Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Ps:T is also not quite comparable because even though it is D&D it actually is a highly bastardized version of 2e D&D, with only three "classes" being represented in the game and even those classes having been considerably simplied and changed from actual 2e classes to where they really didn't mean much of anything. So it was a D&D game in which neither classes nor alignments were truly present or were extremely watered down.

To repeat what I've said before, which seems to be escaping many of you commenting on my take here: I am tying # of available companions to # of available class and alignment options. So a game having a small # of companions (ex. DA, D:OS, Ps:T) is OKAY when the game system has only a very small # of classes or no classes (and/or no alignments). But when a game has at least 12 classes, and the good-neutral-evil alignments dimension on top of those classes, then I expect a sufficient # of companions to allow me, the player, to play my game with a party of my choice based on alignments as well as adequate coverage of the different party roles represented by all of those different classes.

What is the criteria for "adequate"? 36? That's just one each for each class and Good, Neutral and Evil. I mean, if we're going with Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral as well, we could end up with as many as 120. Do we need True Neutral options too? Where are you trying to draw that line for a "sufficient number"? Will they have time to develop the game by the time they're done developing these companions? Are you going to be ok with just Warrior, Rogue and Mage archetypes, or are you going to need the specific classes?

What happens if you don't like the personality associated with one, or more, of the companions for that specific alignment? Are they going to have to make multiples to accommodate that as well? Where does it end?

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The argument about the need of many companions that because of the aligment also makes no sense considering that even in the older dnd games if you had evil characters available at all, you were not able to get the whole team.
And for the record in bg2, neutral characters also left the group if your reputation was low and from what I can remember, the difference was a whole 1 point compared to the goods.
Look, we can keep going around in circles until the end of time. Maybe none of this makes sense to you, but it makes a whole lot of sense to me and is critically important to me. I am only interested in playing a party-based RPG--ANY such RPG--with an entirely good-aligned party. No mercs. And no even neutral companions who don't entirely accept *my* good way of doing things. In BG3, as things currently stand, I don't have such a party. That's the bottom-line.

Joined: Mar 2022
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Mar 2022
We know from the stuff people have datamined as well as other BG3 related material such as the MtG promotional cards that there's at least 3 more companions in the game, all of whom are extremely likely to be good aligned with what we know about them. One in particular is 100% a good aligned character that will be suitable for any good party. Even if you don't consider Gale or Wyll to be suitable for good parties (even though they are very clearly good aligned or at least neutral), you'll very likely to be able still make a full party of good aligned characters with these 3 additional party members.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Ps:T is also not quite comparable because even though it is D&D it actually is a highly bastardized version of 2e D&D, with only three "classes" being represented in the game and even those classes having been considerably simplied and changed from actual 2e classes to where they really didn't mean much of anything. So it was a D&D game in which neither classes nor alignments were truly present or were extremely watered down.

To repeat what I've said before, which seems to be escaping many of you commenting on my take here: I am tying # of available companions to # of available class and alignment options. So a game having a small # of companions (ex. DA, D:OS, Ps:T) is OKAY when the game system has only a very small # of classes or no classes (and/or no alignments). But when a game has at least 12 classes, and the good-neutral-evil alignments dimension on top of those classes, then I expect a sufficient # of companions to allow me, the player, to play my game with a party of my choice based on alignments as well as adequate coverage of the different party roles represented by all of those different classes.

What is the criteria for "adequate"? 36? That's just one each for each class and Good, Neutral and Evil. I mean, if we're going with Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral as well, we could end up with as many as 120. Do we need True Neutral options too? Where are you trying to draw that line for a "sufficient number"? Will they have time to develop the game by the time they're done developing these companions? Are you going to be ok with just Warrior, Rogue and Mage archetypes, or are you going to need the specific classes?

What happens if you don't like the personality associated with one, or more, of the companions for that specific alignment? Are they going to have to make multiples to accommodate that as well? Where does it end?
No need to create a strawman.

