Larian Studios
[video:google]
[/video]

This video highlights the problems around the name in the first place and looks at why Larian can justify calling it Baldur's Gate 3 instead of some other generic DND title.
Where's my troll bait....
Originally Posted by Topper
Where's my troll bait....

He's not a troll, he's a serious gamer and youtuber. Just because his opinion isn't yours (or mine) doesn't make him a troll/
Summary : Baldur's Gate 3 is ok because Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't arround the city of Baldur's Gate.

Now I understand...
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Topper
Where's my troll bait....

He's not a troll, he's a serious gamer and youtuber. Just because his opinion isn't yours (or mine) doesn't make him a troll/
I thought his comment was in response to his readying the approaching trolls coming to flood this comment section. Truthfully might be mistaken, though.
HarbsNarbs is someone who has taken a deep dive into the lore and I usually enjoy his videos. This one is just bad because it misrepresents the views of people who believe that BG3 has too many DOS elements.

Were it someone else I'd call it a strawman and click bait. But because I've enjoyed the rest I'm just calling it one off bad video.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
HarbsNarbs is someone who has taken a deep dive into the lore and I usually enjoy his videos. This one is just bad because it misrepresents the views of people who believe that BG3 has too many DOS elements.

Were it someone else I'd call it a strawman and click bait. But because I've enjoyed the rest I'm just calling it one off bad video.


Yes, this will cause a divide. However, I'm happy I made a video expressing my opinion. I won't be making many controversial videos as I usually like to focus on the lore. But, as I said at the start of the video, I respect the opinion of those that think it should be genuinely named something different. The opening joke was going after the trolls specifically.
Thanks. I'm glad you are going to focus on lore. I offered my critique on reddit and won't repost it but my critique boils down to that the position of the trolls had too much influence throughout the videos and the views of people who are raising concerns about aspects of DOS gameplay -- like surfaces -- and people who are focusing on the decision to start with an evil party (and not say the loyal ranger and best friend) aren't represented in the video.
Gameplay and characters are very important to me. If I play it and it feels more like DOS2 and the characters feel like they belong in DOS2, I'll call it DOS3. If it feels closer to BG and the characters feel like they belong in BG, I'll call it BG3. I know that's probably not a popular opinion, but that's how I see it. it's totally subjective of course lol.
Ho wow ! I watched that video on Wednesday, before the thread on the forum here. I guess that makes me a cool kid. Except that I'm not a kid anymore, so I suppose I'm just cool and trendy and stuff.

I've been watching that channel with parsimony. The series on the various editions of DnD is what made me discover it. I found it really good. There are a number of videos I have also watched, and some that I have avoided. Party because reading "conspiracy!", "hidden XYZ!" usually repel me more than it attracts me (but new channel have to look nice to the YouTube algo, and I guess enough viewers click on these types of titles). Party because some are plot theories videos. I'm afraid someone digging in the lore and small details will, for good or bad reasons, get some plot points right. And if that's how things actually turn out, I won't we as much in awe as if I had not heard of the theory in the first place. Other than that, I think the lore videos are really nice (especially the evolution of DnD series).

I can't say this particular video was bad. I think the listing of the main arguments of people saying that BG3 should not be called BG3 was about right : (1) it doesn't look like the immediate continuation of BG2, (2) it is not in the style of BG1-2, (3) you can't continue a franchise started by another studio. Actually, the video doesn't so much address these criticisms, as it discusses why BG2 should not have been called BG2 in the first place, and the pressure implications of Larian choosing to call this BG3. So, yeah, maybe the structure isn't stellar.

Anyway, at the end of the day, the name of the game isn't that important a topic to me. We now all know it's the next big Forgotten Realms video game. And how much it is "like DOS" doesn't speak to me, since I haven't played either of the DOS games. The only important things to me are that it feels like DnD and that it's a good game (and well, it's pretty much guaranteed to be at least good, but it has the potential to be great, so good won't be good enough, and Larian has a long way to go to turn this greatness potential into actuality).
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Gameplay and characters are very important to me. If I play it and it feels more like DOS2 and the characters feel like they belong in DOS2, I'll call it DOS3. If it feels closer to BG and the characters feel like they belong in BG, I'll call it BG3. I know that's probably not a popular opinion, but that's how I see it. it's totally subjective of course lol.

Genuinely curious if you would stop calling game series GTA after GTA 2?
Sequels can be taken loosely, Final Fantasy main number names hasn't been set in the same universe, some games are reboots like Mortal Kombat 9, or take place in an entirely different universe with same lore and species like Mass Effect Andromeda. Just because a game doesn't fit into someone's definition of a sequel doesn't mean that it's not a sequel. There are things people need to take into consideration: first, it's a really long break between 2 and 3, they need to make it accessable for mainstream, so it shouldn't be a direct continuation. Things like lore dump like with Pillar Eternity and things like that confuse new players. Gameplay style has to evolve as well. Some old fans complain a lot about Final Fantasy 7 remake, but really, the turn based style of old JRPG isn't popular anymore. Developers want to make games, but they also need to pay bills. When it comes to big budget games, they want a return on their investment. No one intentionally wants their game to fail, if the old real time style of Baldur's Gate is something most people would want, they would have gone with it.
If Rockstar had given the game over to Ubisoft to make and the gameplay and characters more closely resembled a Ubisoft game, then yes, I would think it's not "really" gta (obviously the name would still be GTA). as it was, GTA developed organically from the same developer. Was there ever a lot of talk how GTA 3 was actually another game instead? I don't remember, I just remember thinking it was GTA 3d, which i loved.

I would say, if someone were to see the gameplay/characters without seeing the title of the game, what game would they most closely connect with it? I've played POE I and II, Pathfinder and DOS2 (among other unknown modern crpgs) and Baldur's Gate 3 currently resembles DOS2 the most to me. The game IS Baldur's Gate 3, there's no denying that however.
Originally Posted by Hilarian
Sequels can be taken loosely, Final Fantasy main number names hasn't been set in the same universe, some games are reboots like Mortal Kombat 9, or take place in an entirely different universe with same lore and species like Mass Effect Andromeda. Just because a game doesn't fit into someone's definition of a sequel doesn't mean that it's not a sequel. There are things people need to take into consideration: first, it's a really long break between 2 and 3, they need to make it accessable for mainstream, so it shouldn't be a direct continuation. Things like lore dump like with Pillar Eternity and things like that confuse new players. Gameplay style has to evolve as well. Some old fans complain a lot about Final Fantasy 7 remake, but really, the turn based style of old JRPG isn't popular anymore. Developers want to make games, but they also need to pay bills. When it comes to big budget games, they want a return on their investment. No one intentionally wants their game to fail, if the old real time style of Baldur's Gate is something most people would want, they would have gone with it.

double post, but i totally agree with this. I played FFVII when it first came out and the new one feels like a pretty version of a Nomura bastardized Final Fantasy game to me. things do change, and not everyone will always be happy about it.
If these standards were used on Fallout...we would have no Fallout 3, Fallout 4 (and Fallout 76 and that is perhaps a good thing lol). Indeed, if this standard was even used on Dragon Age, the series would have ended with Origins. All of these deviates significantly further from the original works than BG3 does.
You spent a lot of time discussing semantics rather than discuss mechanics and style that made Baldur's Gate identity.

Larian did a lot of things right but many wrong.

This EA provided plenty of feedback for them to make a truly amazing game and I am curious to see how the final product will be.
I actually found this video on youtube a couple days ago. Still, I don't think that "because BG2" is a good argument.
Most complaints are about setting and rule implementation, not specifically the the city of Baldurs Gate.
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Topper
Where's my troll bait....

He's not a troll, he's a serious gamer and youtuber. Just because his opinion isn't yours (or mine) doesn't make him a troll/

Very true but I am sick of people whining that BG3 is not, in their considerably important opinion, BG3. If its not the game you wanted it to be, then move on. life is too short to wring your hands over what could have been..
EA is time to offer critiques and ask for changes. Saying that the game doesn't feel like a true sequel is part of that process. If the process of critiquing and requesting changes is starting to feel like whining to you perhaps the physician should take his own medicine and move on until the official release?
It was a great call and worked for them!


What I heard was, "Hey everybody we are making a new story in Faerun...you know that place where Baldur's gate is".

This was fine for me because it had been too long since WOTC had made anything single player.
I've just started playing balders gate enhanced edition on my PC to fill in the gap between the next patch after 120 hours odd of early access (which is excellent). 9 odd hours in & you can see immediately how this & the sequel are nothing like BG3 the design philosophy are completely different in almost everyway the scope is bigger the combat is different & clearly designed for larger parties & faster paced combat.

The only thing the two games really have in common are the fact that they are D&D based games drawing on similar content. I agree absolutely that BG3 can be called BG3. BG 1&2 from what I can gather are much broader than just Balders Gate too so what's the drama?

