Yeah well I havent played any previous Larian titles, so I cant really compare.
They just dont interest me. I watch what the fans say about them and I am just still not interested.
They start of as Diablo clones. I've once played Diablo 2. That was enough Diablo to last a lifetime.
First off... What?
Divinity games are CRPG's not ARPG's. They are nothing like Diablo at all.
I have many complaints about World of Warcraft. Not being able to move while spellcasting is one of them.
Ironically, I actually like that mechanism.
Of course, in the setting of an MMO it makes little impact besides making kiting annoying (Though that's more of a PvP thing and PvP in MMO's is usually pretty tragic at best)
But in something like an ARPG, it can add to the complexity of combat. Finding the time to stand still and cast off powerful spells.
However, this is predicated on said ARPG not being the Diablo-esk isometric clickfest where you have to click to move and so no attacks can be done while moving leading into the whole "Lifesteal meta" because in lieu of having actual mobility options you just sit there and facetank everything (Until you're one shot as the only actual method of you being able to die since you're otherwise healing 3000% of your max health every 0.01s)
What you describe is not what BG3 offers though. Because you CAN spent an action to just run. The situation that opponents do nothing but run towards you is very common in BG3.
It is. You CAN use an action to gain ADDITIONAL movement, but you have your base movement speed with no action required. I'm not opposed to having the OPTION to utilize actions for additional movement.
As far as opponents doing nothing but run towards you... It's a lot less prevalent in BG3 than in Divinity, since most enemies will have thrown weapons/ranged attacks to use while running in. So them just Dashing after you for several turns is rarely a thing.
Btw action points are for computer games. D&D is designed for tabletop. That they dont offer a concept of action points is therefore very unsurprising. It would be a PITA to have in tabletop.
Not really. I've played plenty of TT games that use Action Points. It's not a big deal at all.
I cant say I like action points. Saving action points up so you can do your big action doesnt appeal to me. See my intro above. I want to act all the time, and make what thing to pick the challenge, not a waiting game.
Action Points plays into that. The fact that you CAN save up action points just adds to the challenge of thinking what to pick. It doesn't mean you HAVE to save up action points. It just provides the option, with the added benefit of reducing the impact of turns where you aren't capable of consuming all action points (Such as not being in range of an enemy to do attacks, so you move closer to a distant enemy)
Since the way Action Points function is you have different abilities with different costs associated with them and you decide how best to spend your pool of Action Points. You can still act every turn, you can even pool up AP WHILE still acting every turn (Depending on how many you get per turn vs how much actions cost) or find ways to spend each action point on every turn.
A basic example of this would be DoS2 with Lone Wolf feat. You gain 3 Action Points per turn. Most actions cost 2 Action Points while some cost 3 Action Points and some cost 1 Action Point.
With your 3 Action Points per turn, you can use 1x 3 AP ability, or 1x 2 AP ability and 1x 1 AP ability, or 3x 1 AP ability to consume all points for that turn.
Alternatively, you can use 1x 2 AP ability and save 1 AP for next turn, where you can then use 2x 2 AP abilities (Since you gain 3 more next turn, with the one you had left over from this turn allowing you to access 4 AP)
This system can become more complex with higher numbers of Action Points allowing for greater variance of ability costs and thus more combinations of skills to utilize your allowance of AP.
The whole idea of playing an origin character was completely superflous. I literally sacrifice a whole character I could design myself to merely play a premade character ... why ?
Technically, you don't have to "Sacrifice a character you could design yourself". As seen with Durge, which is compeletely custom.
The premise of Origin characters, is to change the backstory of the character. So instead of Tav who has literally 0 backstory and thus 0 characterization, you have someone who has a tangible connection to the world with a backstory.
And The Dark Urge story wasnt really that great.
I don't disagree.
I like the concept of Durge, rather than the execution.
It being a unique background for the player character which allows them to fit into the world and have unique story developments that cannot be experience by simply bringing along a companion.
And yes, bringing variance into the games is of course a good idea, but Origins are only one possibility, and I dont see why they are actually necessary. Having classes that play very differently, like for example the Malkavian in Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines (all dialogue is completely different, because your character is insane), is also an option for that.
The difference is where the variance is being created.
Origins like Durge provide variance in story. With unique interactions and potentially even unique plots (Like, imagine a BG3 Origin who WASN'T tadpoled. Which would necessitate entirely new plots to move them through the game compared to the "Gotta remove tadpole, pretend to be True Soul, sexy dream companion turns out to be squidface, use tadpole to beat brian")
While classes provide variance in gameplay, with potentially unique ways to participate in combat or perform non-combat roles. (Of course, the impact of class diversity does get mitigated by the number of companions you acquire and can bring along. Such as how many people don't feel the need to play any of the classes that companions default to because they experience them from bringing said companions with them).