There are four basic roles in a traditional D&D-game party: tank, damage-dealer, controller/secondary damage dealer, and buffer/healer. So, one of each of these for each of good, neutral, and evil. That's twelve. Twelve is a VERY reasonable number. But the key here is exactly what twelve characters? If you've already made six of your companions evil (not saying they have; it's an example) and another four neutral, out of a total of twelve, then you're not going to be giving me my minimum four well-distributed good companions. This is my fear. If they only have eight companion options (and even this # I am skeptical about), and already I know that five of the eight are companions I will not accept in my all-good party, then the remaining three have to ALL be solidly and undeniably good. Is this likely? Again, I am highly skeptical.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by ArcaneHobbit
We know from the stuff people have datamined as well as other BG3 related material such as the MtG promotional cards that there's at least 3 more companions in the game, all of whom are extremely likely to be good aligned with what we know about them. One in particular is 100% a good aligned character that will be suitable for any good party. Even if you don't consider Gale or Wyll to be suitable for good parties (even though they are very clearly good aligned or at least neutral), you'll very likely to be able still make a full party of good aligned characters with these 3 additional party members.
Assuming you are right (which I am not convinced of), there is still the question of whether those three will each uniquely fill one of those four classic D&D party roles? If that criterion is also amazingly satisfied by those three companions, that still leaves me with only being able to play, as my PC, that one party role left uncovered by those three companions. So, for example, if those three "good" companions are damage dealer, controller, and healer, then the best scenario I get from BG3 is that I must always play a tank PC.

Joined: Mar 2022
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Assuming you are right (which I am not convinced of), there is still the question of whether those three will each uniquely fill one of those four classic D&D party roles? If that criterion is also amazingly satisfied by those three companions, that still leaves me with only being able to play, as my PC, that one party role left uncovered by those three companions. So, for example, if those three "good" companions are damage dealer, controller, and healer, then the best scenario I get from BG3 is that I must always play a tank PC.
So the most likely classes for these 3 companions are Ranger, Barbarian, and Bard. These classes can fill the 4 roles you've defined.

Barbarians are by far the best tanks in 5e since they have most effective hp out of any class. They can also serve as good primary and secondary damage dealers, especially when 2 handing.
Rangers are also a good class that can play multiple roles. They typically have high dex which when combined with a shield, some good light armor, and the defense fighting style means they can serve as decent frontline tanks. They can also deal good damage and are half casters which also lets them serve a limited role as controllers.
Bards are full casters who have access to a good number of spells which includes healing word AKA the best healing spell in 5e. They can serve as healers, primary/secondary dps, buffers, and controllers. They're also the best skill monkeys in 5e.

It's also worth keeping in mind that dedicated healers aren't really necessary in 5e. Healing is very inefficient and past tier 1 it's extremely rare to be instantly killed which means that healing word as a way to instantly stabilize and revive PCs as a BA is a much better option than spending a full action to heal their wounds.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Ps:T is also not quite comparable because even though it is D&D it actually is a highly bastardized version of 2e D&D, with only three "classes" being represented in the game and even those classes having been considerably simplied and changed from actual 2e classes to where they really didn't mean much of anything. So it was a D&D game in which neither classes nor alignments were truly present or were extremely watered down.

To repeat what I've said before, which seems to be escaping many of you commenting on my take here: I am tying # of available companions to # of available class and alignment options. So a game having a small # of companions (ex. DA, D:OS, Ps:T) is OKAY when the game system has only a very small # of classes or no classes (and/or no alignments). But when a game has at least 12 classes, and the good-neutral-evil alignments dimension on top of those classes, then I expect a sufficient # of companions to allow me, the player, to play my game with a party of my choice based on alignments as well as adequate coverage of the different party roles represented by all of those different classes.

What is the criteria for "adequate"? 36? That's just one each for each class and Good, Neutral and Evil. I mean, if we're going with Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral as well, we could end up with as many as 120. Do we need True Neutral options too? Where are you trying to draw that line for a "sufficient number"? Will they have time to develop the game by the time they're done developing these companions? Are you going to be ok with just Warrior, Rogue and Mage archetypes, or are you going to need the specific classes?

What happens if you don't like the personality associated with one, or more, of the companions for that specific alignment? Are they going to have to make multiples to accommodate that as well? Where does it end?
No need to create a strawman.

