Very disappointed with BG3 so far. I dislike DND 5.0 to the bone after trying out this game.

I'm used to playing on a NWN2 private server named Baldur's Gate on version 3.5. It was amazing how deep you could customize your character. (Stats, Feat, Class, Prestige Classes, gear etc..)

In this game, it's just bland and boring. You guys fell into the casual trap.

Prestige classes bring one addition to your classes, it doesn't feel like a specialization. Multiclass doesn't seem to work.

The combat system of 1 action per turn is outrageously boring. What happened to the # of attack per turns as per DND? ie: Fighter.

All stats should be good for all classes. In this version, I feel like you have 1 main stat + constitution. (VERY BORING).

I'm sad, currently, this game isn't worth my investment, and if it continues on this line even at release the game will be a dumb down version of Divinity and nothing to do with DND.

This game is far from casual, it is inherently complicated, deep and intransparent.

1. The game is in EA, not all classes, specilizations, prestige classes are in yet.
2. The combat system is all about resource management and you can have multiple bonus actions and actions through various means. A rogue can get a second bonus action. The fighter has a skill that allows another action and haste gives you two actions per turn as well. There are likely a few other ways to up that already and there will be more in the later game. Actions do not also equal attacks, so it is far deeper and more versatile.
3. All stats are good for all classes. I am still annoyed that wisdom is my dump stat, because it seems that many skillchecks for traps and such use wisdom. If you mouse over them in character creation you get a rough explanation of the benefits to your skillchecks.

I also find the game mediocre, mostly because of the game not telling you anything how it works and therefore being ridiculously difficult. I also do not see any resemblance to it's predecessors. Mind you this is all because of the lacking fluff, not because of the DnD ruleset, that I know just as much about as 2nd edition 20 years ago.

If you don't like 5e (understandable coming from 3.5) and probably didn't like Larian's previous games, then I'm sorry this game is not for you unless your willing to accept it's something mechanically different.

You're playing low level characters, they're not gonna have multiple attacks per turn at these levels. As per 5E rules, fighters get their first extra attack at lvl 5, and currently in this EA version characters are capped at 4. So good job, saying the game "isn't D&D" and then complaining about the game working according to D&D rules.

Multiclassing doesn't work because it hasn't been implemented yet. Because the game is, you know, not finished.

Overall your post is very whiny and not constructive. Do better.

It's like BG1 and BG2 told you what to do after you finished prologue. Come on man!

5E doesn't have prestige classes. In general, it does not have the mix and match multiclassing insanity that, for better or for worse, pretty much defines 3E/3.5. Making the base classes powerful, customizable, and interesting at every level was a 5E design goal and I think one which succeeds — multiclassing is available, but it's mostly a straight trade of high-level power for greater flexibility, rather than a must-have to build an interesting character.

Instead, each class has subtypes with interesting and different mechanics and game play. In early access, not many of these are implemented — but I'm sure we'll see more.

its whiny because I realize that with time games are not for gamers anymore. That or watching a movie, its about the same.

DND isn't for casual imo, when I first started playing DND pen&paper on 2.0, you had to invest quite some time undestanding the rules and your character progression to really make a great character.

This game first, doesnt explain shit about the future of your class or prestige class, therefore you are completely blind in regards to the development.

Like I said in another post, Why can't I make a fighter focused on archery, with feats every level, like many shots, etc.. why feats are soo trivial now and doesnt bring real content to your character.

I could easily plan a character for NWN2 over a week long, thinking should I get my 3 pal lvl now or later etc.. https://nwn2db.com/

I'm a min maxer and loved what 3.5 had to offer in term of complexity.

BG3 has no dept or it doesnt explain it properly.

No it didn't. Yet I never used protective spells, never understood any of the game mechanics, yet completed the game on normal with not a whole lot of resistance. I recently played it on hard and spend a little more time with the underlying ruleset, still did not use actual skills once, apart from maybe true sight.

(numbers mine)

1 - prestige class as of 5e are gone. Instead you have liberal multiclassing with no obtuse restrictions and every class has a subclass. Still, multiclass in bg3 is not already implemented, but it will be

2- as of any d&d edition you are allowed only 1 standard action per turn on top of other possible actions (like bonus actions), also multiattack comes after a while. Most warrior classes get theyr second attack (as part of the same attack action) at 5th level, fighters get a third at 11 and a fourth at 20.

