Larian Studios
Sawyer was a very caster hater, he putted only lackluster spells on IWD(EE fixes it), and nerfed most cool spells to Oblivion on his D&D games. On Pillars, casters are even more nerfed to the point that i almost had no fun playing it as one. But Larian seems to have casters even more with this game. Lets see why >

  • Low level cap preventing the usage of all cool spells[1]
  • Lack(only one) of melee companions
  • Enemies has hp bloat and AC nerf
  • Magical items are far more common but magical scrolls aren't
  • A lot of cool spells seems to be restricted to enemies[2]
  • Ultra limitation on short rests.[3]


1 -> The low level cap(4 on EA), in a campaign which starts with a spelljammer mindflayer ship fighting an draconic army makes no sense. An low level campaign starting on candlekeep makes perfectly sense. A low level campaign starting with the PC escaping a mindflayer spelljammer ship makes zero sense.

Larian also said that "high level spells doesn't work on video games". Which isn't truth. BG2 had Stop Time, Chain contingency summon planetar, wail of the banshee and a lot of powerful spells. Sure, some of then got adaptations like Wish but this spells can work in video games and worked in many video games.

2 -> Only enemies seems to be able to summon worgs. Why no PC can cast Summon Monster???

3 -> On the begining, Larian talked about a short rest after each battle which would make WLK ludicrous OP. Now is a single short rest per long rest which is too limited. Why not something like 3 short rests per long rest? It would put the spell usage of WLK more in line with other arcane casters.
I heard GOG still has BG1 and 2. There you gooo.

But seriously:

Quote
1 -> The low level cap(4 on EA), in a campaign which starts with a spelljammer mindflayer ship fighting an draconic army makes no sense.


You deliver zero arguments for this. Why would it not make sense? Because every campaign needs to be a farmboy killing boars for 5 sessions before they can have fun?

Quote
2 -> Only enemies seems to be able to summon worgs. Why no PC can cast Summon Monster???


You realize this is still EA, yes? You do know the levelcap is 4, as you stated above. Do you know that Conjure Animals is a 3rd lvl spell? Now think about why its not there for PCs yet.

Quote
3 -> On the begining, Larian talked about a short rest after each battle which would make WLK ludicrous OP. Now is a single short rest per long rest which is too limited. Why not something like 3 short rests per long rest? It would put the spell usage of WLK more in line with other arcane casters.


This being EA is probably testing the limits for short rests right now. My best guess is that in a later build we will progressively get more SRs
Originally Posted by KingTiki

You deliver zero arguments for this. Why would it not make sense? Because every campaign needs to be a farmboy killing boars for 5 sessions before they can have fun?



If you wanna a low level campaign, yes. But escaping a mindflayer spellhammer ship should't be a lv 1 adventure.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

Do you know that Conjure Animals is a 3rd lvl spell? Now think about why its not there for PCs yet.


I din't talked about conjure animals, but summon monster

https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/3pp-spells/spells-schwalb-entertainment-llc/summon-monster/
PnP rules allow one long rests and two short rests every 24 hours (you can rest more but gain no further benefit). Class balance is based on ratio of two short rests for every long rest. I.e. it shouldn't be 1, it shouldn't be 3, it should be 2 short rests per long rest.
Originally Posted by FrostyFardragon
PnP rules allow one long rests and two short rests every 24 hours (you can rest more but gain no further benefit). Class balance is based on ratio of two short rests for every long rest. I.e. it shouldn't be 1, it shouldn't be 3, it should be 2 short rests per long rest.


2 short rests means that WLK will be able to cast 6 spells per long rest which would put their spell usage on par with wizard. You are right.
Sawyer hates casters? Not my impression from Pillars of Eternity 1 & 2 or Tyranny. Never played old Icewind Dale though, only EE. I found that casters can trivialize a lot of fights clearly meant to be challenging in those games, but admittedly work better as buffs and crowd control than pure damage. Which i find to be true for BG 1&2 too. PoE and Tyranny (and D&D 5e) just seems to make non-casters more relevant than they used to be.

1. The story makes little sense starting at lvl 1, I agree. EA being limited to the earlier parts of the progression makes sense though, being EA.