Again early in the real issue I think is that fans of BG 1&2 have waited so long for someone to make a true sequel but for whatever reasons (maybe legal/copyright/license) its never happened - I can absolutely see why fans loved it already & if someone even rebuilt the originals from the ground up for modern next gen consoles & PC's - that would be absolutely fantastic & I could see myself losing 100's of hours in it.

But BG3 is Larian & they are using their design & IP built from their current games & to me thats fine - no better, no worse - but I can better appreciate why fans of the originals again feel like they have missed out - however financially Larian would have been stupid to try & start over on such a vast undertaking.

Back to OP topic - sorry I digress......I agree with the Utube clip broadly speaking its just a name & a marketing strategy about a game set in the D&D universe drawing on the reputation of the first 2 games - yes I get the point that it means people assume its a direct sequel but any small amount of research shows the difference between the old games & BG3 - not better or worse just different.
"but any small amount of research shows the difference between the old games & BG3 - not better or worse just different."

Exactly!
Larian is not even trying to honor the old titles. There is no throwing back to the originals , from the UI to art design, from mechanics to the tone of the writing.

I honestly think Fallout 3 did a better job of retaining the original's feel than BG3.
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
I honestly think Fallout 3 did a better job of retaining the original's feel than BG3.

What? No. I completely disagree.
No need to argue anymore, whatever you want to call BG3 <DOS3> BG2 is still the king, and thank boo for that. It destroys BG3 in terms of atmosphere, content, music, npcs, dialogue, art style, UI, gameplay et etc...

Very poor decision by Larian to utilize the name BG3 , its so far off what it once was. But no one except fans of the first games seems to care so...who cares anymore what you call your games. 100% bate marketing. Oh and no worry, well just add Minsc for the fans and everyone will be happy...yea. thanks.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
No need to argue anymore, whatever you want to call BG3 <DOS3> BG2 is still the king, and thank boo for that. It destroys BG3 in terms of atmosphere, content, music, npcs, dialogue, art style, UI, gameplay et etc...

Very poor decision by Larian to utilize the name BG3 , its so far off what it once was. But no one except fans of the first games seems to care so...who cares anymore what you call your games. 100% bate marketing. Oh and no worry, well just add Minsc for the fans and everyone will be happy...yea. thanks.
Sorry, but no.

I find that BG3 blows BG2 out of the water in all areas you described except content (or will, with tweaking and more content, since we are in early access), thus far. But, hey you're welcome to your own opinion.

(Seriously, I loathed the BG1 and 2 interfaces. They were just awful for me, and the characterization felt flat as a pancake a lot of the time, but again, just my opinion)

Also, why isn't this in the BG3, DOS, and the D&D ruleset thread? I thought that's where all the discussion about whether BG3 is BG3 or DoS 3 was supposed to be contained. (and why isn't that in the megathreads?)

As a side note, when you say " But no one except fans of the first games seems to care so..." does that count those who consider themselves fans of BG 1 and 2, and see this as a worthy successor? I've seen at least a few of those floating around here.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
No need to argue anymore, whatever you want to call BG3 <DOS3> BG2 is still the king, and thank boo for that. It destroys BG3 in terms of atmosphere, content, music, npcs, dialogue, art style, UI, gameplay et etc...

Very poor decision by Larian to utilize the name BG3 , its so far off what it once was. But no one except fans of the first games seems to care so...who cares anymore what you call your games. 100% bate marketing. Oh and no worry, well just add Minsc for the fans and everyone will be happy...yea. thanks.


It’s really sad but right now there is more truth to it than I wished.

Game is still EA though! But the fact that larian fell silent and not only evading all the critics but stoped communicating at all gives this opinions even credit 😢
Curious, wonder if people think fallout 3 and 4 are not fallout games?

Baldurs gate games are named after a city right? Wonder if well see that city in say act 3.
They are extremely shitty fallout games not worthy of the name
Originally Posted by Dexai
They are extremely shitty fallout games not worthy of the name
ROFL, this is pretty much what I was expecting.
Originally Posted by Baldurs-Gate-Fan
It’s really sad but right now there is more truth to it than I wished.

Game is still EA though! But the fact that larian fell silent and not only evading all the critics but stoped communicating at all gives this opinions even credit 😢

There have also been good signs. They did remove surfaces from cantrips. They just need to continue that process until we get a DnD game.

One of the problems with the click bait-y title (and I've said I don't think it was intentional) is that the trolls have poisoned the well. So when someone says "this game plays more like DOS than D&D" their opinion is conflated with those who are just saying it for the lulz.

And I don't agree with the three bullet points at all. The people focusing on the city are a tiny minority. BG4 can take place in Calisham for all I care if the game feels like BG2 in terms of party interaction and heroic narrative.
It’s really sad but right now there is more truth to it than I wished.

Game is still EA though! But the fact that larian fell silent and not only evading all the critics but stoped communicating at all gives this opinions even credit 😢


This is what I meant old balders gate game fans thinking that Larian wanted to make exactly the same game - that ship has long since sailed & there will be a reason why nobody has tried in the past 20 odd years because as i said earlier a true successor to BG1&2 would be amazing.

But what Larian are doing now is amazing too - I believe that the finished game may not be like BG 1&2 but will be deserving of their recognition in a new game for modern times -I truly hope someone does try for a true successor but the more I play BG enhanced edition the more I think Pillars of Eternity might be as close as we will get...hope im wrong about that ...
Originally Posted by Tarorn
It’s really sad but right now there is more truth to it than I wished.

Game is still EA though! But the fact that larian fell silent and not only evading all the critics but stoped communicating at all gives this opinions even credit 😢


This is what I meant old balders gate game fans thinking that Larian wanted to make exactly the same game - that ship has long since sailed & there will be a reason why nobody has tried in the past 20 odd years because as i said earlier a true successor to BG1&2 would be amazing.

But what Larian are doing now is amazing too - I believe that the finished game may not be like BG 1&2 but will be deserving of their recognition in a new game for modern times -I truly hope someone does try for a true successor but the more I play BG enhanced edition the more I think Pillars of Eternity might be as close as we will get...hope im wrong about that ...
Well, Pillar of Eternity newest game is a commercial failure though, and the company has to rethink about if they would attempt another one. I'm more curious about the demand for these types of game in term of whether they could attempt a large triple AAA type of game, but smaller games like these would probably still come out if the dedicated fanbase is there. Old players have the nostalgic factor and they are used to and are fine with these mechanics, but I do think developers have to think how a new player would think when they pick up a game. I kinda understand it when I try to introduce an older game to a new friend or something, for one reason or another, they just couldn't get into it. I do hope for more CRPG games to succeed though since I quite enjoy it, but the mechanic/gameplay is a bit uncertain for me.
Originally Posted by Tarorn
It’s really sad but right now there is more truth to it than I wished.

Game is still EA though! But the fact that larian fell silent and not only evading all the critics but stoped communicating at all gives this opinions even credit 😢


This is what I meant old balders gate game fans thinking that Larian wanted to make exactly the same game - that ship has long since sailed & there will be a reason why nobody has tried in the past 20 odd years because as i said earlier a true successor to BG1&2 would be amazing.

But what Larian are doing now is amazing too - I believe that the finished game may not be like BG 1&2 but will be deserving of their recognition in a new game for modern times -I truly hope someone does try for a true successor but the more I play BG enhanced edition the more I think Pillars of Eternity might be as close as we will get...hope im wrong about that ...

I'd say Pathfinder:Kingmaker is actually as close as we'll get to a spiritual successor. PoE is amazing in its own right, but its setting and themes are way, uh, "muddier" than the OGs. Not exactly darker, just more down to earth. P:K fits the bill pretty well.
The main complaint about Baldur's Gate 3 is that the game has absolutely nothing to do with the old games (at the moment).

I guess no reasonable old fan waited from Larian a game as close as the old BG than P:K and PoE are.
Those games are successors... Larian has to create a rebirth.

BG video games are not only a matter of the city, of the rules, of RTWP, of Bhaal, of isometric 2D,...

It's also a party of 6, more than 15 companions to recruit, all of them are memorable and have an incredible presence during the whole game.
It's also an epic journey in which you travel accross many locations, villages and dungeons on a worldmap, in which time matter and in which nights are dark... in wich you can die at every corner because of an unexpected encounter and in which death is more meaningfull than 200 gold coins.
It's also a control mechanic, an ambiant, a setting in which inn, trading and church are important and in which you have to manage (a bit too much) an inventory.
It's a story you could read in a book in which everything looks realistic according to the reality of the world (except the pause for convenience).
But maybe you read it... Because it became a book.

Baldur's Gate 3 could have... And probably should have taken a few of those things and improved them for a new game. I hope it's not too late.

