I played Divine Divinity, loved it. I played Baldur's Gate 2, liked it. I played Planescape Torment, revered it. I played Dragon Age: Origins, hated it.

But there is one aspect in Dragon Age: Origins that I grew to love. Overall, I don't like that game. But I loved one of a few aspects of it, which was this: Complexity of gameplay.

I'd say Origins had about 70% of the complexity of Baldur's Gate 2. My question is, how about Baldur's Gate 3?

Because I wanna occasionally feel like I'm playing a strategy game. It's an acquired taste, but I've been tasting it for a long time and I've acquired it.

Thanks.

I have to say I´m a little lost in here. I played all the DA games and I have to say I do not know what elements it has in common with an strategy game ( civilization, age of wonders, warhammer, Heroes of Might and magic, etc) or even tactical games (xcom, mutant year zero, tactics ogre, FF tactics, Fire emblem games, etc)

I supposse it depends on how do you define complexity in a RPG game, I think?

Here's an illustration...

In Divine Divinity, you level up and distribute stat points and skill points. That's it...

In Baldur's Gate 2.........

In that regard, BG3 will be as complex as 5e.

BG2 was only as complex as 2e.

5e is far less complex than 2e. But nobody expect high complexity for a big modern title.

PS : Divine Divinity is the unique larian game which i liked,

Sounds like you would like Pathfinder Kingmaker, or the new one that’s about to come out. If you don’t understand the complexity, normal will seem too hard, but once you understand the intricacies of the system, you can solo unfair.

I think BG3, and in essence 5e, opens up multiple ways to play and succeed, but limits the ways to play and fail if that makes sense. No matter how you build your character and how you approach objectives, 5e allows every class a multitude of options. Less linear and more Jack of all trades, by design. This isn’t to say it lacks complexity in how powerful you can do certain things, but I do think the ceiling is significantly lower than older iterations of DND.

its not complex its bloated.
I sure do love kingmaker, but the complexity of pathfinder isnt something id praise.

the cool part about it is the ridiculous builds you can make, but i dont think the way pathfinder works is actually required for that.

In that regard, the 2nd edition of Pathfinder reached a more balanced middle ground between character creation options, "roleplayability" and swift combat mechanics, IMHO. I hope some studio would make a game using pf2e. Maybe it´s because I´m used to the almost infinite builds you can make and I like PF1e, but I understand that PF1e can be a little overwhelming at first.

5e is fine, but the strong point is not the complexity of the character creation options in comparison with other tabletop games like pathfinder, TDE, Starfinder, etc... or previous instalments of D&D.
If you want games with great character creation options and party-based you could try the games based on the Tabletop "The Dark Eye" like the Drakensang series or Realms of Arkania series.
You can even try old titles with rich character creation options like Temple of elemental evil, arcanum or Pool or radiance or even more modern games like NWN2 or Pillars of eternity 2. You can make an incredible amount of multiclass builds with the latter to complete your party, and all classes are very balanced ( The best defensive builds are multiclassing enchanter wizards, for example =D )

There are a lot of dungeon crawlers too that have very cool party creation mechanics (Demon rise series, battle chasers, Etrian odyssey, etc) or even tactical games like Fire Emblem or Tactics ogre titles.

I don't think I agree that 2e had far more complexity than 5e. The 2e system had fewer moving parts overall.

There was a little more in terms of your leveling up choices for each level...proficiency (if you had it at the level) and Thief Skills (if you were a thief). Otherwise it was just "take what the chart says." If you were a human, you could choose a dual class (otherwise multiclass was a decision at 1st level only).

In 5e, you get a choice at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level for a subclass. Some subclasses of each class have choices periodically. Each level you can choose if you want to multiclass. Every 4 class levels you can choose a Feat or 2x Stat Advancements.5e also has more moving parts in combat.

2e certainyl has less trap options from what ive heard, pathfinder that is

I think my problem with D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder (at least 1st, I haven't played Pathfinder 2nd) is that you build your entire character at creation. There is no real space for character development based on choices and situations in the story unless your GM allows you to rebuild your character from the ground up. This is less of a problem in a video game, but I find it a shortcoming for Tabletop.

D&D 3.5 had this a bit due to all of the requirements of prestige classes and feats. Pathfinder just turned that up to 11. It felt less like you had more choices and more that you had more illusion of choice.

Well, 2e had way more depth on everything else. For eg, plate armor actually has a way higher armor class vs slashes than vs blunt and it makes perfectly sense. Maces > Swords against armor. Enemies are also much simpler. Liches on 2e = immune to cold; Liches on 5e = resist cold. Different classes require different XP to level up among a lot of other things.

5e also got rid of OHK spells/traps. It can have little impact on the typical high fantasy but if i wanna play tomb of horrors, i wanna fer my death that can come any time by any unexpected reason. Ravenloft also lost much of his horror. The 5e rules are also much rigged towards the party.



What is a "trap option?" Because Warlocks for eg, are way less versatile and powerful than wizards but i know a lot of DM's encouraging warlock play over wizard play on 5e. Contrary to 3.5e, a lot of DM's banned 3.5e warlocks because "they are too powerful", a teleporting, invisible flying eldritch horror that can cast without any spell slot limitation in armor, put a entire battlefield under chilling tentacles that deals increased cold and has a higher AB than a fighter with 18 DEX and greater weapon focus(8 + caster level) and that can reanimate armies of undeads is just too powerful.

