Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General I think I'm giving up on Larian

I don't think so. They can go as far as scraping all classes and subclasses and leaving in the game only three archetypes or whatever, but if they don't change the math the game remain the same. If I can play a 5e module with "new version" rules, then it's the same edition. Sure there will be some difference in powerscaling, as every time they add new rulebook like tasha or mordenakainen, but fights in 5e official modules has always been a mess. The first fight in descent into avernus is just ridicolous.

On the other hand I simply can't play a 3.5 module with 5e rules and the opposite. The math is just too different. A 3.5 cr1 monster would laugh in the face of 5e lv5 characters if not for the amount of hp.

Could be that WoTc preasured some of the changes but if you are making 5e the basis of your game, stick to your guns. Will be interesting if they at least gave us a option to use the 'old' racial trait system. That way you give peeps choice.

Yes, it's profit. Do you think the cheap fancy-dress outfits they wear in PFHs is the Larian staff uniform?

Like I said before, I am with you in questioning if I will ever do a Larian title again.

I totally get where your coming from.

This game in no way matches the love and mastery of the original games, although they are quite dated.


Solasta showed that a 5e engine can be built and that it naturally balances itself when you stick to the RAW (loved Legendary actions!).

Their story was simple but unoffensive to anyone.


Sadly the company doesn't want to take on a big budget and wanted simplicity.

That engine, upgraded with modern graphics and a crack writing team would have been better suited to make BG3.


Larian could have rolled out this exact same story (with Minsk and Jaheira too) and called it anything else.

As long as they advertised it as a dark fantasy, I would have probably still bought it, and just viewed it as a standalone larian game with D&D flavor and lore.

When you captain a flagship title though it had better meet expectations.

I don't believe this is true. Definitely not from Larian's point of view. If they just wanted a cash grab they would not have so many optional story paths that most players will never see. With 175 hours worth of cutscenes to account for insanely high numbers of possible branching paths based on player choice this will most likely have the most extensive choice-consequence system we have ever seen.

Now with the rules and whether this is 5e or 5.5e or whatever I think Larian are doing their best but I also believe WotC is involved in some capacity as this will be by far the biggest and most impactful D&D game to date and it releases just before their next iteration of D&D next year. The rules in the game won't be perfect even but I think it will be fine even if some of the rules make me want to cry(see multiclassing and pact of the blade warlocks).

I see this in a different manner. I know, I'm a broken disk for someone, but it wouldn't be fun otherwise. I'm not talking about us, I'm talking about the devs. Think about it. You spent your life working your ass and building your skills, becoming among the bests of the bests, up to the point that you have finally the chance to give your words about something and suddendly you are just a gear because you have to implement the things as RAW as possible. It would be boring, it would't have sense to have worked so much for not being able to give your vision about something you love.

If everybody just translated everything as it is, we would never have Kubrick's The Shining.

I know you're not alone in feeling that way, but personally I have a very different take. I played and loved BG1 and 2 when they first released and have replayed them regularly since, and came to BG3 because of those rather than Larian. (I have played D:OS but it took me three goes to actually finish, and I've not yet got beyond the start of act 2 of D:OS2.) And BG3 is everything I could wish for from a BG successor. Okay, that's hyperbole as nothing could be everything I wished for, but it's so much more even than I hoped. For me it captures the spirit of BG1 in particular. And while I'd freely admit that BG2 made loads of improvements over its predecessor, there are actually many ways in which I have more affection for BG1 so that suits me down to the ground.

It would totally derail this thread to go into more detail on this point, but I just think it's important for us all to have different perspectives offered. And they're all, of course, perfectly valid ways to react to the game.

Now with the rules and whether this is 5e or 5.5e or whatever I think Larian are doing their best but I also believe WotC is involved in some capacity as this will be by far the biggest and most impactful D&D game to date and it releases just before their next iteration of D&D next year. The rules in the game won't be perfect even but I think it will be fine even if some of the rules make me want to cry(see multiclassing and pact of the blade warlocks).[/quote]


Well I guarantee that these rules won't be in D&D Next.

The ranged limitations are only present, because Larian was too lazy to make an engine suited for the project and just used DOS.

WTF! Lets take a Volkswagon and chop shop it into a Porshe, then try to race it.


WOTC is under its own fire, with boycotts for its own bad decisions.

In a word Hasbro.

How many good franchises have been destroyed by corporate buyouts now?

This is a totally valid perspective, yet only if in doing so the devs respect their audience and consult with the creators of the source material BOTH. It is very easy to deviate enough to make the material unbearable to the passionate fans. As I've already said, the homebrew changes Larian were cooking behind the scenes just dropped like a bomb out of nowhere 3 weeks before release. More so, they were dropped after a huge shift for the general audience of the game to be the team 'bear sex witnesses'. There was no blog, no nothing throughout the whole EA, that would have properly explained these changes to be good or at least not that bad.

I see this in a different manner. I know, I'm a broken disk for someone, but it wouldn't be fun otherwise. I'm not talking about us, I'm talking about the devs. Think about it. You spent your life working your ass and building your skills, becoming among the bests of the bests, up to the point that you have finally the chance to give your words about something and suddendly you are just a gear because you have to implement the things as RAW as possible. It would be boring, it would't have sense to have worked so much for not being able to give your vision about something you love.