A few things in the old games could have lead to something enjoyable for everyone in a modern game... Even with TB, even with verticality, even with surfaces, even with Larian's strange sense of humor and vision of "romance".

And many of those "trolls" wouldn't have the feeling that Larian is erasing all they loved for decades...

Because nearly no fans only loved BG1/2 because of Bhaal, of the city, of Minsc or of D&D.
These are just a small part of the games and the history shows us that even with this, you can have two games that have nothing to do with each other.

Anyway BG3 is on the road and it's anyone's choice to continue or not.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Baldurs gate games are named after a city right? Wonder if well see that city in say act 3.

/This
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
No need to argue anymore, whatever you want to call BG3 <DOS3> BG2 is still the king, and thank boo for that. It destroys BG3 in terms of atmosphere, content, music, npcs, dialogue, art style, UI, gameplay et etc...

Very poor decision by Larian to utilize the name BG3 , its so far off what it once was. But no one except fans of the first games seems to care so...who cares anymore what you call your games. 100% bate marketing. Oh and no worry, well just add Minsc for the fans and everyone will be happy...yea. thanks.
Sorry, but no.

I find that BG3 blows BG2 out of the water in all areas you described except content (or will, with tweaking and more content, since we are in early access), thus far. But, hey you're welcome to your own opinion.

(Seriously, I loathed the BG1 and 2 interfaces. They were just awful for me, and the characterization felt flat as a pancake a lot of the time, but again, just my opinion)

Also, why isn't this in the BG3, DOS, and the D&D ruleset thread? I thought that's where all the discussion about whether BG3 is BG3 or DoS 3 was supposed to be contained. (and why isn't that in the megathreads?)

As a side note, when you say " But no one except fans of the first games seems to care so..." does that count those who consider themselves fans of BG 1 and 2, and see this as a worthy successor? I've seen at least a few of those floating around here.

It has been long time indeed since I played Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 I was perhaps not even adult 18 then keep my age mystery.. personally I liked most BG1 and its expansion the Werewolf Island ...

In their time BG1 and BG2 were the best games in their genre and are still today great games for those want to play them. Hard to compare to say any game that is example FPS shooter but in their fantasy genre best games!

BG1 and BG2 has very good characters and story liked it very much indeed.


BG3 camera control.... you know it took me quite a while to get used to it and it is not the best camera control out there. I even had on my countrys forums that talked about BG3 help some player that was completely lost in how to use BG 3 camera.
Oh sure I know how to use it, but even the O tactical field does not impress me.

I still LOVE this game! I would rate this game 9/10. That does not mean it is perfect. People have right to wish for more. I like the story and combat and the Crypt area was lovely Horror area, the characters though I do hope we also can get good characters in Act 2 that can join the party. Do not get me wrong I spared Lae Zel life, but sometimes it is tough with her when I try play neutral or Good character...

Shadowheart good? She has evil Deity enough said. There are no good characters. Will good? Hard for me to judge but perhaps neutral feel... his actions WARNING SPOILERS:
to try kill Goblin Leaders and try save Thiefling Village is no doubt good but his class is Warlock and...

I like this game very much. However do not for one second doubt that BG1 and BG2 were great games. This game will also be great but I also respect people that want some changes. I do not need story change it is good. However since you complained so much about the interface in old BG1 and BG2 I said my opinion about camera control in BG 3 which I Rate 7/10 (means could be better), but the whole game is though is very good and BG3 is 9/10 to me.

Once upon a time I played BG1 expansion Werewolf Island together with my brother we were not adults then on LAN connection multiplayer. I look forward to play this game with my brother and other people throgh Internet connection. Of course I have played MMOS and multiplayer games before.

BG1, BG2 and BG3 are all very good games to me.

Oh and as challenge goes I have found it a bit amusing people complain this game is hard? Ok sure it should exist Easy challenge level for people that need it. That said I do want to play on harder difficulty level then Normal...WARNING SPOILERS:
I killed all the Goblin leaders on first try including the Drow no load and not using Halsin when I got to Halsin after killing all the leaders I found out that he had fled the area in Bear form did find him then in Thiefling village after that.In addition befor going to Thiefling village after I killed all Goblin leader including the Drow I then went out to courtryard was attacked by all and killed every Golbin in the fortress and outside no load needed first try... I was level 3 when fighting towards Goblin Leaders but level 4 after killed Drow and was level 4 in courtyard battle. I have played pen and paper and feel that challenge level for me could be Hard or Nightmare... Alpha is locked at Normal challenge level currently.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by Dexai
They are extremely shitty fallout games not worthy of the name
ROFL, this is pretty much what I was expecting.

Point is that they're still Fallout games though wink
Honestly the video seems like a special way to troll the trolls. Wich makes him a troll too.

The whole video he explains why baldurs gate is not all about bhaalspawn saga or the city. And yes of course he is 100% right.

When you read the critics on the game about 2% of the critics are complaining about no connection to bhaalspawn saga. And even less complaining about the city.

The majority of critics are the very obvious dos3 elements and the lack of previously used mechanics. And turn based is the least of the problems here. If the rest would feel like a baldurs gate game most could live with turnbased since long before even bg1 all famous DnD games where turnbased.


The fact that he mentions that he respects the people who think it deviates too much from it origins sound absolutely dishonest when he then try’s to give the pictures that the critics are all about bhaalspawn saga or the city.


To me he is exactly the same troll as the people who say it’s not a bg3 because no bhaalspawn. And yes those are trolls. But the majority of critics is related to other things
This video is a very special underhanded troll. It's the "backhanded compliment" of videos.
I'd like to know why people keep making blanket comparisons and coming to ridiculous conclusions about BG3 when so far they've only seen a fraction of the game? That's all EA is--a fraction of the game--and the EA is far away from being finished, small fraction of the whole game that it is.

Amazingly, some posts I've read appear to believe that the part of the game revealed by the EA is, indeed, the whole game...;) I mean, the people who write these posts would have to believe that, wouldn't they? Otherwise, their "conclusions" would be absurd--which, of course, they are...;)
Originally Posted by Waltc
I'd like to know why people keep making blanket comparisons and coming to ridiculous conclusions about BG3 when so far they've only seen a fraction of the game? That's all EA is--a fraction of the game--and the EA is far away from being finished, small fraction of the whole game that it is.

Amazingly, some posts I've read appear to believe that the part of the game revealed by the EA is, indeed, the whole game...;) I mean, the people who write these posts would have to believe that, wouldn't they? Otherwise, their "conclusions" would be absurd--which, of course, they are...;)

So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.
Originally Posted by Danielbda
So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.

BG2 differed immensely from the rules of 2.5. That's why there's literally dozens of options on the G3 mod to go back to pen and paper rules, 'true' grandmastery or whatever or to 'un-nerf tons of things BG2 had nerfed or powered up.
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Danielbda
So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.

BG2 differed immensely from the rules of 2.5. That's why there's literally dozens of options on the G3 mod to go back to pen and paper rules, 'true' grandmastery or whatever or to 'un-nerf tons of things BG2 had nerfed or powered up.

Could you please give us your HUGE list of things that had changed in the previous games ?

Because no... Not so much things were modified.
A few things were tweaked... For the best or not depending if you're a purist or not.

But it doesn't immensely modify the experience.

Combats in BG3 has nearly nothing to do with D&D and what you always have in mind during a battle is... Non D&D rules...
Story, atmosphere, art style, combat, music, gameplay are completely different, than the old games and BG3 was also a bit boring and slow for me.

I will take an other look in a year or when the game is out.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Danielbda
So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.

BG2 differed immensely from the rules of 2.5. That's why there's literally dozens of options on the G3 mod to go back to pen and paper rules, 'true' grandmastery or whatever or to 'un-nerf tons of things BG2 had nerfed or powered up.

Could you please give us your HUGE list of things that had changed in the previous games ?

Because no... Not so much things were modified.
A few things were tweaked... For the best or not depending if you're a purist or not.
quite a few things, each one adding up to some major changes away from RAW - it is disingenuous to claim that BG1 and 2 were somehow super true to aDnD2(.5) since even a basic comparison between the RAW and the game allows you to see a huge number of changes which completely shape gameplay if you choose to let them.

The main thing being that as shipped the AI of enemies in BG1 and 2 is nothing like how they would react in a tabletop game. No moving out of cloud effects, no calls for help, no ability to open doors, no searching for enemies off screen - in fact i can imagine a forums post in 1998 complaining about how the game is cheesy because the battles are too hard unless you throw down a cloudkill and close the door.

A very major change, which i cannot over-stress the importance of, is the ability to very easily recharge wands and other charged items by selling and re-buying them form "just some guy" - this shapes the entire mid-game if you chose to use it since a 50 charge wand if fireball and 100 charge wand of monster summoning are all you need to play through BG1 and the first half of BG2 (this is equivalent to "barrelmancy", i call it "wand-mancy," why play any other way when you can just spam wand of fire?") - and then you get a wand of cloudkill which can effectively do the same but better.