There are four basic roles in a traditional D&D-game party: tank, damage-dealer, controller/secondary damage dealer, and buffer/healer. So, one of each of these for each of good, neutral, and evil. That's twelve. Twelve is a VERY reasonable number. But the key here is exactly what twelve characters? If you've already made six of your companions evil (not saying they have; it's an example) and another four neutral, out of a total of twelve, then you're not going to be giving me my minimum four well-distributed good companions. This is my fear. If they only have eight companion options (and even this # I am skeptical about), and already I know that five of the eight are companions I will not accept in my all-good party, then the remaining three have to ALL be solidly and undeniably good. Is this likely? Again, I am highly skeptical.

There are a lot of question marks in my post specifically because I was asking questions about what you want. There is no strawman, I simply listed each class for each alignment. You started with 12 classes, not 4 archetypes. 12 x 3 is 36... The problem is that you're not clear in that post what you're shooting for. Given your propensity to exaggerate, with such things as "there are no classes in DA games", I really wanted some clarification on what you're trying to get to. Instead of throwing out "No need to create a strawman", you could have simply said "Yes, just having the archetypes represented would be fine".

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by ArcaneHobbit
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Assuming you are right (which I am not convinced of), there is still the question of whether those three will each uniquely fill one of those four classic D&D party roles? If that criterion is also amazingly satisfied by those three companions, that still leaves me with only being able to play, as my PC, that one party role left uncovered by those three companions. So, for example, if those three "good" companions are damage dealer, controller, and healer, then the best scenario I get from BG3 is that I must always play a tank PC.
So the most likely classes for these 3 companions are Ranger, Barbarian, and Bard. These classes can fill the 4 roles you've defined.

Barbarians are by far the best tanks in 5e since they have most effective hp out of any class. They can also serve as good primary and secondary damage dealers, especially when 2 handing.
Rangers are also a good class that can play multiple roles. They typically have high dex which when combined with a shield, some good light armor, and the defense fighting style means they can serve as decent frontline tanks. They can also deal good damage and are half casters which also lets them serve a limited role as controllers.
Bards are full casters who have access to a good number of spells which includes healing word AKA the best healing spell in 5e. They can serve as healers, primary/secondary dps, buffers, and controllers. They're also the best skill monkeys in 5e.

It's also worth keeping in mind that dedicated healers aren't really necessary in 5e. Healing is very inefficient and past tier 1 it's extremely rare to be instantly killed which means that healing word as a way to instantly stabilize and revive PCs as a BA is a much better option than spending a full action to heal their wounds.
Okay so this is the first post I've seen here that does a good job of laying out the potential for a decent all-good party, again assuming we will get three more companions, and also assuming those three companions will be undeniably good-aligned, and also assuming they will be the three classes you expect. A lot of assumptions, but thanks for a good reply to my concerns.

Joined: Jul 2021
W
journeyman
Online Content
journeyman
W
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
Originally Posted by williams85
Originally Posted by N7Greenfire
So far we have shadowheart as solid good. And wyll and gale as good leaning woth issues.
We already have a solid full good line up
Umm shadowheart is the only companion thats is a solid Evil because she is evil by choice. Lae and Astro are evil by nature, which makes them less in evil in a sense, since they can't choose to be anything else.
This is all sorts of wrong.

She isnt evil at all even after the mind wipe she consistently pushes for and approves of good actions

Shar doesn't even answer her prayers
You can be evil without being a dick, and most deites wont answer their priests prayers, so that doesnt really mean anything. So no you are all sorts of wrong. And honestly just her cringworthy name alone implies she thinks it's cool to be on "dark side". smile

Joined: Jul 2021
W
journeyman
Online Content
journeyman
W
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Not sure about Astarion, since even tho he is a Vampire spawn and they are evil "by nature" ... most other Vampire spawn rules dont apply to him either. O_o

But laezel isnt evil by nature at all ... that more like cultural evilness.

---

Anyway personaly i find it much harder to create Evil Party than Good ... for one we only have two evil companions, and for two every sensible person would kill astarion right there when he attack us ... so that leaves us with party of 2. :-/
It's not the "spawn" part that makes him evil, it is the vampire part, or actually the whole, being undead part...

