I love about these threads is they give me new ideas about ways to play. I originally voted the "I don't like it" option, but here we are 4 pages later, and I've got plans for an eventual WTF playthrough where everything is wacky: PC 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1, Laezel bard, SH feylock, Gale cleric, etc. They've taken "I wonder what happens when I do this..." to this bonkers level, just adding more replayability
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Shadowheart isnt a devoted cleric of shar though. She's far too nice, doesn't commit ritual murder, and she never actually commutes with shar at night like a devoted cleric would. I know she has layers to her, but come on her description at https://baldursgate3.game/ literally begins with "A devoted cleric of Shar". So if Larian put a big fat warning up whenever you want to respec a companion away from their default class, letting the player know that they're breaking this particular character, then it's all good? Honestly? That would be a lot better than nothing. That way I'd at least know the game intends to respect Shadowheart being a cleric and I derail at my own peril. I think it's neat that Larian chose not to be too precious about their characters. I can respect that.
|
|
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
Joined: Oct 2021
|
I think you're looking at it from a different angle than it's intended. Instead of considering it a change of class, consider it more like retconning the class. We're changing who they've always been. Sure, it's immersion breaking, but it's also immersion breaking when I get up to refill my glass.
The option being offered is "hey, so you think Shadowheart is more interesting as monk or druid? Knock yourself out!" It's just a different way to tell the story I mean, I see your point but you can already make Shadowheart a druid or monk via multiclassing. It's bad enough that you can also make her any other class just as easily and I would personally leave unrestricted multiclassing and removing that 1 cleric level to mods. Before someone asks 'but what's the difference if a mod does it and if it's a built-in feature?', I'll try to answer that too: It's a way for Larian to set respectable boundaries. That way they say "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar. This is our vision for her and if you choose to deviate from it somehow, the game may respond in incoherent and immersion-breaking ways." This is a message I'd respect. Class respeccing and the removal of multiclassing requirements is more like saying "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar but you know what, who cares, make her a barbarian or wizard if you want lol". I can understand that to some this is simply Larian being inclusive and wanting everyone to have fun, but to me this is them being a DM who can't say no even to suggestions that break the lore of their world. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I open Kingmaker and ask "hey, Valerie has great stats for a Paladin, can I make her one?" and the game firmly says "NO", I have much more respect for it and its creative vision than for a game that lets me turn a githyanki soldier into a bard or remove all druid levels from a literal archdruid. I'd like to say though that viewing it as a retcon didn't occur to me and it helps me see a perspective from which this is not so horrible. I liked how Deadfire handled this - each companion had a set of 3 lore-friendly class and multiclass options to pick from. This was a fine compromise that allowed some variety while keeping everyone restricted to options that made thematic sense for them. So if Larian put a big fat warning up whenever you want to respec a companion away from their default class, letting the player know that they're breaking this particular character, then it's all good? I would happily accept this, but I think the main concern is that it might screw with class and companion reactivity and the ludonarrative consistency of said reactivity. Idk though. I'm uncomfortable, but I'm not exactly one of the hardliners on this issue. I'm more of a "I'm not so sure about this" kind of guy.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
But why bother having a poll if you're not going to examine the results? To make a point for example. :P That way they say "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar. This is our vision for her and if you choose to deviate from it somehow, the game may respond in incoherent and immersion-breaking ways." This is a message I'd respect. Class respeccing and the removal of multiclassing requirements is more like saying "This is Shadowheart, she's a devout cleric of Shar but you know what, who cares, make her a barbarian or wizard if you want lol". Or they just say: "This is Shadowheart ... she is devoted worshipper of Shar and we felt like Cleric fits her well enough ... BUT we also realize that non-clerics can and do worship Deities in this setting and Classes cen get in some way more limiting than expanding for characters ... so if her Class dont fit your party, feel free to change it ... she will remain faithfull to her Goddess tho."
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Getting to 5E core is a bit of a journey, That much is true ... But if Solasta showed us one thing, it was that its certainly possible ... if you really want to. I dont want to be harsh on Larian, they did tremendous job creating awesome game ... not so tremendous in translating rules tho ... But i cant help but wonder what kind of game would Solasta become ... with team, budget, and license as big and as good as Larian have. That would be interesting competition to watch.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2022
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2017
|
The vote options are a bit problematic. I don't like that classes could be changed but I like if subclasses could be changed. So although I voted "don't like", I'm all in all glad that Larian offers the option. I will just not use it to change classes.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I think having the option to do so is better than not having the option (even if I'm not planning on using it), this is one thing modders are going to add no matter what happens in the end, but if Larian does it officially they should a 100% add a message on the respec screen saying ''Changing an origin character class might break some of their dialogue options'' or something like that, because the majority of players don't go into forums or read updates, they just launch the game and play, and if they don't add a message like that expect a flood of tears from people saying their game broke after respec-ing their companions
Last edited by Adgaroth; 15/07/23 12:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
I'd like to see some backbone from Larian to stop this kind of nonsense. Don't undermine your own characters like this. Try to maintain at least some coherence between storytelling and gameplay.
That said, Minsc has always been a Barbarian, not a Ranger. BG1 just didn't have the Barbarian class and Ranger was the next best thing. With how much more magical Rangers are in 5e, Minsc definitely should not be a spellcaster. I still don't want to change him myself. I don't want that power as a player. I want to be able to respect companion characters as they are and believe in them instead of feeling like they are my little playthings I can mess up as much as I want.
Last edited by 1varangian; 15/07/23 12:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
"I want it to be the way i like it, but dont want to make it so myself." Well ... Seems legit ... even some revolutions were based on this.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I was just listening Fextralife video about builds ... And as he used Eldrich knight there ... i realized there is one more point to this topic, that (as far as i know) nobody made yet. And that is our companions statistics! Lets say you want Lae'zel to tank for you ... Lets say you want her to wield Shield and Longsword ... she can, obviously ... but she allready have picked Great Weapon fighting style, that will be wasted on her. Lets say you want to Multiclass Lae'zel with Cleric, or Paladin ... But she have terrible Charisma and Wisdom ... a little wasted potential there isn it? Or without any Major change ... Lets just say you want full-magic party ... so you want your Lae'zel to become Eldrich Knight ... But her Intelligence is low ... Wouldnt it be better to have option to reset her completely and optimize her for whatever build or combination you have on mind?
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2009
|
Wouldnt it be better to have option to reset her completely and optimize her for whatever build or combination you have on mind? No. Because then she wouldn't really be Lae'zel. The same way a high Int Minsc wizard wouldn't really be Minsc.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Purist will be purist ... I dunno, this feels like kinda dull conversation. No matter what anyone say you people just keep repeating "i dont want to change anything" ... i dont see why it dont surfice to say once.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 23/07/23 12:02 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|