Another major change that shapes the whole game is that there are no attacks of opportunity (i.e. the fleeing rules under "retreat"), I think its impossible to overstate how this shapes the gameplay - there are zero consequences for leaving combat allowing both easy kiting and tank cycling, neither of which would be possible in the same way without the lack of fleeing attacks of opportunity.

Enemy mages in BG1 and 2 are nothing like PnP mages, instead of dangerous enemies who have spent their whole lives mastering magic they are the butt of every joke, hacked to pieces before they can even cast a spell. Feeble in every way.

Ability to change equipment on the fly is also a big one - sure you cant change armor, but you can change everythign else: gauntlets, belts, bracers, rings, cloaks, even shield on the fly in combat.

As far as enemy stats go, their health pools are all over the place compared to PnP RAW, fiends have noticeably been very tuned down, beholders are not immune to their own eyestalks (lmao shield of balduran), vampire abilities are tuned so far down its sad.

As far as stat implementation goes, high intelligence not giving illusion immunities, wisdom not giving saving throw bonuses/penalties for magical defenses and spell immunities at high levels, no implementation of charisma reaction adjustment in BG2, constitution not providing bonuses to save vs poison/death

Also: the existence of rest until healed, stacking potions (ever drank 10 potions of power/heroism in a row?), no penalties for firing ranged into melee (again a massive shaper of tactics away from 2nd ed RAW, allowing the classic 1 tank and 5 archers in BG1), HLAs (bioware homebrew), no lighting ranges/vision limitations and consequently broken/useless infravision, no paladin tithes, restrictions on wealth or restrictions on associates to lawful good, generic rather than RAW cleric weapon restrictions, no thief use scrolls" ability at 10th level, no ability for wizards to scribe scrolls at 9th level... the list goes on and on, many of which are significant enough to completely alter the game away from aDnD 2nd ed
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Danielbda
So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.

BG2 differed immensely from the rules of 2.5. That's why there's literally dozens of options on the G3 mod to go back to pen and paper rules, 'true' grandmastery or whatever or to 'un-nerf tons of things BG2 had nerfed or powered up.

Could you please give us your HUGE list of things that had changed in the previous games ?

Because no... Not so much things were modified.
A few things were tweaked... For the best or not depending if you're a purist or not.
quite a few things, each one adding up to some major changes away from RAW - it is disingenuous to claim that BG1 and 2 were somehow super true to aDnD2(.5) since even a basic comparison between the RAW and the game allows you to see a huge number of changes which completely shape gameplay if you choose to let them.

The main thing being that as shipped the AI of enemies in BG1 and 2 is nothing like how they would react in a tabletop game. No moving out of cloud effects, no calls for help, no ability to open doors, no searching for enemies off screen - in fact i can imagine a forums post in 1998 complaining about how the game is cheesy because the battles are too hard unless you throw down a cloudkill and close the door.

A very major change, which i cannot over-stress the importance of, is the ability to very easily recharge wands and other charged items by selling and re-buying them form "just some guy" - this shapes the entire mid-game if you chose to use it since a 50 charge wand if fireball and 100 charge wand of monster summoning are all you need to play through BG1 and the first half of BG2 (this is equivalent to "barrelmancy", i call it "wand-mancy," why play any other way when you can just spam wand of fire?") - and then you get a wand of cloudkill which can effectively do the same but better.

Another major change that shapes the whole game is that there are no attacks of opportunity (i.e. the fleeing rules under "retreat"), I think its impossible to overstate how this shapes the gameplay - there are zero consequences for leaving combat allowing both easy kiting and tank cycling, neither of which would be possible in the same way without the lack of fleeing attacks of opportunity.

Enemy mages in BG1 and 2 are nothing like PnP mages, instead of dangerous enemies who have spent their whole lives mastering magic they are the butt of every joke, hacked to pieces before they can even cast a spell. Feeble in every way.

Ability to change equipment on the fly is also a big one - sure you cant change armor, but you can change everythign else: gauntlets, belts, bracers, rings, cloaks, even shield on the fly in combat.

As far as enemy stats go, their health pools are all over the place compared to PnP RAW, fiends have noticeably been very tuned down, beholders are not immune to their own eyestalks (lmao shield of balduran), vampire abilities are tuned so far down its sad.

As far as stat implementation goes, high intelligence not giving illusion immunities, wisdom not giving saving throw bonuses/penalties for magical defenses and spell immunities at high levels, no implementation of charisma reaction adjustment in BG2, constitution not providing bonuses to save vs poison/death

Also: the existence of rest until healed, stacking potions (ever drank 10 potions of power/heroism in a row?), no penalties for firing ranged into melee (again a massive shaper of tactics away from 2nd ed RAW, allowing the classic 1 tank and 5 archers in BG1), HLAs (bioware homebrew), no lighting ranges/vision limitations and consequently broken/useless infravision, no paladin tithes, restrictions on wealth or restrictions on associates to lawful good, generic rather than RAW cleric weapon restrictions, no thief use scrolls" ability at 10th level, no ability for wizards to scribe scrolls at 9th level... the list goes on and on, many of which are significant enough to completely alter the game away from aDnD 2nd ed
Well spoken! Thank you for this.
A lot of those points mentioned are not really "deviating from pnp" in the sense of changing the ruleset. It is pointing out limitations with the AI (or coding in general from back then, leading to some abuses like the wand recharging). While there are definatly changes from the pnp version to the game version to make it a better flowing CRPG, this is just nitpicking. "Roleplay limitations" can be considered to be a thing for literally every adaptation, it is very present in BG1 and 2, IWD, NWN and 2 and very much so in BG3 too.

This list feels kind of a case of just looking for stuff that might differ, to make a point. if you go look for stuff like this, you will find it, with pretty much anything. (Hence it being nitpicking, and kind of in a vaccuum/out of context too)
Oh yes maybe I shouldn't have been so categorical but if there are valid points, many looks more like bugs, technical limitations, options, details, personnal thoughts and things that weren't implemented.

Not sure this completely alter the experience, change the rules, unbalance D&D (skills, classes, ...) or leads players to use non-D&D mechanics as the most usual mechnics of the game.

(i.e such as all features/spells/... giving advantages in BG3 that are all completely useless)

This looks like a list only the most hardcore D&D purists would care about...
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Danielbda
So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.

BG2 differed immensely from the rules of 2.5. That's why there's literally dozens of options on the G3 mod to go back to pen and paper rules, 'true' grandmastery or whatever or to 'un-nerf tons of things BG2 had nerfed or powered up.

Could you please give us your HUGE list of things that had changed in the previous games ?

Because no... Not so much things were modified.
A few things were tweaked... For the best or not depending if you're a purist or not.
quite a few things, each one adding up to some major changes away from RAW - it is disingenuous to claim that BG1 and 2 were somehow super true to aDnD2(.5) since even a basic comparison between the RAW and the game allows you to see a huge number of changes which completely shape gameplay if you choose to let them.

The main thing being that as shipped the AI of enemies in BG1 and 2 is nothing like how they would react in a tabletop game. No moving out of cloud effects, no calls for help, no ability to open doors, no searching for enemies off screen - in fact i can imagine a forums post in 1998 complaining about how the game is cheesy because the battles are too hard unless you throw down a cloudkill and close the door.

A very major change, which i cannot over-stress the importance of, is the ability to very easily recharge wands and other charged items by selling and re-buying them form "just some guy" - this shapes the entire mid-game if you chose to use it since a 50 charge wand if fireball and 100 charge wand of monster summoning are all you need to play through BG1 and the first half of BG2 (this is equivalent to "barrelmancy", i call it "wand-mancy," why play any other way when you can just spam wand of fire?") - and then you get a wand of cloudkill which can effectively do the same but better.

Another major change that shapes the whole game is that there are no attacks of opportunity (i.e. the fleeing rules under "retreat"), I think its impossible to overstate how this shapes the gameplay - there are zero consequences for leaving combat allowing both easy kiting and tank cycling, neither of which would be possible in the same way without the lack of fleeing attacks of opportunity.

Enemy mages in BG1 and 2 are nothing like PnP mages, instead of dangerous enemies who have spent their whole lives mastering magic they are the butt of every joke, hacked to pieces before they can even cast a spell. Feeble in every way.

Ability to change equipment on the fly is also a big one - sure you cant change armor, but you can change everythign else: gauntlets, belts, bracers, rings, cloaks, even shield on the fly in combat.

As far as enemy stats go, their health pools are all over the place compared to PnP RAW, fiends have noticeably been very tuned down, beholders are not immune to their own eyestalks (lmao shield of balduran), vampire abilities are tuned so far down its sad.