Not everything is about creating the strongest Pun Pun...

Enemies in 5e almost all have special rules. Sure very few things are not immune to non-magical weapons, but immunity to magical damage types still exists. I will give you the AC vs specific attack types being removed does remove a layer of depth.
OHK spells/traps do not add depth imo, but that is a personal view and can go either way. It really depends on the particular adventure.

I'm pretty sure Sordak was speaking of ways to screw yourself over in Pathfinder by making really bad choices that destroy your character.

I have the exact opposite feeling of those game rulesets if we are talking only of character development.

(To simplify, I´m going to compare non-multiclass builds)

In 5e you choose your class at the start. You have The 13 base classes ( Artificer, Cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer, wizard, rogue, fighter, ranger, paladin, monk, barbarian, warlock) plus the two from beyond the pale (blood hunter and gunslinger) and some homebrew you made.

Then you pick your subclass at level 1-2-3 and then the only thing you have to choose in the next 17 levels is if you want an ability upgrade (with a limit of 20) OR a feat, every 4 levels (or less if you are a fighter). The class features are fixed, your languages are mostly fixed, your skills are chosen at the start because they improve automatically, you do not get to choose what skill do you want to improve or learn new skills unless you are a thief or bard (every 6 levels).
Unless you are a spellcaster and you have to learn new spells there´s nothing else to choose when you level up because subclasses´ features have no options to choose from, they are fixed.



In Pathfinder you choose your class at the start. You have more base classes to choose, even if you do not count hybrid classes as new classes (which I do myself and anyone that played PF, but for the sake of discussion we will say they are not "pure" classes ┐(´～｀)┌ )
You have the same 12 (Cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer, wizard, rogue, fighter, ranger, paladin, monk, barbarian, gunslinger) plus 8 more (Oracle, Alchemist, Witch, Summoner, Inquisitor, magus, cavalier, swashbuckler) 6 more of the occult book (kineticist, medium, mesmerist, psychic, occultist, spiritualist) and all the 20 hybrid classes ( Hunter, Arcanist, shaman, Investigator, Ninja, samurai, brawler, bloodrager, warpriest, Omdura, Vampire hunter, etc) and all the homebrew classes/subclasses.

Then you can choose an ability to upgrade every few levels (no limits) AND a feat every few levels(unlike 5e you have +50feats to choose, some of them are class or race-related), then you can choose your subclass if you want to (its called archetype, and you can choose it not at the start, but when you level up. Also in tabletop you can choose two archetypes if they are compatible).
You choose your traits (similar to the backgrounds, but you can choose one or 2 positive traits plus one drawback-penalty if you are using the variant ruleset)
You can also choose what skills you want when you level up and learn new skills, they do not level up automatically like in 5e. It depends on your INT so you also do not have a set number of ranks you can learn, you will have more skill points the higher your intelligence.
You can learn new languages after character creation using the linguistics skill, not only in downtime if your DM allows it.
If your class is a favored class of your race, you get to choose a new ability, +1 skill or +1 hp.
If you have a permanent pet like an animal companion, mount or Eidolon you get to level it up yourself, choosing stats, skills, etc. You can even choose archetypes for your animal companions too if the DM allows those books.

In my experience, I found that when you roll a barbarian berserker with the same background, for example, you have the (almost) exact set of abilities at level 20 as any other LVL 20 barbarians with the same background and basically you will play it the same way(maybe you can choose what weapons you use but that´s it). In PF you can make a melee powerhouse, a ranged fighter, a raging pugilist, a beastmaster fighting with his animal companion, an expert rider marauder, etc with the same level 1 barbarian character.

And if we are talking multiclass, you have the multiclass rules, the same as 5e AND also the prestige classes. Same in 3.5. You also have more base classes from start to choose from, for starters.


So, in my honest opinion, 5e its fine to play and its fun, but I think the illusion of choice it´s in 5e. When you choose your subclass it´s auto-level up the next 17 levels besides choosing your stat improvement(and choosing your spells for spellcasters, yes, but that´s the same for any game ruleset).

You can mess up your character in 3.5 and PF; yes, but because you have open choices, they do not railroad your character from level 3 to 20 (Not that it matters that much if you are playing a roleplaying tabletop, flawed characters are fun to roleplay, but I suppose it matters more in a videogame. That´s why you have respec options) This is great when you start playing or if you are playing short adventures but it gets old fast when you are a veteran with several years of experience or playing large campaigns.

While I agree there are more boxes ticked per level in Pathfinder, I don't necessarily think that means that the system gives you more character development freedom. You still need to plan out your feat paths to meet requirements for later feats, so you can suffer for taking things that would make more sense by narrative path.

If you want to be a prestige class, you can spend multiple feats to get those prerequisites. Some things in the system are not possible (being a Bard in Heavy Armor without spell casting failure...even after spending 2 feats for the proficiency and 2 to reduce failure).

AC / Hit scaling (imo) feels atrocious. Stats would be fine, but they tie into the hit formula, so if you have your stats scale without a cap, so too must your AC to let things be a challenge to hit. This is quite penalized if you split your specialty between 2 things. By giving those little BAB or Stat boosts along the way, it makes things become ridiculous when you think about them (like the AC to hit a Dragon). I could expand more on this, but it ties into a problem that is rooted in the system more than 'choice complexity'.


There is some truth in that...though there can be a few more or less options along the way depending on subclass.