2. It's a 3rd lvl Druid or Ranger spell, so outside our current lvl range. A Druid could do it at lvl 5, when they get implemented.

3. I agree, there should be a few more short rests than 1 per long rest. 2 or 3 total would probably be fine.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor


Originally Posted by KingTiki

Do you know that Conjure Animals is a 3rd lvl spell? Now think about why its not there for PCs yet.


I din't talked about conjure animals, but summon monster

https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/3pp-spells/spells-schwalb-entertainment-llc/summon-monster/


This is not an official 5e spell. That's why it is listed under "3rd Party Publisher Spells".

In essence: its homebrew.
The opening dungeon to BG3 is far far more DnD than what the opening of BG1 was. "Oh no I got to see lots of evil things"

You don't actually fight the Mind Flayers, you fight some weakened Intellect Devours, Imps and Thralls. The devils fight the mind flayers.
The Intellect Devours are somewhat nerfed, they aren't as dangerous as in MM, but homebrew monsters are a thing, especially when you want a setting, and I don't think Body Thief makes sense to use on someone with a tadpole.

I really don't get this "it doesn't make sense" argument. It's a cool "setting the scene" for the plot going forward. And I have no idea why it "hates casters" to be on a "spelljammer ship" since it doesn't seem to affect the gameplay at all.

I think it's a perfectly viable first level dungeon, when it's part of a 1-10 campaign where Mind Flayers are the big threat (it seems)




That spell you linked isn't an official spell, so why the heck do you expect Larian to include it? They are using mostly Players Handbook Rules.
Conjuring things is a 3rd level or higher spell in official rules.
Seriously but most powerful class in PoE is priest, a caster :O
Originally Posted by KingTiki
I heard GOG still has BG1 and 2. There you gooo.

But seriously:

Quote
1 -> The low level cap(4 on EA), in a campaign which starts with a spelljammer mindflayer ship fighting an draconic army makes no sense.


You deliver zero arguments for this. Why would it not make sense? Because every campaign needs to be a farmboy killing boars for 5 sessions before they can have fun?

Quote
2 -> Only enemies seems to be able to summon worgs. Why no PC can cast Summon Monster???


You realize this is still EA, yes? You do know the levelcap is 4, as you stated above. Do you know that Conjure Animals is a 3rd lvl spell? Now think about why its not there for PCs yet.

Quote
3 -> On the begining, Larian talked about a short rest after each battle which would make WLK ludicrous OP. Now is a single short rest per long rest which is too limited. Why not something like 3 short rests per long rest? It would put the spell usage of WLK more in line with other arcane casters.


This being EA is probably testing the limits for short rests right now. My best guess is that in a later build we will progressively get more SRs

To be fair, fighting your way through a battle between mind flayers and devils in the Hells doesn't seem to be something a lvl 1 would survive. If we had a tutorial putting us at lvl 3 before getting snatched up it would feel a lot more authentic. Your companions would make more sense too, as they seem too accomplished for lvl1. They are a stretch for lvl 3 too, but it's at least a bit more believable when everyone has their archetype.

It seems suspiciously convenient that you only encounter weak little imps to fight when the devils are responding to a Nautiloid and an oncursion of Red Dragons to their realm. The Nautilloid should be swarming with powerful devils.

Edit: On phone, so grammar be hard.

I don't think it is a big problem that we're lvl 1, but i do agree that it seems a tad too low for us to realistically survive a trip likethis to the Hells. Again, suspiciously convenient enemies that undermines the threat Hell represents, to an extent.
There actually is at least one unique item that can summon in EA already. A little out of your way to get but it's there. Not the same, I know, but I thought I'd mention
Originally Posted by denhonator
There actually is at least one unique item that can summon in EA already. A little out of your way to get but it's there. Not the same, I know, but I thought I'd mention


Which is???

Originally Posted by dunehunter
Seriously but most powerful class in PoE is priest, a caster :O


Which is trash compared to NWN1 clerics...
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by denhonator
There actually is at least one unique item that can summon in EA already. A little out of your way to get but it's there. Not the same, I know, but I thought I'd mention


Which is???