As far as stat implementation goes, high intelligence not giving illusion immunities, wisdom not giving saving throw bonuses/penalties for magical defenses and spell immunities at high levels, no implementation of charisma reaction adjustment in BG2, constitution not providing bonuses to save vs poison/death

Also: the existence of rest until healed, stacking potions (ever drank 10 potions of power/heroism in a row?), no penalties for firing ranged into melee (again a massive shaper of tactics away from 2nd ed RAW, allowing the classic 1 tank and 5 archers in BG1), HLAs (bioware homebrew), no lighting ranges/vision limitations and consequently broken/useless infravision, no paladin tithes, restrictions on wealth or restrictions on associates to lawful good, generic rather than RAW cleric weapon restrictions, no thief use scrolls" ability at 10th level, no ability for wizards to scribe scrolls at 9th level... the list goes on and on, many of which are significant enough to completely alter the game away from aDnD 2nd ed
Most of the stuff you cited are quality of life improvements, bad AI, bugs and/or engine limitations.
Mages having low HP is a result from their low hit dice and constitution bonus limitations, this is in all editions. The only legit homebrew Bioware put in there was HLA's, which make epic levels feel more rewarding and are a great addition, this is not changing core mechanics like in BG3.
Yeah, and i'm not worked up about them at all, but wand recharging, free disengage, free fire into combat, potion stacking and changing equipment on the fly in combat are comparable to eating in combat, throwing barrels, jumping to disengage and the like - all together then make combat in BG1 (and 2) much different to how it would play out on the tabletop - you don't have to play like that, but these mechanics do change the tone of combat in BG1 and 2 completely away from the tone of aDnD 2nd ed. I don't mind that - the games are great, I simply feel that saying BG1 and 2 are RAW aDnD 2nd ed is disingenuous and a poor way to argue that BG3 should have its issues fixed.
I do still think BG3 should have those issues fixed and be closer to 5e, but I agree that using the BG1 and 2 reference is a bad argument. Those games did deviate from the ruleset fairly often (even though I do not necessarily agree with the list itself, there are other places where they drifted away from the actual ruleset)

Admittedly, 5e would be much better to adapt to a CRPG than 2nd edition (or even 3rd edition) is, so there still is no real reason for Larian to ignore the ruleset that is balanced (well. More or less At least more than other editions and more than all the home-brews rules added in BG3) and has been play tested for many years already
here's me playing Baldur's Gate 1, demonstrating how wands are the barrels of BG1. This would not be possible without wand recharging and free disengage - the first a bioware addition and the second a rules change/omission

https://vimeo.com/501449600
Just to nitpick: Wand recharging is not really necessary with the crazy amount of wands you can find or buy, and kiting can be done with potions of haste/paws of the cheetah/the haste spell.

I would even say just shooting fireball/lightningbolt wands into the fog of war/out of line of sight is an even more effective way to kill scary enemies (which takes advantage of the AI but still)

But ultimately, as bad as abuse in the older games is/was, that is no reason to have it be a case in a game of this generation. It no longer has the AI limitations that were a thing 20 years ago, as well as having a more balanced ruleset to work with.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Just to nitpick: Wand recharging is not really necessary with the crazy amount of wands you can find or buy, and kiting can be done with potions of haste/paws of the cheetah/the haste spell.

I would even say just shooting fireball/lightningbolt wands into the fog of war/out of line of sight is an even more effective way to kill scary enemies (which takes advantage of the AI but still)
i have SCS installed currently so it doesn't work, but yeah, as released fog of war abuse, while an omission by bioware rather than a deliberate "thing" still breaks the game something terrible -and the fact that SCS fixes that shows that it could have been made much better
I would kind of hope that BG3 becomes a game that functions on its own as a game, and is more true to the ruleset than older games were. Rather than us relying on mods to achieve that. If something becomes heavily modded to fix stuff from the base game, that kind of points of flaws in those base games I think.
As far as the rule changes for Stats - I think it is a serious thing, because there are supposed to be serious penalties for low charisma and wisdom, but as there are not one or the other can be safely dumped to 3 to boost other stats -You should never have been able to make a 3 wis 3 cha character in BG2 without some serious penalties according to adnd RAW, but actually thats fine to do that, allowing you to easily have very high str, dex, con from starting etc, even with a low roll, *shrug*. Again, its not a big deal for me, but saying that changes to stats rules doesn't effect game balance is impossible imo
Just because BG1/2 did some things badly, is really no excuse for BG3 to do likewise, surely? 5E rules are vastly different from AD&D or even 3E, and 5E has an entirely different design philosophy. I really think that needs to be respected...if Larian are going to call it a 5E game. There are two huge threads on this, at least, so it is a big deal for many people. I have no pronlems with the story, setting or calling it BG3 - but I want an authentic D&D (5E) experience. At the moment, it is quite far from that, and eminently 'cheesable'.
Originally Posted by booboo
Just because BG1/2 did some things badly, is really no excuse for BG3 to do likewise, surely? 5E rules are vastly different from AD&D or even 3E, and 5E has an entirely different design philosophy. I really think that needs to be respected...if Larian are going to call it a 5E game. There are two huge threads on this, at least, so it is a big deal for many people. I have no pronlems with the story, setting or calling it BG3 - but I want an authentic D&D (5E) experience. At the moment, it is quite far from that, and eminently 'cheesable'.
and all I want to point out is that using BG1 and 2 as good examples of implementation of RAW is willful nostalgia with no investigation of how the rules are actually implemented in BG1 and 2 and so doesn't hold water as an argument for RAW in 5E, it makes no judgement on how BG3 should implement 5E rules, just that there are much better ways to approach the flaws in BG3 than pointing to rules as implemented in BG1 and 2
I feel like I need to put a Boromir meme: one does not simply disagree with @alice_ashpool. But, here I am rushing in where angels fear . . . I'm sure this will go well.

Much of what you say is correct but here so points of disagreement.

Quote
Another major change that shapes the whole game is that there are no attacks of opportunity (i.e. the fleeing rules under "retreat"), I think its impossible to overstate how this shapes the gameplay - there are zero consequences for leaving combat allowing both easy kiting and tank cycling, neither of which would be possible in the same way without the lack of fleeing attacks of opportunity.

Retreat rules /= attacks of opportunity. AOO is a 3rd ed rule and it works differently than does retreat. Yes, retreat was never implemented in the game. Retreat means -- I'm leaving, I'm running, I'm running back to base camp. It can be invoked by a failed morale check or in reaction to a spell.

Quote
" To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.

The enemy is allowed a free attack--or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round--at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees. It doesn't count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant. The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy. "

Now that was weakness of the game -- it would have been nice to have a retreat button. But this doesn't have anything to do with kitting -- kitting is an exploitation of a weakness in the 2nd ed ruleset -- one that AOO was designed to fix. In 2nd ed there are no penalties for moving around in combat.

(AOO in 3rd ed, especially in 3.0, was OP. 5th has it right)

But there is an important difference between a. exploiting weakness in the ruleset b. exploiting engine limitations and c. using exploits that the devs have purposefully introduced to the game.
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
here's me playing Baldur's Gate 1, demonstrating how wands are the barrels of BG1. This would not be possible without wand recharging and free disengage - the first a bioware addition and the second a rules change/omission

https://vimeo.com/501449600

Alice is back ... but that's not Arwen's adventure in the video ?! Are you still doing your Arwen-and-Imoen run ? I never commented that thread, because, well, lurking habits I guess. But it was awesome nonetheless. So, in case you didn't delete the save, and would still find some fun in doing it and writing the diary entries, well, I'd be happy to read.

(Also ... I myself never played hardcore/powergaming/exploiting all the rules/whatever this style is called. It's fun to watch.)
Originally Posted by BraveSirRobin
Originally Posted by Danielbda
So during the later chapters BG3 will follow the D&D ruleset properly? Because one of the conclusions here is that the game kinda refuses to follow the rules.

BG2 differed immensely from the rules of 2.5. That's why there's literally dozens of options on the G3 mod to go back to pen and paper rules, 'true' grandmastery or whatever or to 'un-nerf tons of things BG2 had nerfed or powered up.


100% this - BG2 made a lot of adaptations to the rules to bring 2.5e to real time and video game format. Some key changes from PnP to BG2 that people were talking about all the way back:

  • Bioware chose one of the optional initiative/combat systems (weapon speed, etc) and overall followed them pretty closely. However, the merging of real time movement and round based attack mechanics (+ no-disengagement rules) caused tons of abusable wonkiness for melee fights (i.e. running before someone can make all their attacks)

  • Some of base combat rules were heavily simplified - e.g. most of the nuance to ranged combat is gutted (firing into melee rules removed, moving and shooting rules removed, etc). Positioning (i.e. -2 Thac0 for rear attacks) were not implemented.

  • Changes to classes - most notably homebrewing classes from 3E (i.e. sorcerer, barbarian, etc). But also core class features missing but not replaced - fighters missing their 9th level lordship/followers, etc.