I think that playing flawed characters is fine (I played much more WFRP than any edition of D&D), but that is also why I think that the direction your character progresses level to level should be more malleable to what the story has set forth instead of changing your perception of the story to fit the character you had in mind (when it comes to Tabletop).

If I make a character in 5e D&D, I just make the character and how I progress, if I multiclass, etc is based on the story and it isn't penalized too heavily. If I make a character in Pathfinder, I make the character based on what I want to be at level 20 because the system punishes you for not planning ahead. So generally I find that I don't make any more choices as I level, I just check off a box that I already decided to check when I made the character. In that sense, the character does not develop with the story.

Mmm I think you are assuming that everybody min-maxes and makes power-gaming in PF. You can make a perfectly playable character in PF without choosing all the feats you want to get at level 1 and get the more powergamey builds. If you want power gaming, of course, you have to plan in advance, but that´s the same in any game.

And you are playing a campaign and an adventure, of course, your character evolves with the story the same as in Vampire, TDE, D&D and any other TTRPG, but also you get to choose some character development, mechanically speaking.

You do not have that option in 5e, in fact, the system in 5e punishes you if you choose Orc and not draconic at level 1 and you find an army of kobolds and dragons you do not understand. In PF you can learn new languages learning the skill linguistics. In D&D you do not, you are stuck with your choices at level one. Your languages and skills are given at level one and those would be the same for 20 levels. What´s the character development in that?

I wouldn't say it is necessarily about power gaming or min-maxing, as much as it is saying that you need a somewhat clear idea of what you want direction you are going earlier in the system to meet requirements.
*Example: If I want a rogue to move into combat, stab someone, and move out, I need Spring Attack. That means I need Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, and BAB 4. If it were not a requirement, I would skip Mobility and the earliest you can do it is level 6. By contrast, a 5e rogue gets this at 2nd level (disengage bonus action).

I do agree that lack of additional training in skills or languages is a downside of 5e, though it is uncommon to really spread skills too far across the field in Pathfinder either or you don't beat DCs of anything.

At least you have the option... It's tiresome to have to plan downtimes in 5e for players in the middle of all the adventures and made custom rules for teaching so your players can learn new languages or new tricks instead of having an official feature for that. Multiclassed players that want the skills of their new class and they found out they cannot so you have to give them the option... And well, languages do not have DCs, you have it or you don´t.


I still prefer the more dynamic ruleset of PF2 any day of the week, generally speaking.

I realize languages don't have DCs, but if you were to spread other skills too thinly, you suffer.
Again, I agree that 5e is by no means a perfect system. I can't speak on PF2 as I've not played it, but maybe it fixes some of my issues with the PF base system as well.

> f you are playing a roleplaying tabletop, flawed characters are fun to roleplay, but I suppose it matters more in a videogame. That´s why you have respec options

I always hated respec options. It takes out character individuality and choices. Also allow to cheese things. Eg "this chapter we fight too much undeads, i will respec my silver draconic sorcerer into a gold draconic sorcerer and use mostly fire based spells, but on the next chapter we will fight fire elementals and fey, so i will be a sorcerer of undead bloodline and know mostly cold and necromancy which allow fort save based spells" and so on. Respec takes out too much of your character identity and encourages min maxing.

From my perspective, I start a character with the end in mind upon creation of what I want my final character to be. I also sometimes play a character that I wouldn't normally play, just to change things up abit. Most of the time I like to play magic-user types.

About complexity:

In BG1+2 you chose your class, stats and profiencies at character creation.
From then on you can only spend profiency points and thief skills, nothing else.
The only exception is dual class for humans and this you must plan from the start because of stat requirements and at what level you want to do it.
Well, and spells for sorcerers, that is very importent.
Yes, BG1+2 has trap choices.
A mage with low int, great, you will never learn new spells because you fail to copy it from a scroll.
OK, maxing out the main stats for your class is not really a secret that is hard to find out.
Well, but do you think a mage -> fighter dual class is as good as a fighter -> mage?

In BG3 you will have multi classing.
At every level up you can chose what class to take (there may be stat requirements).
You have to select a subclass for each class and some casters have to select new spells every level up.
Every 4 levels you chose between a stat upgrade or a feat.
So I think DnD 5E has more options than DnD2E but less than DnD 3E or pathfinder.

I have the alpha for the new pathfinder game.
Without any spoilers, when I started character creation I was struck with analysis paralysis.
You have tons of classes and many subclasses for each class, plus tons of feats and lots of unique abilities to select for each class.
After looking through the options for some time I got a headache and quit playing.
Later I started the game again, ignored everything and just re created a character that worked in P:K.
I think there can be too much complexity.
I can understand why nerds love DnD 3E or pathfinder, but I can also understand when many players complain that this is too much for them and they feel lost when they get the task to create a good char.
Having a choice is good, but knowing the pros and cons of hundrets of classes (if you count the subclasses), which ability you get at which level, what works together with something else and so on can be too much sometimes.

Madscientist, you don't need to have a min max pun pun character to beat this types of games on normal. You can pick the class that you like and think that is cool and play with it. Even do pure RP builds.

BG3 might have multi-classing, but with a level cap of 10, it will be really questionable if it's worth bothering with for anything except Warlock 2 - 8 Something Else. If you take a third level in any class, then - rules as written - you will miss out on the level 8 Feat/Ability Score Increase. Most classes get their cool archtype with features at level 3.