3- all stats now have a saving throw attached to them, also since you cant spend points into skills anymore and some skills have impactful effects even in combat, makes them pretty useful. If you want to be social you need not to dump Cha, if you need to be stealthy place some point is dexterity, if you dont like to be surprised in combat dont have a negative wisdom modifiers. On the other hand im not forced to raise int to keep up with skills, god bless

Dont judge 5e by this rather.. original implementation. Tabletop is way much better: its fun and gives you enough options and costumization without all those absurd level of rules and restrictions of past editions. Try it!

I can't do much to help you with your complaint about "games aren't for gamers", but... yeah, 5E doesn't have the amount of complexity in character creation that 3.5 does, and that is largely by design — in that editio, churning out new classes was basically the business model. In 5E, the focus is on other areas. If you love the "mini-game" of building 3.5 characters, you'll miss that in 5E. But, it has otger strengths, and tou can build an awesome archer as a fighter, rogue, or ranger, all with a different and unique feel.

Just not really in BG3 early access yet.

I think BG3 is not the issue here, I think it is d&d 5e in general for you. You want something that 5e generally does not offer.
You can of course do it if you play the game at the table, you can home brew stuff. But 5e is generally built for newer players and streamlines a lot. Something I personally like. It's easy to add things to the system if you want it to be more complicated.

Does this mean BG3 is going to have less customization options? I don't think so it's still in EA. Not even all the base classes and races are in it. There are also still specializations missing. I am sure they are going to add those. There probably also going to be mods and stuff if the DOS games are anything to go by.

If you want complexity your not going to like the 5e system in general.

I would say: it's made to be more welcoming to newer players, but also has a lot of depth and complexity. Parts of it harken all the way back to original D&D, before AD&D or AD&D 2E.

Uhmm....you realize 5E is a lot more balanced than 3.5 right? I've played NWN extensively and forever buffing yourself with spells (cause concentration doesnt exist) is not that much fun IMO. lol.

Cause 3.5 was literally that. 10 minutes of buffing then you win the game.

Depth? Not really. Just look at how skills got neurtered in in compared to 3E.

God yes, I hated that monstrously and vehemently. All that buffing and wasting that time, and resting to rebuff, disgusting.

Instead of Prestige classes, you have class specializations, which appear at level 3 for most classes (level 2 for Wizards, level 1 for Clerics).
Multiclass is planned, but not implemented yet.




Extra attacks start at Fighter 5, and similarly for other classes.




That is not how it works in 5e.




That's wrong, you are ignorant of the way D&D 5e works, and most of your complaints are actually "D&D 5e is not the same as D&D 3.5e".





That is a flaw which needs to be improved, yes.



You can make a fighter based on Archery by PnP rules, and it was considered by many better than the Ranger class, in part because you got more extra attacks than the Ranger does. The Ranger class in BG 3 is changed. There is a Ranger spell similar to Multishot, but I think it's too high level for EA considering Rangers are only a 1/3 caster. The rest of your complaints are "THIS ISN'T 3.5e". Of course it fucking isn't. That was two editions ago.

BG3 is a long way from being true to DnD 5e also. I hate to think people are judging 5e based on this game.

Man, my threshold for putting up with idiots who dont understand EA is getting lower and lower.

Here is the OP's idea of complexity, find a splat book which rests on an already broken game (base 3.5e) and break it some more while masturbating furiously to how good your build is and then come to complete ecstasy as you stack 20-30 buffs on you. Then ascend into Pun-Pun status. Great experience for the DM and everyone at the table.

3.5e was so good with all those false choices when it comes to min-maxing. Oh, yeah, not to mention that you're almost always suffering from feat tax. Gotta' pick up all the meta magic feats, gotta' pick up power attack, etc.

I mean I had fun, but no one in their right mind would say that the system had meaningful depth because as you soon as you begin to measure it there's already a god build that does everything better (and relies on splat books).

Simplicity is not a bad thing, e.g Chess, Go.

Sorry, EA shouldn't be an option for a AAA game. Even more when you have this feel that the game is 1/10 complete.

Giant roadmap ahead for them.

The game is simply not playable or enjoyable enough in this current state to be sold 80$.

For me its Divinity in a shity DND setting 5E.

Welcome to 2020 where information helps drive a better product. Every game should have EA so feedback can be garnered sooner rather than later and changes can be made sooner.

Man, you're dumbed down.