  • Spells changed - some obviously didn't make sense to implement, others were rebalanced (i.e. Haste nerfed - 3 Lvl PnP Haste basically had the effect of the 6th level Imp. Haste).

  • Non-weapon proficiencies completely removed. Some are obvious due to videogame limitations, but things like Spellcraft, Religion, History - skills we've seen used in later D&D games - were removed too.

  • Implemented the Weapon Mastery system from the "Combat and Tactics" book (optional) but with major simplification and omissions - in BG2 every weapon gets the same effects. In PnP, ranged weapon specializations bonuses are different from melee (you gain things like point-blank shot from 3E, Quickfire etc).

  • This one should be obvious, but all the Epic level abilities (from Throne of Bhaal) are a Bioware invention.

  • Heavily re-balanced monsters - yes, including oMg Le hP bLOaT. Some examples:
  • 60 avg. hp Balors had 120 hp in BG2 (155 for the ritual demon in the Underdark)
  • 33 avg. hp Trolls had 80+ hp in BG2 (Giant and Spectral in the 100s)
  • 39 avg. hp Vampire had 67-110 hp in BG2 (most were 75 hp)
  • 102 avg. hp Great Wyrm Red Dragon had 184 in BG2(Firkragg).
  • 35 avg. hp Djinni had 59 (45 vs. 83 for the 10k exp Noble variant)
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I feel like I need to put a Boromir meme: one does not simply disagree with @alice_ashpool. But, here I am rushing in where angels fear . . . I'm sure this will go well.

Much of what you say is correct but here so points of disagreement.

Quote
Another major change that shapes the whole game is that there are no attacks of opportunity (i.e. the fleeing rules under "retreat"), I think its impossible to overstate how this shapes the gameplay - there are zero consequences for leaving combat allowing both easy kiting and tank cycling, neither of which would be possible in the same way without the lack of fleeing attacks of opportunity.

Retreat rules /= attacks of opportunity. AOO is a 3rd ed rule and it works differently than does retreat. Yes, retreat was never implemented in the game. Retreat means -- I'm leaving, I'm running, I'm running back to base camp. It can be invoked by a failed morale check or in reaction to a spell.

Quote
" To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent.

The enemy is allowed a free attack--or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round--at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees. It doesn't count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant. The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy. "

Now that was weakness of the game -- it would have been nice to have a retreat button. But this doesn't have anything to do with kitting -- kitting is an exploitation of a weakness in the 2nd ed ruleset -- one that AOO was designed to fix. In 2nd ed there are no penalties for moving around in combat.

(AOO in 3rd ed, especially in 3.0, was OP. 5th has it right)

But there is an important difference between a. exploiting weakness in the ruleset b. exploiting engine limitations and c. using exploits that the devs have purposefully introduced to the game.
nice points, but i think, and here i'm descending into pedantry, since iirc the 2nd ed player handbook only accounted for "movement in melee" being to get closer to an opponent (just looked it up: "The basic move is to get closer for combat"), and then either withdraw (which should be at 1/3rd speed) or flee as you quoted. None of that really accounts for the option of repeated engaging and disengaging being permissible at all, certainly not at full speed. As a pedantic supplement to my pedantry 2nd ed Player's Options: Combat and Tactics has Attacks of Opportunity for disengaging without withdrawing at reduced speed as per the "withdraw" and "fleeing" rules in the player handbook - so it could be said that at least with supplements 2nd ed has AOO rules; I would always interpret the rules in the player handbook as needing to either withdraw or flee if they are planning on leaving melee, see the text for withdrawing:

Quote
Withdrawing:When making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from hisopponent (who can choose to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normalmovement rate.If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw,the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful methodfor getting a seriously injured man out of a combat.
Good points. I like pedantry smile Yes, one can find AOO in the optional supplements.

I only used the withdraw rules when actively engaged with an enemy. So if fighter #1 is fighting orc #1 they needed to withdraw but if orc #2 hasn't made an attack on the ranger the archer can get away from the group. So you can't say I attack the orc and then retreat (unlike the 5th ed thief) but you can say -- I run to the corner and knock an arrow. If orc #2 decides to follow the ranger the ranger would have to use a melee weapon.

To me this was the best interpretation of the rules because I always thought that a full movement consumed a full round and adding free attacks to that loss of round would prevent archers and mages from being viable classes.
The only 2e rules Bioware really changed in BG1 & 2 were to adapt them for the more robust and engaging RTwP system.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
The only 2e rules Bioware really changed in BG1 & 2 were to adapt them for the more robust and engaging RTwP system.
BG 1&2 had some problematic encounter design on occassions. The use of forcespell scripts by mages for example doesn't make combat more engaging, it just feels like the enemy is cheating.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
I honestly think Fallout 3 did a better job of retaining the original's feel than BG3.

What? No. I completely disagree.

I would say that job fell to FO: New Vegas
Most of the time it seems that most people commenting on BG2 (including Larian developers...) has either not played it, only played the poor quality EE versions (full of bugs, badly updated game UI design, weird scaling issues/graphics...), never tried all the amazing mods, or just never finished the game.

There is a complete lack of <we LOVED xxx from BG2..., wouldnt it be great that this xxx element made it back in BG3!!>. I am willing to bet that out of 400(?) people working there, not a dozen even finished BG2...dare I say...even play it half way?
Everyone mentions either Dragon age , D&D5th, Witcher3 or DOS2.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Most of the time it seems that most people commenting on BG2 (including Larian developers...) has either not played it, only played the poor quality EE versions (full of bugs, badly updated game UI design, weird scaling issues/graphics...), never tried all the amazing mods, or just never finished the game.

There is a complete lack of <we LOVED xxx from BG2..., wouldnt it be great that this xxx element made it back in BG3!!>. I am willing to bet that out of 400(?) people working there, not a dozen even finished BG2...dare I say...even play it half way?
Everyone mentions either Dragon age , D&D5th, Witcher3 or DOS2.

If you like some game with mods only, then it seems to me that this is not very good. o..o
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Most of the time it seems that most people commenting on BG2 (including Larian developers...) has either not played it, only played the poor quality EE versions (full of bugs, badly updated game UI design, weird scaling issues/graphics...), never tried all the amazing mods, or just never finished the game.

There is a complete lack of <we LOVED xxx from BG2..., wouldnt it be great that this xxx element made it back in BG3!!>. I am willing to bet that out of 400(?) people working there, not a dozen even finished BG2...dare I say...even play it half way?
Everyone mentions either Dragon age , D&D5th, Witcher3 or DOS2.

If you like some game with mods only, then it seems to me that this is not very good. o..o

This ignores that mods simply adjust. If the base game wasn't good enough, people wouldn't put in the effort.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
There is a complete lack of <we LOVED xxx from BG2..., wouldnt it be great that this xxx element made it back in BG3!!>. I am willing to bet that out of 400(?) people working there, not a dozen even finished BG2...dare I say...even play it half way?
Everyone mentions either Dragon age , D&D5th, Witcher3 or DOS2.
That always bothered me. I still don't know if its my impression, but they seem to never mention the BG series.
BG3 follows the theme of the previous two, which is enough for me. I'm personally glad it's apparently very divorced from the first two. Considering how media seemingly has a permenant metaphorical erection at the idea of taking old material and characters from said meterial and belittling/undercutting them, it's nice that BG3 (in early access anyway) has the respect and restraint to do little beyond saying "BG1 and 2 happened". Which concerns me for how Minsc has apparently been datamined, but he's bouncing around in comics and stuff as well, so I'm willing to give Larian the benefit of the doubt with the idea of him turning up.
Originally Posted by Some_Twerp753
BG3 follows the theme of the previous two, which is enough for me. I'm personally glad it's apparently very divorced from the first two. Considering how media seemingly has a permenant metaphorical erection at the idea of taking old material and characters from said meterial and belittling/undercutting them, it's nice that BG3 (in early access anyway) has the respect and restraint to do little beyond saying "BG1 and 2 happened". Which concerns me for how Minsc has apparently been datamined, but he's bouncing around in comics and stuff as well, so I'm willing to give Larian the benefit of the doubt with the idea of him turning up.

From what we have at the moment in the EA's story, which theme are you talking about ?
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Some_Twerp753
BG3 follows the theme of the previous two, which is enough for me. I'm personally glad it's apparently very divorced from the first two. Considering how media seemingly has a permenant metaphorical erection at the idea of taking old material and characters from said meterial and belittling/undercutting them, it's nice that BG3 (in early access anyway) has the respect and restraint to do little beyond saying "BG1 and 2 happened". Which concerns me for how Minsc has apparently been datamined, but he's bouncing around in comics and stuff as well, so I'm willing to give Larian the benefit of the doubt with the idea of him turning up.