Originally Posted by dunehunter
Seriously but most powerful class in PoE is priest, a caster :O


Which is trash compared to NWN1 clerics...


3r clerics is absolutely overpowered.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by denhonator
There actually is at least one unique item that can summon in EA already. A little out of your way to get but it's there. Not the same, I know, but I thought I'd mention


Which is???

Originally Posted by dunehunter
Seriously but most powerful class in PoE is priest, a caster :O


Which is trash compared to NWN1 clerics...

NWN 1 Clerics, and 3er edition Clerics in general, are ludicrously powerful, being both a full caster, a specialist melee (3/4 BAB) and immediate access to heavy armor and shields with no spell failure. They also have both one of the best and most customizable spell lists with their Domains. In short, Clerics were nerfed to oblivion and beyond in both PoE and 5e without losing their shot at competing not only for strongest caster, but strongest class in their respective game.

They are fantastic tanks, good dps, the best supporters and overal super versatile due to their spell list's modular nature. Going from being the undodputably best class to just probably the best is a huge nerf. And one they had coming.

If NWN 1 Cleric is the standard you put for casters, not only do you want a system where non-casters aren't really viable alternatives, but most casters are pointless too because the Cleric does everything everyone does better.
Clerics on most games are very boring. On D&D, is one of the few games which they are representatives of a deity on the material plane and hence, has a lot of cool stuff. Sadly the balance cult is making then boring too...

Originally Posted by TomReneth
Sawyer hates casters? Not my impression from Pillars of Eternity 1 & 2 or Tyranny. Never played old Icewind Dale though, only EE. I found that casters can trivialize a lot of fights clearly meant to be challenging in those games, but admittedly work better as buffs and crowd control than pure damage. Which i find to be true for BG 1&2 too. PoE and Tyranny (and D&D 5e) just seems to make non-casters more relevant than they used to be.

1. The story makes little sense starting at lvl 1, I agree. EA being limited to the earlier parts of the progression makes sense though, being EA.

2. It's a 3rd lvl Druid or Ranger spell, so outside our current lvl range. A Druid could do it at lvl 5, when they get implemented.

3. I agree, there should be a few more short rests than 1 per long rest. 2 or 3 total would probably be fine.


Into the Abyss starts with you captured by drow and escaping a battle between drow and demons.

That said, I tend to find magic in the PnP game is also more efficient if you focus on buffs, debuffs, crowd control, and utility...with healing and damage being the least efficient usages. Thankfully this edition has at-will spells that are still useful even after the big magic has been used for the day.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Clerics on most games are very boring. On D&D, is one of the few games which they are representatives of a deity on the material plane and hence, has a lot of cool stuff. Sadly the balance cult is making then boring too...


Why does a class need to be overpowered to be interesting? A lack of balance leads to classes being unviable, which is likely to suck for players who do not enjoy the flavor of the OP options.

If Clerics were kinda bad, but Bards (or any other class you're not as interested in) did everything everyone does better, would you still hold to this idea that the balance police are trying to make bards boring by calling for it to be in the same ballpark in terms of usefulness as everything else, within its niche?

Balanced classes (and races etc) is something a lot of people call for because we don't want the game to punish people simply for playing something they want rather than what is optimal. If wanting to make more combinations attractive and viable makes me boring, we're very different.
Originally Posted by TomReneth
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Clerics on most games are very boring. On D&D, is one of the few games which they are representatives of a deity on the material plane and hence, has a lot of cool stuff. Sadly the balance cult is making then boring too...


Why does a class need to be overpowered to be interesting? A lack of balance leads to classes being unviable, which is likely to suck for players who do not enjoy the flavor of the OP options.

If Clerics were kinda bad, but Bards (or any other class you're not as interested in) did everything everyone does better, would you still hold to this idea that the balance police are trying to make bards boring by calling for it to be in the same ballpark in terms of usefulness as everything else, within its niche?

Balanced classes (and races etc) is something a lot of people call for because we don't want the game to punish people simply for playing something they want rather than what is optimal. If wanting to make more combinations attractive and viable makes me boring, we're very different.


Not need to be OP but look to D&D 4e, by far the most balanced edition and the cost is that all classes are fighter reskins.