Well, I prefer to have the options, even if it's overwhelming. Maybe gives you vertigo at the start, but if you only have limited options that´s all you have forever; if you have lots of options to customize your character maybe it will take more time to get used to it, but when you do, you will have many many ways of making your perfect character. There are people that pick the pre-made characters and there are the ones that want to spend 3 hours changing sliders to make the perfect one. To one its own, I suppose.

As Sorcerer said, you don´t have to make a powergamey build or be a nerd to beat the PF games, you can make perfectly playable builds without min-maxing unless you are playing the hardest difficulties, the same as you can make a perfectly fun and playable warrior in 5e without Polemaster+sentinel, etc.

I´ve beaten the first game with a party of 5 bards and with a solo kineticist. I even made a halfling naked two-hander because I can and I didn´t have to quit middle-game.

Ability score is based on player level, not character class level iirc.

They are tied to class level. That said, you can take 4 / 6 and still get both.
Fighter gets them at 4/6/8. Everyone else is 4/8.

Extra attack features are also tied to class levels and do not stack with multi classes, so with only 10 levels the limit is in 2 attacks per turn (Fighters got the third attack at the unattainable level 11) so to get the best it´s advisable to go 6 levels in a class that gives you extra attacks for warrior types to get more strikes per turn (most classes got that at level 5 or 6 for some bards), and 4/6, 2/8 or even 1/9 for other multiclass builds depending on the classes (Some subclasses are chosen at level 1 like clerics, some at level 2 like druids and many more at level 3)

PD: With only 10 levels I think I´ll go for non-multiclass builds for my first runs in the games, personally.

Just checked, you're right. And that is stupid; ability improvement should always be based on total character level and not class level, IMO. I would definitely homebrew that if I ran any games.

I usually do that, I found it stupid too.

I also use some extra rules, like a low-level feat at level one. I found out that if not, you get parties with 6 variant humans o.O
Of course, the feats are separated by level, you cannot get the OP feats at level one. It makes no sense that feats like war caster, ritual caster, lucky or resilient are treated the same as (let´s call them) more situational feats like actor, perceptive or keen mind. People do not take them even if that can be fun to play because you have to forfeit another feat or stat increase to get them.
And honestly, the ability to mimic someone´s voices is not going to unbalance your campaign and can give you some unforgettable scenes.

I am currently using some variant rule to allow to choose feat/ability or an extra attunement slot because in long-lasting high-level parties with lots of loot they cantá use half their loot due to atunement slot constraints, and sometimes they found it more interesting to have improved equipment when they maxed stats. I also had to create some campament and downtime rules, teaching rulesets, etc.

To be honest, I had to homebrew the sh....t out of the 5e campaign to give my players more options because they found the lack of character creation options boring. It never happened to me in any ruleset frame I played, more so in one that has 5 years of development.

I am currently switching to PF2e, It seems more attuned to our tastes.

I have 8 builds on D&D Beyond I want to eventually play after full release. Only two are single class, an Enchantress, and a Light Domain Cleric. And I may mix 2 levels of Evoker in with the Cleric. Most are 1-2 level dips, but 1 is split 5 Hexblade/ 5 Abjurer. That is IF Hexblade ever makes it in the game. I have one that is Death Domain Cleric 1/ Necromancer 9. But if we get an expansion that only goes to level 15, I'll consider taking the Cleric levels to 6.

I though Rogue got them at 4, 8, and 10. Doesn't help with multi-classing though.

Any caster who stops at level 6 will miss out on 4th level spells (and obviously 5th level spells too).

Also, certain feats require you to be at a certain level? Where's that in the rules, I don't see it.

I wouldn't be getting your hopes up about being able to make the same types of builds as you can on D&DBeyond.

It's under each of the class descriptions under ability score improvements. Oh I'm well aware of what I would give up with some builds, by stopping short. Wizards have always been my favorite class, and I've been playing them for over 40 years. For instance I'm working on a Red Dragon Sorcerer 8/ Evocation Wizard 2. I would lose 5th level Arcane spells (but not the slots). I would also just come up short of adding 2 2nd level spells to my Wizard's spell book. But I would gain Sculpt Spell, which really fits. And I get both of my ability score/feats. With the Warlock 5/ Wizard 5, I just decided the Armor of Agathys + Arcane Ward, Devil Sight + Darkness, and Improved Pact Blade was worth sacrificing 4th and 5th level spells. Though I'm still not set on it. Banishment works really well with this build. Dang we need a level cap of 12.

This lv cap = 10 is limiting too much the freedom of class building from the players.

Not only in multiclassing, but some great features of some classes are also lost because they are over level 10. With only a level cap of one level more, 11 you can have the warlocks´ mystic arcanum, artificer´s spell-storing item, fighter´s third extra attack, rangers´ and monks archetype feature and rogue´s reliable talent... and I supposse we will never get to see any level 6th caster spell unless it´s in a scroll.


Oh, no, it´s a homebrew I made, if that´s what you are asking because I allow a free feat at level 1 and if I do not create a list of feats with level limits all the players will take war caster, arcane secrets, sentinel or lucky at level one =P and those are not meant for low-level parties, usually; and to encourage´em to try feats that people often don´t use and can be fun for your character.

>you dont minmax pathfinder
you dont, but you should avoid trap builds.