From what we have at the moment in the EA's story, which theme are you talking about ?

Yep was curious here too.... what theme do they follow? Same world? Baldurs gate in the title? an rpg?
It doesn't follow the theme at all lol.

Unless the theme is 'bad guy has plot for a purpose that impacts an adventurer.'
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
From what we have at the moment in the EA's story, which theme are you talking about ?
What you're willing to sacrifice for power/how much are you willing to surrender to a corrupting influence for power. Everytime you use the tadpole you surrender a bit more of yourself for re-rolls or successes, ect, you start getting dreams essentially telling you to continue using the powers, to surrender and become even stronger. Baldur's Gate I and II was about embracing your divine heritage or resisting it, though due to writing, tech, or time, it was more informed (good characters could heal minor wounds, evil ones could vampric touch for example). It was never really said, but the start of ToB (the first challenge room) the npc mentions they embraced and became consumed by the essence
When I first bought BG 3, I literally went in expecting it to be like DOS 2. Now I think people who say this game is like DOS 2 have either not played it, or are talking out their ass, and are salty that the game is turn based.
Originally Posted by Some_Twerp753
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
From what we have at the moment in the EA's story, which theme are you talking about ?
What you're willing to sacrifice for power/how much are you willing to surrender to a corrupting influence for power. Everytime you use the tadpole you surrender a bit more of yourself for re-rolls or successes, ect, you start getting dreams essentially telling you to continue using the powers, to surrender and become even stronger. Baldur's Gate I and II was about embracing your divine heritage or resisting it, though due to writing, tech, or time, it was more informed (good characters could heal minor wounds, evil ones could vampric touch for example). It was never really said, but the start of ToB (the first challenge room) the npc mentions they embraced and became consumed by the essence

Yeah, I was about to add my little 5 cents to the topic and say that the tadpole dreams are reminding me of the dreams you as the PC of BG1/2 used to have after you reached certain points in game, and furthermore - depending on what you've done (your reputation paid a factor in that, kinda flawed and rudimentary system but those games were made ages ago so they had to come up with something) you had differently flavored dreams - for good, neutral and evil reputation levels.

I haven't posted in a while on these forums, but I will remain vocal about this: we need some sorts of dreams for those of us who refuse to use tadpole powers. Give us something, we don't need a big ol pat on the back for being a 'good person', but give us something. In previous games, the 'good' aligned dreams used to have this underlying theme in them - if you didn't succumb to the corruption of your heritage, you had nightmares and general feeling of 'disappointing' the power as it tried to drown you, figuratively speaking. Now imagine getting something similar to that with the tadpole, but no, we get nothing and the tadpole is reduced to 'barely an inconvenience' as one of my favorite youtubers likes to say.
Originally Posted by cool-dude01
When I first bought BG 3, I literally went in expecting it to be like DOS 2. Now I think people who say this game is like DOS 2 have either not played it, or are talking out their ass, and are salty that the game is turn based.

I’m not certain of the worth of assuming people are making the comparison without having played BG3 or, to use your charming phrase, that they are ‘talking out their ass’. All opinions are subjective but there are many who find there are some tangible similarities with DOS and BG3.
Originally Posted by cool-dude01
When I first bought BG 3, I literally went in expecting it to be like DOS 2. Now I think people who say this game is like DOS 2 have either not played it, or are talking out their ass, and are salty that the game is turn based.

Well, imo the characters very much resemble DOS2 characters and the gameplay feels very similar. That's two massive parts of the game that feel like DOS2 to me so I'm not sure what to tell you.
Let's see you all clapping back about it not being similar to BG1&2 when it's revealed in the city of BG that the Dead Three (including Bhaal) are behind the tadpoles and Minsc and Boo are by our side. Jokers.
BG2 similarities : story and some returning characters.
DOS2 similarities: origins story, graphics, atmosphere, UI, items, vendors, combat, movement, low NPCs count, wonky world humor, etc etc...
<Original> stuff: D^D5th, dipping, cinematic dialogues.
Originally Posted by ScouseSorcerer1
Let's see you all clapping back about it not being similar to BG1&2 when it's revealed in the city of BG that the Dead Three (including Bhaal) are behind the tadpoles and Minsc and Boo are by our side. Jokers.

That wouldn’t alter my opinion in the slightest if that proved to be true because that is just the story with a token character thrown in. When so much else is derived from DOS and so much of what made the original BGs so great are absent.

Also, dismissing people as ‘jokers’ isn’t a particularly helpful way to communicate with people. Opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Some_Twerp753
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
From what we have at the moment in the EA's story, which theme are you talking about ?
What you're willing to sacrifice for power/how much are you willing to surrender to a corrupting influence for power. Everytime you use the tadpole you surrender a bit more of yourself for re-rolls or successes, ect, you start getting dreams essentially telling you to continue using the powers, to surrender and become even stronger. Baldur's Gate I and II was about embracing your divine heritage or resisting it, though due to writing, tech, or time, it was more informed (good characters could heal minor wounds, evil ones could vampric touch for example). It was never really said, but the start of ToB (the first challenge room) the npc mentions they embraced and became consumed by the essence

Yeah, I was about to add my little 5 cents to the topic and say that the tadpole dreams are reminding me of the dreams you as the PC of BG1/2 used to have after you reached certain points in game, and furthermore - depending on what you've done (your reputation paid a factor in that, kinda flawed and rudimentary system but those games were made ages ago so they had to come up with something) you had differently flavored dreams - for good, neutral and evil reputation levels.

I haven't posted in a while on these forums, but I will remain vocal about this: we need some sorts of dreams for those of us who refuse to use tadpole powers. Give us something, we don't need a big ol pat on the back for being a 'good person', but give us something. In previous games, the 'good' aligned dreams used to have this underlying theme in them - if you didn't succumb to the corruption of your heritage, you had nightmares and general feeling of 'disappointing' the power as it tried to drown you, figuratively speaking. Now imagine getting something similar to that with the tadpole, but no, we get nothing and the tadpole is reduced to 'barely an inconvenience' as one of my favorite youtubers likes to say.

I 100% agree with the second part and the dreams/powers/else for the good playthrough.

Having played more than once as a good character, there is almost nothing related to the tadpole except a few choices to avoid. No dreams, no powers, nothing special to do... It's just completely empty.

I guess we'll have more interresting things but I don't really see any "theme" in common.

In the old games you try to learn who you are and to survive those that wants to take your power.
The Slayer will appear whatever you're doing because you loose control of your heritage.
It's only at the end of ToB that you can choose to embrace it or not.

Your heritage is what leads you to dreams, to new powers and to your journey. Your acts have an small influence on details but the stories are not really about "What you're willing to sacrifice for power/how much are you willing to surrender to a corrupting influence for power" to me...

It doesn't have any influence on the story and if there's promising mechanics that looks like in the old games in BG3 (Dreams, powers)... "A main character living with an evil thing inside him" is not really what I would call a common "theme"....

If I'm wrong I guess many films and video games have the same theme.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
BG2 similarities : story and some returning characters.
DOS2 similarities: origins story, graphics, atmosphere, UI, items, vendors, combat, movement, low NPCs count, wonky world humor, etc etc...
<Original> stuff: D^D5th, dipping, cinematic dialogues.

Well, in as much as BG1/2 combat and itemization was based upon D&D 2.0, and used graphics and UI that are decades old, there is no way BG3 could be like BG1/2 in that regard.

BG1/2 also had more than its share of wonky humor - I recall riffs and callbacks to sitcoms of the time and a certain vegetable enthusiast as a major NPC as prime examples, so your humor comparison is off base.

In as much as we know for certain we do not have all the NPC's as yet, any discussion regarding that is premature.

On the other hand, BG3 is chock full of D&D lore - it's just much of that lore involves events occurring since BG1/2. It involves the same world and region as BG1/2. Same Gods still causing mischief and mayhem. Same bestiary.

So I'm going to rate this a 0% for constructive criticism and a 100% for bitching and complaining. You have made it consistently clear you do not approve of BG3, do not approve of DOS2, and find the game to be vomitous at best.

I personally find anything done post TSR to be an abomination and sacrilegious - yet you won't see me inflicting my personal opinion upon Larian in specific and the rpg community in general.
Originally Posted by ScouseSorcerer1
Let's see you all clapping back about it not being similar to BG1&2 when it's revealed in the city of BG that the Dead Three (including Bhaal) are behind the tadpoles and Minsc and Boo are by our side. Jokers.

Whoa whoa SPOILERS!
Originally Posted by ScouseSorcerer1
Let's see you all clapping back about it not being similar to BG1&2 when it's revealed in the city of BG that the Dead Three (including Bhaal) are behind the tadpoles and Minsc and Boo are by our side. Jokers.
May well be, but I'm not convinced it's going to go that way-in bg3 the dead three are not very dead anymore (Myrkul and Bhaal are both back, I forget the third guy)
Originally Posted by Anfindel
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
BG2 similarities : story and some returning characters.
DOS2 similarities: origins story, graphics, atmosphere, UI, items, vendors, combat, movement, low NPCs count, wonky world humor, etc etc...
<Original> stuff: D^D5th, dipping, cinematic dialogues.