But balance is overrated. On VTMB, Nosferatu is by far the hardest clan to be played, an modern game dev would other removed the clan or made the deformity a less impacting thing which would kill the variety or the point of having the clan in the first place. As for races, some people enjoy doing suboptimal challenge runs. If I wanna make an half orc wizard, it should be my right.

That notion that everything needs to be the same is what is killing RPG's.

Not mentioning, that balance is very subjective, see how many people cry over shotguns on BF1/5, the literally less used type of weapon...
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Sawyer was a very caster hater, he putted only lackluster spells on IWD(EE fixes it), and nerfed most cool spells to Oblivion on his D&D games. On Pillars, casters are even more nerfed to the point that i almost had no fun playing it as one. But Larian seems to have casters even more with this game. Lets see why >

  • Low level cap preventing the usage of all cool spells[1]
  • Lack(only one) of melee companions
  • Enemies has hp bloat and AC nerf
  • Magical items are far more common but magical scrolls aren't
  • A lot of cool spells seems to be restricted to enemies[2]
  • Ultra limitation on short rests.[3]


1 -> The low level cap(4 on EA), in a campaign which starts with a spelljammer mindflayer ship fighting an draconic army makes no sense. An low level campaign starting on candlekeep makes perfectly sense. A low level campaign starting with the PC escaping a mindflayer spelljammer ship makes zero sense.

Larian also said that "high level spells doesn't work on video games". Which isn't truth. BG2 had Stop Time, Chain contingency summon planetar, wail of the banshee and a lot of powerful spells. Sure, some of then got adaptations like Wish but this spells can work in video games and worked in many video games.

2 -> Only enemies seems to be able to summon worgs. Why no PC can cast Summon Monster???

3 -> On the begining, Larian talked about a short rest after each battle which would make WLK ludicrous OP. Now is a single short rest per long rest which is too limited. Why not something like 3 short rests per long rest? It would put the spell usage of WLK more in line with other arcane casters.


Heh. Hahahah.

Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh harder than.

AHAHAHAHAHAH

Alright, that's my Futurama reference/laughing at someone quota for that day. I'm out.
Originally Posted by Zer0
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Sawyer was a very caster hater, he putted only lackluster spells on IWD(EE fixes it), and nerfed most cool spells to Oblivion on his D&D games. On Pillars, casters are even more nerfed to the point that i almost had no fun playing it as one. But Larian seems to have casters even more with this game. Lets see why >

  • Low level cap preventing the usage of all cool spells[1]
  • Lack(only one) of melee companions
  • Enemies has hp bloat and AC nerf
  • Magical items are far more common but magical scrolls aren't
  • A lot of cool spells seems to be restricted to enemies[2]
  • Ultra limitation on short rests.[3]


1 -> The low level cap(4 on EA), in a campaign which starts with a spelljammer mindflayer ship fighting an draconic army makes no sense. An low level campaign starting on candlekeep makes perfectly sense. A low level campaign starting with the PC escaping a mindflayer spelljammer ship makes zero sense.

Larian also said that "high level spells doesn't work on video games". Which isn't truth. BG2 had Stop Time, Chain contingency summon planetar, wail of the banshee and a lot of powerful spells. Sure, some of then got adaptations like Wish but this spells can work in video games and worked in many video games.

2 -> Only enemies seems to be able to summon worgs. Why no PC can cast Summon Monster???

3 -> On the begining, Larian talked about a short rest after each battle which would make WLK ludicrous OP. Now is a single short rest per long rest which is too limited. Why not something like 3 short rests per long rest? It would put the spell usage of WLK more in line with other arcane casters.


Heh. Hahahah.

Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh harder than.

AHAHAHAHAHAH

Alright, that's my Futurama reference/laughing at someone quota for that day. I'm out.


Nice argument /sarcasm
Originally Posted by Zer0


Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh harder than.

AHAHAHAHAHAH

Alright, that's my Futurama reference/laughing at someone quota for that day. I'm out.