Skills in 3.5E are complicated but that doesn't really mean that they're deep. At even medium levels, the difference between maxed out class skills and cross-class skills or ones where you're dabbling is so extreme that the latter are basically pointless. And things like "Profession" compete with others that give meaningful combat advantage. It's a mess. 5E's Background system covers a lot of the same territory with a lot more elegance.

Thankfully you barely speak for yourself. All games should be available at EA level.

lol Larian does not make AAA games. They were very clear about what you were buying into, and I'm sure if you made enough noise you'd be able to get your money back.

I actually agree with you that the game is kinda boring, but don't act like you were sold a lemon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_life-cycle_management_(marketing)

Sounds like you just dont like 5e. Why you bought into EA, and especially under your assumption this is AAA and therefore will not have EA as an option so therefore this must basically be the game!, is silly and emotional. You wanted something you didnt get, and you wanted those things for little to no reason. Your feelings got hurt. That does not mean this isn't EA, this is a bad implementation of 5e, that this is the final product, or any of the things you seem to be projecting into the future based on what you got. It was not worth $80 TO YOU. There is a difference between price and value, which is why Apple makes way too much money - fanboys will pay triple industry prices for the value of their stuff, at $1200 for a phone when $650 is industry, its a GOOD VALUE to them.

You didn't get your value, the price was too high. Many others have found this to be of good value. Again, the presumptions of what AAA means, what EA means, what buying it meant, and what 5e, larian, and DOS implications would be within its build....maybe watch youtube next time, youd have found out a lot of stuff with a modicum of effort.

I think of all the analogies that could've been used, that's the one we really didn't need to see. Cheers.

See this is why I think the TUTORIAL should be levels 1-3 and the midpoint of chapter 1 should be level 5. Levels 1 to 3 in D&D 5e are babbies first adventure, very little complexity and designed to get to know your characters.

the vast majority of all 5e games are levels 5 to 9, because that is where the "meat" of the experience is. The life or death battles, no easy resurrection, and the most well balanced combat

All the ground effects would be less infuriating at higher levels (although it still makes most spellcasters worthless, you will just fail concentration checks all the time since you're constantly on fire)

BG3 is going to be the introduction to 5e for a LOT of players. Larian probably does not want to overwhelm new players with the additional complexity and choices that you'd get if you were creating level 3 characters and needing to pick subclasses.

You are just showing me that you don't have any clues about game development, when a game is released to public, very little will change. We call that fine tuning. Don't expect major things to change. Some adjustments here and there but the core of the game will remain identical. I'm an old school gamer and I know when a product deliver or not. This one has failed and is begging for funds to get completed.

Saying BG isn't a AAA game. Sorry but this title is HUGE. If you aren't convinced that you are making a AAA game over this title, you shouldn't be the company to put it to life. Plain Simple !

I will add to that, that I pledged over 100$ for Pantheon, Rise of the Fallen. Which will be the real next Everquest and trust me, those devs have good heads. They wont release their game to public before its actually well rounded. Because first impression in 2020 is determinant to a successfull game.

I wish I could show people my shelf of 3/3.5 books and my much smaller collection of 5e books when I say this: 5e is by far my favourite edition of D&D. First of all it's not really a fair comparison of the rule systems, NWN2 is like the core books + material picked from a couple of dozen sources. BG3 EA is more like starter edition + some race options. The core classes, fully implemented with multi classing will make a massive difference.

I get that some people love the character building aspect of 3E, that was me. But going to 5E was like realising I had Stockholm Syndrome. The hundreds of prestige classes, thousands of spells and feats aren't 3's greatest strength, they are its worst excess. They don't really let you make more character concepts, they just make building those character concepts more works and act as a barrier for entry. You can run super optimised builds in 5e and you have a lot more latitude within the classes, but because you aren't chasing TAB/AC hyper inflation you have a lot more options for what is viable.

I dont mind giving it a better try and see in the future but between lvl 1-4 there is soo little you can customize to make it your UNIQUE character. Just to give you an example: If I ask 10 people to make 10 warrior class on this EA build. I bet all 10 will be exactly the same or very similar except maybe the race but still.