If everybody just translated everything as it is, we would never have Kubrick's The Shining.[/quote]


I think what you are saying is that Larian did their best.

Sure, why not.


I'm done with my critique and I stand by it.

It's time to enjoy the game.

The last thing I want to do is upset anyone here with negativity.


Larian has dropped some bombs.

Like I said in another post, let people vent, give them space, and we can all move on.

I myself am ready to move forward.

Wise words my friend, wise words.

This seems one of the cases where it's good not to know too much about D&D rules.
I've played past games but don't know the rules.

So Larian has no option to disappoint me here. Rules I don't know can't be good or bad. They just exist

In my case: I'm very excited about the game and I'm sure, that I will immensly enjoy it. I say my piece about what I think about certain topics, be that the simplyfied multiclass, companion respec, the lack of small races ( and Helia especially) and If some of that gets adressed in the game, great, if not, that's fine too. I'm not trying to force something here, but it would feel wrong to me to say nothing, because we are still technically in EA and Larian wanted feedback from player.

Yes, me too.

And I'm definitely going to continue to offer feedback after release too. Partly just because I like talking about the game with you folks and getting different perspectives, but also because even if we then have version 1.0 of the game fixed, there can still be updates, DLC and expansions and if we offer constructive feedback on what we see come August then we'll hopefully have the opportunity to influence how that might shape up.

(Which I guess means I'm not giving up on Larian, to address the title of this thread )

1. You arnt being forced to
2.play how you want
3.dont force others to play how you want

I'm partial to this point of view.

I'm still waiting to see what the changes actually are and get a feel for them myself before I pass judgement.

Don't forget the definitive edition that will definitely come out down the road!

Yes, I will give feedback after release too and I enjoy discussing with you all in this forum.

I have to say that while I understand the complaints oft he OP, I do not understand the intensity with which they’re presented.

I could list a number of features I think absolutely should not be in the game, but as long as they are unlikely to ever affect me, they’re minor, they either matter only in a context separate from the game or in a theoretical context. So it’s a waste of enery to get worked up about them, most of the time.

Take multiclassing. For me, a class is part of a character’s identity. Characters have a certain class because they like doing the class-typical stuff, not just because they can. To change a class means to change who they are, and so most likely I’ll never multiclass anyone, and I’ll argue that multiclassing NPCs means devaluing who they are. In Terms of rules, IMO there should be some class-independent skill choices – for instance, I think you should be able to upgrade the skills you get from your background regardless of class, but not more than that.

Now Larian has chosen to be more free about this. Do I like it? Not so much, and in the proper context I might get a little passionate about it too,, as about the identity thing that has been discussed elsewhere. But it matters for my BG3 playthroughs likely not at all, so why the heck should I get worked up about it in the context of discussing this specific game?

One feature I’d like to single out, because I most emphatically disagree with the criticism, is races and attributes. From a viewpoint of verisimilitude, what is a race in the context of Faerun? A fitting description could be something like „a group of people with distinctive physical features, and distinctly distributed attributes and abilities, on the whole distinct enough that they maintain a common physical identity, and sometimes, though not necessarily, a commom cultural identity, by rarely being attracted to people of other races, thus rarely interbreeding with others.“ „Distinctly distributed“ means that the game rules, as much as they do not allow variation, describe typical features, not necessarily universal ones. A half-orc with low STR would be uncommon or rare but not non-existent. From this viewpoint, more variety in attribute distribution sounds plausible to me.
In essence, I think any rule change that allows to choose a race for roleplaying, as opposed to roll-playing, is a good one.

In general, IMO the rules exist to facilitate co-operative storytelling. Roleplaying games are not competitive games, where it matters that everyone plays by the same rules. I see many players bringing a competitive mindset to these discussions. I think that is not appropriate. Many of us like the occasional challenge, but rarely do we like the same kind of challenge, and some do not like them or don’t have the the time to deal with them. Rules that restrict everyone should facilitate as many playstyles as possible – even those with which you do not agree. There is a difference between „this is not appropriate“ and „this should not be allowed“. If you want to be competitive, that’s fine. Find a group of like-minded players, but do not attempt to impose your standards on all.

And if you allow me to get a little passionate: I couldn't care less how strictly Larian sticks to any particular ruleset. I've GMed roleplaying groups for decades and really, rules as such do not matter. The stories matter, the actions of characters matter. Rules exist for the sole purpose of making it feasible to make non-arbitrary decisions about the actions of characters and their outcomes in a world that is in reality more complex than any ruleset could ever encompass. CRPGs are by necessity more limited than tabletop roleplaying groups, but those limits are not a virtue. They're a necessary evil.

Interesting perspective.

First of all, Larian's designers have plenty of space to express themselves. None of BG3 is procedural (maybe some loot drops here and there?); every encounter is hand-crafted. Surely Larian's designers can let loose there.

Second of all, I wouldn't personally characterize Larian's designers as "the best of the best". Now, I understand that to be subjective as any example of a legendary game designer would be followed by examples of legendary games they designed (ie Shigeru Miyamoto made Mario, Richard Garfield made Magic the Gathering) and you could say "Swen Vincke made BG3!". However, Larian's track record of rolling back decisions they had though would improve the game indicates their flair for reinterpretation isn't as on point as they would like.

In conclusion, I see BG3 more like The Shining as reimagined by Christopher Nolan : excellent, idiosyncratic, flawed in spots.