Love & Rocket, where I became convinced Sigourney Weaver should be a voice actor. Great episode laugh
clerics are still low level OP casters in tabletop 5e, also with BAB gone they can basically hit like a fighter all campaign long save for ability improvements and other fancy features
Divine casters are good on TT (druids included) but this game, you at moment can't even reach lv 5. Lv 5 is the MINIMUM for a evoker to have some destructive power(fireball, once per rest)
Asking for the opening scenes to be boring is quite a criticism.

If you want to play a weak character try playing a Rogue - every class is a Rogue now except the Rogue. You don't even get expertise on skills. It's like someone at Larian DM'd for a Rogue, saw how good they were in D&D5 and they want revenge.
1. I think the BG3 is terribly fun and I really liked the escape the ship starting point.

2. J.E. Sawyer is brilliant and he's a nerd's nerd. He's right about FR lore, tattoos, hand built bikes, armor, hand painted backgrounds, walls of text, isometric view and a dozen other things I'm forgetting. But, otherwise, the OP is right -- J.E. is wrong when it comes to wizards. IWD2 / PoE were really about "this is how I would have made BG3".

3. Spell casting is nerfed. Sacred flame / hold person / sleep / fireball are all nerfed in BG3 because the enemies have 2 to 3 times the HP they are supposed to have according to the monster manual. Why use sacred flame instead of a bow? The bow is much more likely to hit. Why have a wizard at all? Arcane tricksters and eldritch knights have the same advantages without the disadvantages.

Wizards are glass cannons. Only BG has reduced the power of the cannon but kept the glass.

And this is even worse with Gale because he a) eats the best stuff and b) kills your party when he dies.

Now I do have a possible answer to why they made Gale the way they did.

I'm predicting that Gale will eventually get an "idol of resurrection" type ability where you send him into the front lines just so he can die --- which is fun if you liked that part of DOS2 tactics where dying was often a good party strategy but not so great if you want to play a D&D wizard.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
[quote=Zer0][quote=SorcererVictor]Sawyer was a very caster hater, he putted only lackluster spells on IWD(EE fixes it), and nerfed most cool spells to Oblivion on his D&D games. On Pillars, casters are even more nerfed to the point that i almost had no fun playing it as one. But Larian seems to have casters even more with this game. Lets see why >

[*] Enemies has hp bloat and AC nerf


This is a real problem. Spell damage has not been adjusted to keep up with HP bloat. For example, several posters have pointed out how Sleep does not have the same utility in BG3 as it does in 5e because of this.

Bugs and exploits aside, this just extends the time it takes to get through combats. And seeing how combats are handcrafted by Larian, unlike the great number of placed and random encounters featured in BG1 and BG2, perhaps this is by design.


Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by TomReneth
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Clerics on most games are very boring. On D&D, is one of the few games which they are representatives of a deity on the material plane and hence, has a lot of cool stuff. Sadly the balance cult is making then boring too...


Why does a class need to be overpowered to be interesting? A lack of balance leads to classes being unviable, which is likely to suck for players who do not enjoy the flavor of the OP options.

If Clerics were kinda bad, but Bards (or any other class you're not as interested in) did everything everyone does better, would you still hold to this idea that the balance police are trying to make bards boring by calling for it to be in the same ballpark in terms of usefulness as everything else, within its niche?

Balanced classes (and races etc) is something a lot of people call for because we don't want the game to punish people simply for playing something they want rather than what is optimal. If wanting to make more combinations attractive and viable makes me boring, we're very different.


Not need to be OP but look to D&D 4e, by far the most balanced edition and the cost is that all classes are fighter reskins.

But balance is overrated. On VTMB, Nosferatu is by far the hardest clan to be played, an modern game dev would other removed the clan or made the deformity a less impacting thing which would kill the variety or the point of having the clan in the first place. As for races, some people enjoy doing suboptimal challenge runs. If I wanna make an half orc wizard, it should be my right.

That notion that everything needs to be the same is what is killing RPG's.

Not mentioning, that balance is very subjective, see how many people cry over shotguns on BF1/5, the literally less used type of weapon...