But i also find it hard creating a party as an evil character too. Since as you say, one companion is a instakill bcs of him attacking me, and i am not really sold on the other two as well...

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by williams85
It's not the "spawn" part that makes him evil, it is the vampire part, or actually the whole, being undead part...
Cute ...
Thats what i said ... still most rules dont aply to him so ... i dont quite understand where are you going with this?


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Jul 2021
W
journeyman
Online Content
journeyman
W
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by williams85
It's not the "spawn" part that makes him evil, it is the vampire part, or actually the whole, being undead part...
Cute ...
Thats what i said ... still most rules dont aply to him so ... i dont quite understand where are you going with this?
Maybe you just need to read a little slower. smile

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Was that suppose to be helpfull or funny?
It wasnt either. :-/


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
I a m r e a d i n g s l o w l y a n d n o t h i n g i s a n y d i f f e r e n t ...

Are all undead inherently evil? That is a tough question to answer. I don't know exactly how I feel about this, but I do think of the sage advice that goes something like, "if thyne hand offends thee, better to chop it off."

So I would say that generally yes, a vampire is inherently evil ... unless it has had its teeth removed. In that case, it may not be evil. And you can call it a "gumpire".

Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
Welcome to the often absurd moral relativism of modern D&D.

Next up: "Are devils truly evil?"

Joined: Jul 2021
W
journeyman
Online Content
journeyman
W
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Was that suppose to be helpfull or funny?
It wasnt either. :-/
Sigh ok i take the long version.
The tadpole changed astarion so some of his disadvantages as a vampire spawn no longer affect him, but he is still a vampire and therefore still undead, which means EVIL.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Argyle
Are all undead inherently evil?
I would say, yes unless one have a really damn good narrative reason not to do so.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Ragitsu
Welcome to the often absurd moral relativism of modern D&D.

Next up: "Are devils truly evil?"
Yup, it's the "no one's truly evil (or good)" generation merging with D&D.

All undead are evil. All Sharrans are evil. Really nothing more to discuss here.

Joined: Mar 2022
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Mar 2022
Undead are generally evil because they're resurrected with evil energy and so they're evil because they're made of evil stuff. In the case of vampires in particular, they lose their memories and their pure thoughts are corrupted into darker ones. In a sense, undead follow similar rules to Celestials/Fiends/Outsiders where they're their alignment because they're made of stuff that matches that alignment.

However, it's worth mentioning that alignments also aren't necessarily set in stone. In the Forgotten Realms it's totally possible for an angel to fall and for a fiend to be redeemed. For example, Zariel was an angel that fell and became a fiend and was later redeemed during the Descent into Avernus adventure. There is definitely DnD material suggests that even creatures of always naturally evil alignments can have their alignments changed, although such occurrences are exceedingly rare and are considered outliers.

In the case of Astarian, he's 100% evil. He has a general lack of empathy towards people and is shown to like evil things. Out of all the current companions, him and Lae'zael are the only ones who have no problem with massacring the druid grove (Wyll leaves the party, Gale leaves unless a persuasion check is passed, and Shadowheart drinks herself into a stupor out of guilt). He can be sympathetic at times but he's still undoubtedly an evil person.

Shar worshippers don't necessarily have to be evil despite their deity being evil aligned. IIRC back in the 3.5 days, one of the rules for Clerics was that they had to be within one step of their deity's alignment, which in the case of Shar (who is neutral evil) means that they'd have to either be CE, NE, LE, or true Neutral. In Shadowheart's case I can totally see her as true neutral, leaning towards good. of course, none of this really matters that much since alignment has no mechanical implications in 5e and from a storytelling perspective there's totally situations where neutral characters on any end of the lawful-chaotic spectrum might follow a neutral evil deity. Similarly, deities probably don't care too much about the specific alignment of their followers (which is already a fairly vague way of measuring morality anyways) and instead care more about whether their worshippers follow their tenets.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Ragitsu
Welcome to the often absurd moral relativism of modern D&D.

Next up: "Are devils truly evil?"
Yup, it's the "no one's truly evil (or good)" generation merging with D&D.

All undead are evil. All Sharrans are evil. Really nothing more to discuss here.

Drizzt.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5