Pathfinder got a few difficulty spikes and while you can easily make some realy stupid builds and thrive, its also very esay to create characters that do virtually nothing despite looking fine on paper to someone who doestn know how the system works by hand.

That what happened to me in P:K.
I did lots of reading before playing because P:K was the first time I heared about pathfinder ever.
Then I thought of a char who tried to stack as many bonusses as possible.
The char had a good defense, but it did single digit damage for most of the game.
In pathfinder there is no medium defense. Either your AC is very high or everyone can hit you all the time.
And then come enemies with touch attack who ignore most of your armor types.
This high defense char should also get mirror image and displacement because some enemies still hit like a truck with normal attacks (5% crit chance, but crit not confirmed)
And this defensive fortress should also do some damage because you have to kill all enemies to win a fight and more damage means enemies have less time to damage you.

For me this means for any pathfinder game or BG3 (which will be my first DnD 5E game)
Take a single class character who focusses on doing one thing very good ( In case of BG 3 I chose either lore bard or hexblade warlock if we get it).
If you have a great idea about mixing several classes together, ask other people if they think it will work before you start playing.

I think you are mixing the tabletop PF game with the PF videogame here.

They have some differences, they have things in common, but they are not the same. The tabletop has more skills, spells, classes, mounted combat, crafting, downtimes etc and the combat and skillchecks are more hard and unforgiving in the game than in most Pathfinder APs.

I supposse BG3 and a D&D 5e game will be different too because they are made for different media.

I disagree; i mean, certain spells like stop time and wish aren't in the game BUT the spells that works differently than on video game works BETTER. For eg, Animate dead on P&P require corpses, on PFKM you can create d4+2 CR 7 skeletons that has a lot of immunities, so you can put enemies under cloudkill and similar spells while your skeleton wall tank the enemy.

And Kineticists due enemy AI and lack of fly(they could make wings ignore ground effect) has a wing button called Deadly Earth. I still prefer it over making it useless(like nwn2 did with chilling tentacles, no grapple and a fix +5 to hit when on P&P it has grapple and caster level + 8)

-------------

About "difficulty spikes", people trying to fight great wryvns at lv 2, complaining that Bears can OHK your lv 2 guys with a critical, that can't hit a swarm with a axe...

Did this guys played BG1? You can find Basilisks early on and they can insta petrificate your party members. Stone to Flesh is a tier 6 spell which you can only obtain wish ultra expensive scrolls.

I have never played PnP, so I can only talk about computer games.

You say that combat and skill check is more difficult in PnP?
I would assume the computer game is more difficult because you can save and load the game.
If your char dies in PnP and nobody else can revieve or the whole party dies because some unlucky dice rolls, then weeks or even month of playing are gone.

Most DM allow you to create another character of the same level. Others will force you to (re)start at lv 1 but that depends a lot of the party, campaign and DM. And more hard modules like Tomb Of Horrors encourage you to create many backup characters exactly because you will gonna lose a lot of characters, not so much on 5e which is rigged pro party. And other modules doesn't have any combat and is mostly about social iterations and conspiracy. And if we are talking about high level stuff, resurrection is not inaccessible on higher level gameplay.

Things also change with edition and the classes that the DM allow too. For eg, most DM's din't allowed 3.5e warlock. On 5e, most DM's encourages you to play as a warlock over a wizard.

And if we are talking about adapting something to PC, i honestly rather NOT having something than having something nerfed in relation to P&P serving only to cause frustration on the fans of that class/weapon/playstyle/etc

Yeah, what I meant is that the combat and skillchecks are (generally speaking) more difficult and unforgiving in the videogame than in most Pathfinder Adventure paths (the modules or campaigns),
In the videogame, you can reload to try again the fights and skillchecks and respecialize your character several times whenever you wish, as you pointed out so the videogame can be more hardcore.

I think the difficulty of the videogames is OK, since you can just reload and come back later. And you can switch the difficulty in options middle-game so...

About the difficulty, I do not think you can compare because in the TT you have a human DM, so you sometimes help "behind the curtains" your players because you do not want them to lose their characters because of a nat 1; unless they do something so reckless and astonishingly stupid that you have to or if they are really unlucky and you can´t do anything about it.
I enjoy using curses, diseases, long-lasting crippling wounds, etc but I´m not really a fan of killing a character outright if he fails one save.

Also, you can tune the encounters on the move in PNP: If they are killing everything in auto-combat you just throw harder or different enemies at them the next time and the other way around. If they have a group that destroys any damage-sponge enemies you change to encounters with sneaky enemies, more casters, or touch-based attack-creatures, for example. If they are using repeatedly a combination of debuffs to surpass any encounter you throw some undead at them, etc.

It was more a comment about the IA that directs the casters in the videogame (enemy wizards selection of combos is horrid) than the spells itself, I mostly agree with what you said about the PNP-videogame conversion. The IA of the warriors and creatures is fine, I guess.
It´s usual that they change things from PNP to a videogame.

Yes. To be fair, i liked some enemy traps/spell bombos. For eg, on one tomb i believe on chapter 4, after you enter in a dungeon



On Alpha, there are people saying that the enemy mages are far smarter and that in a optional encounter on chapter 1, the enemy



Most of the "difficulty spikes" IMO is just enemies who the PC should't battle without preparation or smarter enemies. People are too used with "press A for awesome" games.