I don't find the idea of "intentionally doing something suboptimal for fun" as a good reason to not balance things. It's not like half-orc wizards are all that bad though, as the difference between +2 and +3 isn't that big at levels 1-3, and it opens for picking a +1 Int feat at level 4. Or bad at all, since they get Intimidation for free, dark vision and the option to stop at 1 hp instead of 0 once per long rest. They are a tad unconventional because people see the +2 to strength and the flavor says they are inclined towards being warriors, but they are perfectly viable as wizards. Which is funny, because now we have a good example of a supposedly suboptimal combo that doesn't only work well, but have a set of unique strengths that helps set them apart.

It's almost like the half-orcs are a reasonably well-designed pick, with some bonuses geared towards specific playstyles and other bonuses that are universally useful.

Balancing things so that every class and race option and combination is viable without there being gamebreakingly powerful options that overshadows everything else sounds pretty good to me. Nothing needs to be exactly the same, but advocating that everyone should be in the ballpark is better than having a few useful options and the rest is just there.
Originally Posted by TomReneth
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Originally Posted by TomReneth
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
Clerics on most games are very boring. On D&D, is one of the few games which they are representatives of a deity on the material plane and hence, has a lot of cool stuff. Sadly the balance cult is making then boring too...


Why does a class need to be overpowered to be interesting? A lack of balance leads to classes being unviable, which is likely to suck for players who do not enjoy the flavor of the OP options.

If Clerics were kinda bad, but Bards (or any other class you're not as interested in) did everything everyone does better, would you still hold to this idea that the balance police are trying to make bards boring by calling for it to be in the same ballpark in terms of usefulness as everything else, within its niche?

Balanced classes (and races etc) is something a lot of people call for because we don't want the game to punish people simply for playing something they want rather than what is optimal. If wanting to make more combinations attractive and viable makes me boring, we're very different.


Not need to be OP but look to D&D 4e, by far the most balanced edition and the cost is that all classes are fighter reskins.

But balance is overrated. On VTMB, Nosferatu is by far the hardest clan to be played, an modern game dev would other removed the clan or made the deformity a less impacting thing which would kill the variety or the point of having the clan in the first place. As for races, some people enjoy doing suboptimal challenge runs. If I wanna make an half orc wizard, it should be my right.

That notion that everything needs to be the same is what is killing RPG's.

Not mentioning, that balance is very subjective, see how many people cry over shotguns on BF1/5, the literally less used type of weapon...


I don't find the idea of "intentionally doing something suboptimal for fun" as a good reason to not balance things. It's not like half-orc wizards are all that bad though, as the difference between +2 and +3 isn't that big at levels 1-3, and it opens for picking a +1 Int feat at level 4. Or bad at all, since they get Intimidation for free, dark vision and the option to stop at 1 hp instead of 0 once per long rest. They are a tad unconventional because people see the +2 to strength and the flavor says they are inclined towards being warriors, but they are perfectly viable as wizards. Which is funny, because now we have a good example of a supposedly suboptimal combo that doesn't only work well, but have a set of unique strengths that helps set them apart.

It's almost like the half-orcs are a reasonably well-designed pick, with some bonuses geared towards specific playstyles and other bonuses that are universally useful.

Balancing things so that every class and race option and combination is viable without there being gamebreakingly powerful options that overshadows everything else sounds pretty good to me. Nothing needs to be exactly the same, but advocating that everyone should be in the ballpark is better than having a few useful options and the rest is just there.


Because It is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Not an min/maximizing Pun Pun Building game.

Low int runs on Fallout 1/2 aren't optimal but are fun
Nosferatu runs on VtMB are not optimal but are fun
Trying to be a drwarf mage on arcanm is not optimal but is fun.
Solo challenges for BG1/2 aren't optimal but are fun
(...)

This excessive focus on balance is why modern games has so many inconsistencies between LORE and MECHANICS.
Originally Posted by dmwyvern
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor
[quote=Zer0][quote=SorcererVictor]Sawyer was a very caster hater, he putted only lackluster spells on IWD(EE fixes it), and nerfed most cool spells to Oblivion on his D&D games. On Pillars, casters are even more nerfed to the point that i almost had no fun playing it as one. But Larian seems to have casters even more with this game. Lets see why >

[*] Enemies has hp bloat and AC nerf


This is a real problem. Spell damage has not been adjusted to keep up with HP bloat. For example, several posters have pointed out how Sleep does not have the same utility in BG3 as it does in 5e because of this.