I game too. I have 10,000 hours in DOTA 2, 800 in Divinity, 900 in Persona 5, 700 in Tales of Berseria, and the list goes on. Those are average numbers for my gameplay which I have been doing since the early 80s where I made my own crossover cables and was dealing with IPX/SPX to get LANs going. Ive built my own computers since the 80s and been in I.T. for over 25 years. I am the DM of 15 campaigns and I DM 3 times a week. When you say "we" call that fine-tuning. Who is the "we" you are ostensibly part of? If you haven't noticed, indie, greenlight, and EA games are a new norm that is different than it has been in all of gaming history over the last 5 years via the Steam community and things like Star Citizen - which yes, I have backed almost $2,000.00 into and also play regularly and provide feedback for. I am not sure why you are feeling your background is particularly relevant when all you need to do is read their press releases and watch video from WotC and Larian explaining everything I just did.

The creep of EA further and further toward "fund my business venture for 0% equity" is pretty disconcerting.

"You are just showing me that you don't have any clues about game development, when a game is released to public, very little will change. We call that fine tuning. Don't expect major things to change. Some adjustments here and there but the core of the game will remain identical."

My experience from DOS:2 EA to the finished version of DOS:2 was very different from what you stated. I played DOS2 EA the first week it came out - and then about a year or so after it felt like a completely different game. From DOS2 to DOS2 Definitive edition would fit into what you stated.

A little research about what was the vision was for Baldurs Gate 3 and then familiarizing yourself with DND5E ruleset would probably have saved you the frustration you feel over the game at this point in time.

Oh God you're incorrigible.

Here's something you can check out: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...mes_that_all_developers_should_study.php

Also add in Hades, NovaDrift while you're at it.

And there's at least one year before now and the release of BG3 and you're saying that our feedback won't have any impact? Please. Just get out.

We can even talk about live services such as Path of Exile that makes major changes to concepts they do every season (because lol every season is a beta test for PoE 2).

Seriously, just get out.

I have my share of pledges over the past years, including shity star citizen who will never be a good game EVER! Only a load of fanboi jerking over some bugged ships. The game has no soul. I pledged to SOTA which was suppose to be the spiritual sucessor of Ulitma Online, another pure garbage. Yes we are at a crossroad in the gaming industry where publisher have realized that making a game for all kind of players attraction is nearly impossible and therefore games should be more oriented toward a specific crowd. Now this is DND. Whois going to play a DND game? Mostly all old schooler who enjoyed Pen and Paper in the past and played all BG1 and BG2 including NWN/NWN2. Yes we are nerds. Aim your DND game to a casual crowd and you will see what happen. It's unfolding now. That the company had the odacity to release an Early Access at this development stage is a crime.

Get those Pre-Alpha / Alpha and Beta rolling, get the public in when you are looking for stability and polishing. There are no other way.

The EA is huge in a lot of aspect but is not in the d&d aspect. They will improve it for sure, its obvious.

BG3 as it stands ISN'T 5e though, for example, in 5e, having a 5 foot height advantage doesn't trivialize a combat encounter like it does in BG3. Like, the greater invisibility (fourth level spell) spell is going to be pointless because you can just levitate 5 feet up into the air and get the same mechanical benefits with the second level spell levitate, assuming you cant find a rock to climb up

Didn't even realize it was you until after I clipped the quote, but sure enough.

The thrust of this article is that these releases are exceptional to the typical Early Access experience, and it's worth noting that Divinity Original Sin 2 didn't make the list. I don't think this makes the point you're after at all, but certainly not as strongly as you seem to believe it does.

I'd take that bet even with fighter being among the most pathological case in the initial EA because it's very likely at least one of those ten went Eldritch Knight. In either sub-class I'm sure some would pick dual wield, some 2h, some defence for weapon styles.

For a better example of how the EA really isn't representative Warlock is a good example. In EA, Fiend patron, Agonising Blast and Repelling Blast, spells as Hex and Mist Step are really synergistic choices that are hard to beat. But that's largely a function of the options that are missing. Limiting them to Pact of Chain, and no level 5 doesn't let you build entropy tanking melee Warlocks, which don't benefit nearly as much from the Eldritch Blast buffing invocations. That's what I mean by latitude within the base classes in 5e which 3e just didn't do. Even then I'm onto my third Warlock (+3 Wylls) and have done different things with all three.

The list is not definitive and I do mention other games like Hades and NovaDrift (though that's a very indie title -- very small game too) and while it's more likely there are more failures than successes (like any business) it wouldn't appropriate for a person to state that EA cannot be used to pivot a product.

Also, logically speaking, the sooner you get a product out to others for testing and feedback before launch the more changes you can make.