And Baldur's Gate 1 was extremely more unfair than PFKM. You can fight basilisks relative early on and they can insta petrificate party members. The Stone to Flesh is only available on a scroll and even if you reach lv cap, you can't learn it and the scroll is insanely expensive. If game journalists rage because they can't kill a insect swarm with a sword, imagine they having to fight basilisks on BG1...

Or Even Dark Sun(1993). If you awnser the arena guy, he will throw a lot of strong monsters to teach slaves their own place and you will probably gonna die. I an very glad that OwlCat is not listening the awful game journalists and apparently their second game has smarter enemies and more unique enemies.

In most computer games, a good strategy is to start combat by summoning creatures near the enemy.

In BG1 there is a simple way to deal with the basilisks: animate dead. The skelletons are immun to petrify and your chars attack from the distance.

In pathfinder there were the following problems for me:
- Early in the game you have only a few spells, so it is hard to keep your party healed.
Things get easier when you can give your party immunity to poison or resistance to an element plus you have several heal and restore spells and of course more buffs to use before combat that also last longer
- Later one problem was large numbers of enemies where it is almost impossible to prevent your weaker party members from being attacked. You cannot give super high defense to everyone. Well, at least I could not.
- The worst thing are enemies with touch attacks and enemies that lower stats. Its even worse when both things are combined, like some ghost like enemies that drain your stats with touch attacks. Sorry, but I am still not sure what helps against those.

At the moment I am not so much worried about BG3.
But Pathfinder is the most complex rule set I have ever seen.
For expert players its easy. They know when they face an enemy that against this type of enemy helps feat A combined with Spell B and C.
Players new to this system (like me) die 10 times in an encounter only to learn that it would have been useful to learn a different spell at the last level up some hours ago.

The problem with complexity is that first you have to make an enormous effort to understand the system.
Until you understand the system good enough it is just frustrating. You fail all the time and you have to figure out why.
And when you realize your mistakes it often means you have to start again because you have made this mistake many hours ago.
So the problem with complexity is that you have to get over a giant mountain of frustration before you can start having fun.
I totally respect people who can do this, but I can also understand why the percentage of people who finish those games is rather low.

OK, you can use respec, mercenaries and difficulty settings to deal with the problem.
I think the purpose of these things is not that expert players optimize their char for the next dungeon or they increase the challenge when the hardest difficulty setting is still too easy.
The purpose is to give new players a chance to finish the game at all.
Learning new stuff is good, but most people have only limited time and they want to spend this time playing a game.

I know it is a different genre, but Portal is a great example where you learn the rules of the game while playing and you have fun doing so.
When you play it the first time you enjoy it because you learn a lot and you move forward.
When you play it again you have fun because you know how to do some crazy things and find shortcuts or hidden areas.
If ( and thats a huge if) somebody manages to make an RPG similar to Portal, so that the process of learning itself is fun, it would be fantastic.
The fact that you can do crazy things if you know the system well is already present in complex RPGs.

There are forums, guides, etc in the net today. You do not really have to memorize all the rules and devise tactics by yourself anymore if you do not have time or you just don´t want to...
There are plenty of videogames (and tabletop games) with a far simpler character creation or ruleset, It´s refreshing to found one of the few that has interesting and complex mechanics with lots of options.


Touch attacks only surpass the actual armour and natural armor. You can block it with dexterity bonuses, deflection bonuses (lvl 1 shield of faith, protection from evil, etc), dodge bonuses, monk defense, lvl one shield spell and the lvl one spell mage armor, for example. There are more spells that help on higher levels.
You can avoid the ghost´s consumption with death ward, stalwart resolve and some other spells that turn you into an undead (they are inmune) or just use Jaethal as a tank.

The IA is not very smart, you just need to move away: you can protect your weaker party members with sanctuary, invisibility or simply teleport away (unless against those pesky dweomer lions).

>playing a CRPG wth guides
i already had too much of kingmaker spoiled to me prior to playing.
I perosnally enjoy to nto know exactly whats ocming for me. Kingmaker certainly can be pretty bad in that regard.

Which agian, my issue with that design: trap options.
Which is inherent to video games since you dont have a DM that balances the game on the fly

> n BG1 there is a simple way to deal with the basilisks: animate dead.

Animate dead is a tier 3 spell. Takes a long time until you get it on BG1.

> - Early in the game you have only a few spells, so it is hard to keep your party healed.


Don't play on hardest difficulties. On low difficulties, you can regain health and cure conditions by just resting. Also, potions are your friend on early game.

For spells, some wizard archetypes gives bombs. Some sorcerers gives a might animal companion, others give spell like abilities early on and Kineticist is a elemental 3.5e warlock which is a quite powerful class.

> it would have been useful to learn a different spell at the last level up some hours ago.

If you are a novice, play as a prepared caster, not as a spontaneous caster.

> you have to get over a giant mountain of frustration before you can start having fun.

Or lower the difficulty.

I tried to solo IWD without knowing anything about 2e.

--------------------------------------

Anyway, BG3 will gonna be 5e and low level. 5e is far easier to learn and more streamlined. You will not have to face demigods on BG3.

It is hard to compare the different difficulty levels from the IE games to modern games.

In the IE games higher difficulty means only that you take more damage when you get hit.
Except damage taken, everything was the same.
IWD1 (not sure about the other games) had the idiot idea to increase exp when playing at higher difficulties.
I think the hardest difficulty doubled the damage taken and also doubled exp and you could rest as much as you want.
This means playing on the highest difficulty made the game easier (you have higher level) and the only reason to lower difficulty is when you cannot win an encounter because you take too much damage even if you are completely buffed and you use healing spells or items.