Bugs and exploits aside, this just extends the time it takes to get through combats. And seeing how combats are handcrafted by Larian, unlike the great number of placed and random encounters featured in BG1 and BG2, perhaps this is by design.




Probably said that eons ago but ppl just kept parroting how great sleep was as a disable lol.
Originally Posted by SorcererVictor

Because It is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Not an min/maximizing Pun Pun Building game.

Low int runs on Fallout 1/2 aren't optimal but are fun
Nosferatu runs on VtMB are not optimal but are fun
Trying to be a drwarf mage on arcanm is not optimal but is fun.
Solo challenges for BG1/2 aren't optimal but are fun
(...)

This excessive focus on balance is why modern games has so many inconsistencies between LORE and MECHANICS.


It being a roleplaying game isn't an excuse to have imbalanced mechanics, especially in games where several players might be involved. Like BG3, given it has multiplayer. I really don't see the problem of giving, for example, each race both something to incline them towards a specific playstyle and something that is universally useful if they choose to play against the archetype. Like the half-orc, as I explained above. And I really don't see why keeping some classes from completely dominating others is such a bad thing either. That isn't about min/maxing, but rather about not punishing players who want to play something unconventional because they think it sounds fun.

That being said, the 'game' part of roleplaying game indicates that we're talking about a collection of challenges meant to be overcome. Challenges designed with some guidelines on how powerful one can expect the player to be. Making it so that certain playstyles trivializes said challenges, while others can barely make it past, just seems like bad game design to me. The difficulty of a challenge should center around the player grasping and utilizing the options at hand.

Of course, if we're to talk about lore and mechanics interacting, I would say that keeping some playstyles from dominating the others certainly makes more sense of most fantasy worlds I'm familiar with. It really doesn't make sense that, for example, clerics in 3e aren't ruling everything, because it doesn't take many levels before no one else can compete. The more powerful something is, the more work has to be put in to explain why it isn't used to take control successfully. Off the top of my head, only the Dragon Age series has addressed this imbalance within their world in mainstream fantasy as of late.

In fantasy, you can (and should) ask what the people with knowlege and resources (rulers, wealthy merchants, priests etc.) are doing to protect themselves from...
... mind control and magical charm.
... invisible thieves and assassins.
... teleporting thieves and assassins.
... cheap materials disguised as expensive materials (lead to gold etc.).
... shapeshifters or magical disguises.
... creatures unkillable by non-magical weapons.
... semi-immortal creatures, like liches.
... giant monsters, like dragons.
... undead rising from their graves.
... ghosts floating through the walls to kill you.
... etc.

I'm sure people could add a million more things that would have to change in a great many fantasy settings for magic, even magic that isn't necessarily stronger than just stabbing someone, to make any sense with the lore as it is presented, let alone the absurd power it is sometimes meant to have. If you want to complain about inconsistencies between lore and mechanics, there are way bigger problems than "magic isn't overpowered enough" or some such to be addressed.
I would like it if they made this game balanced more like the tabletop

-The goblin that summons the worg, I believe, is supposed to be a ranger, rangers should not be able to summon their beasts as an action, the Goblin should already have (or be riding) the worg
-HP inflation of basic enemies makes a number of spells weaker, if we had proper rest mechanics, casters would feel really weak...
-We should have proper rest mechanics, 2 short rests per long rest, long rests separated by resource using combat. 5e's balance all rests around resource management.
-The AI murderously and suicidally goes on kamikaze runs for casters every combat, it makes a tank feel pointless, no DM runs monsters like this
I agree that the AI tends to target casters in the back WAYYYYY more than they should, esp when you have your main-line fighter upfront and in their face.
Exactly. And if this were D&D the AI would be right -- take down the caster before he puts us to sleep or hits us with a fireball.

But as thing stand the AI is wrong, the real threat is the Weapon Master is cleaving them down or the thief that can stab 4 times.
Casters are underpowered in bg3?

Could have fooled me. If you pop a potion of speed you can cast 3 spells per turn vs 1+cantrip in pnp. But yeah guess they really hate spellscasters!
© Larian Studios forums