So tldr; EA is pretty flexible and it depends on how you use it, here are some examples where things have succeeded. Or you know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development

That has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with my point about not overloading players with too many choices in Character creation.

Some glorious modders have made buffing wands for NWN persistent worlds, so you cast all of your typical buffs onto the wand and save it, and then as long as you have those spells memorized you can just cast the wand on yourself to instantly cast all the buffs. It's amazing.

OP is correct and not correct.


BG3 is a faithful representation of DnD 5e. Not perfect, but easily as good a representation of the system as any other game.

DnD 5e, however, is simply a bad system compared to previous ones. You have way less power potential, way less customization, way less specialization, way less build diversity, everything is simplified for non-DnD players at the expense of DnD players.

It's not Larian, it's DnD 5e.

Linking Agile development framework in a discussion about Early Access games is a really weird thing to do. It's not technically irrelevant, but I think it misses on context in a way that nobody who actually works in or adjacent to software engineering would.

I agree, I just don't think the article was a very good way for you to illustrate your point.

Just as an aside, this has nothing to do with logic. It's not a valid or sound - speaking of the logical definitions, here - argument even if I generate the necessary premises.

EX: An unwritten premise necessary to create an inescapable condition for the conclusion (that which renders an argument valid) would have to be "software cannot be changed after launch," otherwise the simple counter-point that a game can be patched after launch would expose the invalidity of the argument. However, this premise would be obviously untrue, which would make the argument unsound.

I feel other posters listed reasons why these complaints from the OP aren't entirely valid so I will only add, its EARLY ACCESS, and second, the level cap at 4 means several of the issues described haven't even shown up (like fighters multiattacks, and AOE for casters that acts like multiple actions by affecting multiple targets.) I am with the OP in that I hope we have a long way to go in EA adding in ALOT more content than we presently have, but I am willing to give Larian that chance before arriving anywhere near where the OP is already.

The guy stated he knew what was up.



I can concede to that, but also I didn't have the post mortem for Hades readily available.




You're not going to let me be lazy are you? I'll concede to that. But can you seriously get back to the other thread? Like I genuinely want to resolution to that debate. Pretty please?

Look, I am not even being aggressive, I am being nice. Extra nice.

Well, for whatever its worth, I had to edit my post and clean up some of my language for precision, because I'm not without a lazy streak of my own. I just think it's a frustrating mistake to invoke logic if you're not prepared to test your thinking against that level of rigor.

Thanks for taking some time to clarify your thoughts.

Early access has nothing to do with his criticisms. His problems are about what is embedded into DnD 5e itself. I can only say sorry man, WoTC sold out it's long time fans for mainstream appeal

Some of them*. Long time fan, dont feel they sold out.

Note comparing 3.5 to 5e is like apples to steaks. 3.5 was built around world spanning campaigns, was built for die hard fans that new the intricacies like they know the back of their hand.

5e is in all intents and purposes built for new players that are wanting to try D&D for the first time, it is made to be simple, it will be boring for us that have played 3.5. yet BG3 is not built using 3.5 it is built using 5e as well as some home brewing which is true in every D&D campaign except the truelly hard core by the book DM's. It is built to be far simplier and easier to learn as a new medium to advertise D&D and hopefully get more people interested in D&D.

You fell into a narrow, closeminded heavily baised trap.

Multiclassing is for those that know what they are doing, as stated above 5e is made to be easier to learn, and pick up. Multiclassing takes time to learn, this game is in EA, it may be added yet many of those playing or just a few have never played D&D before adding multi classing to a game that is not done, and trying to introduce the basics while working on balancing a standard party is counter productive to what they are trying to do in EA. Which is get their product further play tested, and feed back on the core mechanics they are using. Not so die hards, like me can build characters that in effect are unbalanced in many ways, and take knowledge some people don't have at their disposal.

All stats are not good for all classes neither in pen and paper, or video games. period. You always need some points in con as a self proclaimed player of 3.5 you should know that Con is useful to every class for what it gives you. Extra hp, ability to resist certain things, less fails of Con saving throws do to having a higher con score. These things are evident to anyone that has played for a length of time.

I'm sad, that your baised opinion against Larian studios and your uninformed knowledge of 5e leads you to believe this isn't D&D. It's truelly heartbreaking that your so narrowly focused on 3.5, and have a false belief that 5e is exactly like 3.5 that you think this game is Divinity (a series of games I dislike highly).

only sith deal in absolutes.