Well, in as much as BG1/2 combat and itemization was based upon D&D 2.0, and used graphics and UI that are decades old, there is no way BG3 could be like BG1/2 in that regard.

BG1/2 also had more than its share of wonky humor - I recall riffs and callbacks to sitcoms of the time and a certain vegetable enthusiast as a major NPC as prime examples, so your humor comparison is off base.

In as much as we know for certain we do not have all the NPC's as yet, any discussion regarding that is premature.

On the other hand, BG3 is chock full of D&D lore - it's just much of that lore involves events occurring since BG1/2. It involves the same world and region as BG1/2. Same Gods still causing mischief and mayhem. Same bestiary.

So I'm going to rate this a 0% for constructive criticism and a 100% for bitching and complaining. You have made it consistently clear you do not approve of BG3, do not approve of DOS2, and find the game to be vomitous at best.

I personally find anything done post TSR to be an abomination and sacrilegious - yet you won't see me inflicting my personal opinion upon Larian in specific and the rpg community in general.

Plenty of incredibly constructive posts regarding BG3 items, UI, movement, etc etc...
Just stating the obvious on BG3 current condition.
The poster says basically its alright to call it BG3 just because of the story and some returning characters. I say take a look at the gameplay/atmosphere/UI. The game is 75% DOS2, 10% Baldurs gate, 15% D^D5th.

The more important question; Have you played and finished BG2? Seems like no one has.
BG2 was so awful to everyone that they had to go out of their way to make a sequel? Is that why we are here?
Decade old graphics and UI? ? BG2 UI blows BG3 out of the water. Why does being in 2021 have to do with anything? We see many successful MODERN retro style games (Hades, Dead cells, Pathfinder...). Good design is timeless. No need to reinvent the mouse : hasn't changed in over 20 years.
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.
Originally Posted by Tougen
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.

calling people delusional because they don't agree with you really brings out the maturity in your comment.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Tougen
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.

calling people delusional because they don't agree with you really brings out the maturity in your comment.

Amen.
Originally Posted by Tougen
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.
There are better ways to express yourself. Please use them in future.
While it is a Baldur's Gate game, we all want it to be better than it is right now. Many people feel very strongly about such opinions, and a common consensus is that they need to move closer to the 5e Ruleset with the updates. Most people when they make claims saying this isn't a Baldur's Gate game are not doing it out of denial of the IP, they are usually saying that the game is not how it should be, even though it is EA.
Originally Posted by Tougen
... and it follows the D&D ruleset.
Not quite. It has d20 rolls if that's what you mean.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Tougen
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.

calling people delusional because they don't agree with you really brings out the maturity in your comment.
Weird way of defining "maturity" when you people are the ones demanding it be named something else because its not a carbon copy of the game you played in your childhood. Look at the logo, what do you read there? Anyone who is not delusional will see Baldur's gate III. Theres no argument here, they got the license and they CAN name the game Baldur's Gate III considering it DOES happen in the same part of that unniverse, grow up.

Originally Posted by Danielbda
Not quite. It has d20 rolls if that's what you mean.
Its an adaptation of the D&D ruleset and you know it, at the very least a much more faithfull one than the older games managed to do due to technological limitations.
Forgive me for not having read any of the previous posts before chiming in on this (what I am about to say may have already been covered ad nosium)... I think I figured out a major part of the plotline for this game and, if I am correct, it makes a tremendous amount of sense for why it is in the Baldur's Gate franchise. I believe that Jergal is searching for a new mortal to take over the position occupied by Bhaal and we're the chosen candidates that are unknowingly interviewing for the spot. I also believe that Bhaal has other plans... and we're the unwitting pawns in a chess game between the two Gods.

Of course, I could be completely off my rocker... It's been known to happen from time to time... but that's my basic theory.
Originally Posted by Tougen
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Tougen
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.

calling people delusional because they don't agree with you really brings out the maturity in your comment.
Weird way of defining "maturity" when you people are the ones demanding it be named something else because its not a carbon copy of the game you played in your childhood. Look at the logo, what do you read there? Anyone who is not delusional will see Baldur's gate III. Theres no argument here, they got the license and they CAN name the game Baldur's Gate III considering it DOES happen in the same part of that unniverse, grow up.

Originally Posted by Danielbda
Not quite. It has d20 rolls if that's what you mean.
Its an adaptation of the D&D ruleset and you know it, at the very least a much more faithfull one than the older games managed to do due to technological limitations.

1) "you people"

I rest my case.
Originally Posted by Tougen
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Tougen
They got the licence, a good portion of the story happens in baldur's gate, and it follows the D&D ruleset.

This IS a bladur's gate game, and only someone completely delusional dosent see it. Grow up.

calling people delusional because they don't agree with you really brings out the maturity in your comment.
Weird way of defining "maturity" when you people are the ones demanding it be named something else because its not a carbon copy of the game you played in your childhood. Look at the logo, what do you read there? Anyone who is not delusional will see Baldur's gate III. Theres no argument here, they got the license and they CAN name the game Baldur's Gate III considering it DOES happen in the same part of that unniverse, grow up.

Originally Posted by Danielbda
Not quite. It has d20 rolls if that's what you mean.
Its an adaptation of the D&D ruleset and you know it, at the very least a much more faithfull one than the older games managed to do due to technological limitations.


Have you played and finished BG1 and BG2? Did you like these games?
Yes Larian got the rights for the NAME and LORE but do you really feel the current game is a modern improvement of the older games? If you haven't played them, I humbly believe that you are mistaken...the game CURRENTLY feels like DOS2 (gameplay, UI, visuals, items, atmosphere etc...) with some Baldurs gate lore sprinkled in with D^D5th.

I'm hoping that Larian rectifies this, NOT JUST WITH THE STORY/LORE, but the feel of the game.
Originally Posted by The_BlauerDragon
Forgive me for not having read any of the previous posts before chiming in on this (what I am about to say may have already been covered ad nosium)... I think I figured out a major part of the plotline for this game and, if I am correct, it makes a tremendous amount of sense for why it is in the Baldur's Gate franchise. I believe that Jergal is searching for a new mortal to take over the position occupied by Bhaal and we're the chosen candidates that are unknowingly interviewing for the spot. I also believe that Bhaal has other plans... and we're the unwitting pawns in a chess game between the two Gods.

Of course, I could be completely off my rocker... It's been known to happen from time to time... but that's my basic theory.


That's not a bad theory. I would throw in Shar too, since she seems to play a big role in the whole story.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Have you played and finished BG1 and BG2? Did you like these games?
Yes Larian got the rights for the NAME and LORE but do you really feel the current game is a modern improvement of the older games?
Yep. I've played BG2 a lot when it came out. There was plenty of criticism back then, regarding how they implemented rules, spells, classes, enemies (especially enemies like the demiliches) etc. Don't asume that BG fans are monolith who came out playing the series with the same impressions.

BG3 is very different graphic-wise and I dislike the terrible party control scheme, but for me it does bring back that low level fantasy adventure BG1 had and BG2 lost somewhere along the way. And I think it BG3 does improve on some aspects, like for example: being able to talk to animals as a shapeshifted druid (shapeshifting in BG1 was so disappointing), rogue play (in both BG1 and 2 enemy rogues can basically backstab you in the face, unlike your own rogues) and enemy design (so far I have not encountered any enemies using cheesy scripted sequences like e. g. Shandalar in BG1).

Honestly, I have to wonder how many people here remember the fan feedback on Kangaxx when BG2 came out.

Edit: And of course how could I forget my favourite piece of questionable BG2 design: Arkanis Gath. wink
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by cool-dude01
When I first bought BG 3, I literally went in expecting it to be like DOS 2. Now I think people who say this game is like DOS 2 have either not played it, or are talking out their ass, and are salty that the game is turn based.

Well, imo the characters very much resemble DOS2 characters and the gameplay feels very similar. That's two massive parts of the game that feel like DOS2 to me so I'm not sure what to tell you.

Don't know what to tell you either. I can't think of a single companion that is like Sebille, the Red Prince, Fane, Ifan, Lohse, or Beast. As far as gameplay goes, DOS 2 didn't require that you manage spell slots or bonus actions, didn't have cinematic conversations, and every battle turned into the apocalypse. As far as atmosphere goes, this game feels significantly less silly than DOS 2. This game to me, has more in common with Dragon Age: Origins, as far as cinematic storytelling, companions, and atmosphere goes. The UI is similar but not exactly the same, and the game is turn based like DOS 2.
© Larian Studios forums