Most modern games increase enemy stats, enemy numbers or enemy type when changing difficulties.
Reducing difficulty makes sense when enemies are easier to hit or its easier to to avoid hits.

When playing P:K I switched from normal to story mode difficulty at some point.
The game is great, but it is also huge and I have only limited time for playing.
I finished it fighting the real boss, but I did not get the secret ending.
But even if you lower the difficulty, it would help a lot if the game presents its rules in a way that is relatively easy to understand.

IMO the best way to handle difficulty in BG3 is to use the table in the DMG on page 82. There is an xp threshold for easy, medium, hard, and deadly along with an encounter multiplier to take into account the number of monsters and the multiplier that would have on total xp and, in turn, the total CR of the fight. I personally don't like the idea of just buffing all monsters on harder difficulty because that kind of defeats the purpose of the monster. For example, in nearly all cases, goblins/kobolds,etc are used as fodder. If you pump up the difficulty, I wouldn't want to see ogre-d out goblins with 30hp, I'd rather see maybe larger groups with other monsters added in that fit the story. Orcs, worgs, ogres, goblin shaman, all work great with goblins and add to the overall CR. I also realize they can't just go from an easy difficulty with a group of 3 goblins to a deadly difficulty with 20 goblins because of physical restraints, like the size of the cavern/room/cave/etc, but adding in higher CR monsters without messing with their stats is a better way to go so you still keep the feeling of D&D where goblins, for example, are supposed to feel like fodder most of the time but, in groups, can still be deadly. I get that it might be difficult to do in a game but I really hope that, if they do have different difficulty setting, they don't mess with monster stats too much.

It should have way, way less complexity than Pillars of Eternity. My experience with that series is rather like death by game manual.

To be fair, it being based on D&D will keep it within sane boundaries, but it should not be something you need to read a 200 page long manual to get into.

Actually the DnD player´s handbook has 293 pages, and it´s only the basic player´s handbook

Sure, but a huge part of that is more or less prose explaining what each class and race and such are and do. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb when I say that most people know what elves and druids and paladins are and don't need that explained. That's not really what I meant. I more meant the math on how combat works.

I should be able to figure out how much damage my weapon does, how much a given stat change will impact my chance to hit and so on without needing a degree in mathematics.

I've only played tabletop D&D once, but I was always able to get into the old Infinity Engine and Aurora Engine D&D games without having to resort to death by game manual stuff.

I'd like this to keep that same threshold intact.

If that´s your concern, in my experience with 5e the game itself it´s very newbie-friendly, there is a 3-page tryptic to show you how to do the basic things and create your character in ten minutes for a casual game or one-shot.
New players rarely read all the manuals (and usually expect the DM to explain everything else to them XD on the fly) and usually enjoy the sessions.

Even if the videogame you do not have an actual DM to do that I´m sure you can pick the basic combat and rule mechanics pretty easily because the videogame will have far less rules (about casting, short rests, roleplaying, crafting etc) and the game engine does all the "math" for you.

One of my favorite memories of Baldur's Gate 2: Shadow of Amn was having that massive spiral-bound game manual that came with the game. I mean, it wasn't anywhere near as large as the Skyrim Special Edition Hardcover, but still, I hope you get the point.

I also loved the spiral bound notebook and in grade school I loved reading unearthed arcana, familiarizing myself with every obscure rule of AD&D. But I think @Ontarah is right -- even if I would put their point in different terms.

The problem with PoE was not the complexity but the way it was complex. It was a game for people who like things like baseball stats and fantasy sports teams lineups. In BG2 I knew what it meant to have a sword that was +1 against most enemies but +4 vs undead. I was even had an understanding of the sword's weapon speed and reach. It was a complex system but the complexity was kewl -- once I got it it felt like I had access to arcane information.

In PoE I needed the back of an envelope to calculate whether it was better to use sword X with its 9 percent increase likelihood to hit vs sword Y with its relatively small 2 percent likelihood to hit but that 2 percent stacks up each round it doesn't hit up to a maximum of 15 percent but then resets to 2 upon either a successful hit or a miss at 15 percent. And if you enjoy that, you enjoy that. But, for me, it interfered with immersion, the player never has an intuitive sense of what their weapon is going to do. It's a game for people who see video game battles as a form of hypothesis testing.

Which isn't to say that I don't have the greatest respect for J.E. Sawyer -- guy is real geek who really gets into this stuff. But I only agree with him about 70 percent of time. PoE was game made the way JE said a game should be made. And that 30 percent disagreement came out. PoE was overly balanced, overly battle oriented and it was a chore to grind through those trash mobs.

(but brilliant plot and the latest turn based version of the PoE engine is really pretty good -- I'd like to see it used on BG4)

I have not played DnD 5E so far, but I think PoE is much easier to understand than DnD.

PoE:
Hit chance = acuracy + 1d100 - defense (deflection, fortitude, reflex or will), the result tells if its a miss/graze/hit/crit so every point acc or defense increases your chances by 1% unless the difference is so extreme that an attack always misses or always crits.
Damage = base value * ( 1 + sum of all modifiers). PoE2 made it more complicated by adding double inversion, penetration and power level.
PoE2: passive effects stack, active and modal effects do not stack

DnD:
- What stat is the attack based on (e.g. str for melee, dex for ranged, int for wizards, wis for clerics, cha for bards, there are lots of exceptions)
- How is the DC determined (which base stat, caster level, spell level, profiency, type of effect, sorry I am confused which DnD edition uses what rule)
- type of bonus ( not sure about 5E, but in 3E only bonusses from different types stacked (with exceptions) and some defenses worked only against some types of attacks (e.g. armor not helping against touch attacks))

So I would say:
PoE1+2 had a few rules that are relatively easy to understand, at least the basics.
Things get more complicated if you want to play on the higherst difficulty, maybe even for solo or the ultimate

DnD has lots of rules and for every rule there are several exceptions.
Most basic rules are relatively easy to understand, but to make a good char you have to understand most exceptions.

Madscientist, i prefer D&D over PoE 1/2 where in order to be able to heal more, deals more damage with a arquebuss and fireballs, you need to invest into might.

"that fireball is too weak. Do you even lift bro?"

And D&D rules aren't hard to understand. Mainly on 5e.

But IMO Pathfinder Kingmaker > PoE 2 > DOS2. I personally don't like managing cooldowns and the item fever of DOS2 where you are constant changing gear and over 80% of your character power is from the gear. In fact, i remember when i created a kineticist mercenary on pfkm and only forgot to put gear on him. Only remembered after like 5 hours playing with him. Other good thing is that no invocation/infusion had any cooldown.

One rule that i loved on 5e is the Attunement rule and concentration rule, limiting how much buffs you can have. You no longer can cast 666 buffs.



On BG2 comboing mirror image + black blade of disaster + stoneskin + haste + tenser transformation can make your sorcerer into the deadliest melee warrior.

I do not say PoE is better than DnD.
I wanted to say that for new players it is much easier to understand whats going on in PoE compared to DnD, especially 3E/pathfinder.
I have not played 5E so far.

If people like the DnD, PoE or another system more is a matter of personal taste.
There are DnD games that are much better than PoE.
PST is one of the best RPGs ever, but I like it because of story and characters, not because the exact way of how dice are rolled. Combat was quite terrible and easy there.
ToeE and IWD may have great combat, but I never finished them because of story was missing or bad. After beating tons of monsters I asked myself why am I doing this?

Well, IWD has a amazing story. Is just not the typical "saving the world" stuff.

Is just a small frozen region of Faerus which always had very decentralized small cities/tribal societies and a evil tyrant wanna "unify" the region. Instead of "good vs evil", you have "chaos vs law". Each place that you visit have a unique lore behind it, the dungeons are gorgeous,

I don't like ludonarrative dissonance. Having wizards intellectuals on lore and a low int wiz possible in game makes no sense.

Maybe IWD had a good story, but after killing tons of monsters in a dungeon I have forgotten why I was there and I lost my motivation to go on.

Lets just say I am not a big fan of dungeon crawlers and I prefer games that focus more on characters and story.
Maybe it is just the fact that all chars are created by yourself.
I played BG2 once with a party of self made chars but I quit soon after. It was just boring without Minsc and co.
I finished only one dungeon crawler (Mary Skelters Nightmare), a JRPG were all characters have a personality and there are many scenes that show the relationship between those characters.

There are mods that add actual companions to IWD EE and IWD2. Some of them have interesting stories.
The same thing happened to me to (Even tho I finished the game) and the companions improved my game experience with IWD a lot.

https://www.gibberlings3.net/mods/npcs/iwd2npc/

http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/in...k=blogcategory&id=174&Itemid=122

honestly the story is not what iremember baout icewind dale, but i gotcha, something less world spanning can indeed be quite fun

I don't think its possible for Larian to make BG3 solo-able without removing parts that make this D&D and not divinity. Unless they have the tech built in to adjust ALL enemy encounters to a single player game...I don't see it happening because a single PC just isn't strong enough, no matter how min-maxed. With a level CAP of 10, you are going to see monsters/enemies up to CR 11-14 most likely in the bosses. For a single PC, a CR 5 monster is technically a medium difficulty. A CR 10 monster, in most cases, is impossible for one PC. And since they have built the entire game and there are no random spawns, I don't see them being able to substitute to account for a single PC.

Uh, both divinity: OS games are party based too. And you also play in coop multiplayer so the people that play parties-of-one-character are a minority, so I dont really get the comparison.
If you say "make this D&D and not Assassins creed" "Make this D&D and not Syrim" "make this D&D and not Devil may cry" that would be more accurate.

There are a lot of solo BG1 videos on youtube despite BG1 being a low level campaign. Here is a example ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrJG6e87kcQ&list=PL2WPFAeW-5u7ZmnUifMiF4LSjuOTpSIh1&index=1 )

You are also forgetting that PCs have a thing called planning, metaknowledge and strategy. Malavon is considered one of the hardest IWD bosses and here is i soloing him with no damage on max difficulty.





That is a HUGE problem. Lv 81 necromancers should be using expert/master frost destruction spells, have a army of undead, among a lot of other things. Buffing only health and damage is the worst way to make a mob harder. Having high level enemies feeling more like spell/arrow/strike sponges instead of powerful enemies is not good.

Even Diablo 1, a very streamlined game from 97, enemies casts different spells, are in different levels, has immunities and resistances, attack ratting and armor class, etc; on hell compared to normal.