Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by porrage
This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

Larian got the license because they demonstrated with D:OS2 they were capable of making an RPG with fun, complex combat. That's what I want more of - fun, complex combat. It's not crazy to play this EA and ask, "hmm, what changed?" and see the influence of 5e as a hinderance.

And let's be real, the BG label has almost nothing to do with the original games and is almost purely a marketing/nostalgia grab. There have been a slew of other games over the years with BG in the title that bore little to no resemblance to the originals.

Put simply, I just want the game to be good. Some people seem to think that as fidelity to the tabletop rules will create that, which is complete insane to me.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Silverflame

Now for the multiple choices in dialogue - you used Nettie as an example. Nettie is a poor example for an encounter, to be honest. I much prefer using the first time you encounter Astarion as a perfect example of how the game decides the outcomes - considering the choices you have available to you during your meeting with Astarion being physical (a head butt), dialogue, or just to wait and hope everything goes right. Kagha is also a great example, as you can make use of your race (in my case tiefling) to try and push for a better outcome. Both Kagha and Astarion are, what I as a DM, would classify as an actual encounter where Nettie is a Plot Vehicle. She isn't really meant for anything more than to be there as a stopgap on the Plot in showing just how the world views the affliction. There is nothing wrong with the Nettie encounter from a campaign perspective, though - it's perfect for what it's meant to be. It isn't, however, the measuring stick you should be using for determining how dialogue encounters go when you're using the absolute worst example of one.


Agreed. Looking back at this encounter it feels pretty much like what you describe. Playing it the first time I felt like I must succed because its a video game instead of simply trusting the DM and go with the flow of the story.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
So I think to make a thread with this topic is a huge waste because it goes off the assumption of 3 things:

1: The devs have any intention of changing the ruleset away from being 5e based.
2: This new combat system is incapable of allowing the same level of creative approaches as DOS2 given more time, class levels, and new feature implimentation.
3: The rules are too strict and adhere to 5e too much.

This game is an adaptation of a ruleset in a tabletop game. Much like a movie adapts a book or an anime adapts a manga, certain appeals are going to have to be pushed aside to make way for innovative ideas that you will only be able to get through playing this game. When you offer a suggestion or a feedback, you are wasting the dev's time by telling them that the problem is at its core and needs to be reworked entirely instead of going specifically for the details that cause problems directly. The entire first section of your post is meaningless and doesn't give the devs anything useful, only when you start listing off specific shit is anything going to be meaningful feedback.

Also, to say that this game's combat is a downgrade from dos2 combat is entirely subjective. sure you have less flexibility in how you handle your turn, but the tradeoff is that certain classes have many more approaches that they can excel at, and you are fighting an entirely different type of enemy group. In DOS2 most of the time you are fighting a group of enemies with variations of the exact same skills you have because everyone in that game can get a skill book and be bad ass. In this game you fight different creatures with strengths you don't have access to but weaknesses that only you can exploit, and they are facing the same dillemma in fighting you. The different combat systems have different things that they achieve and their own strengths and weaknesses.

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage
This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

Larian got the license because they demonstrated with D:OS2 they were capable of making an RPG with fun, complex combat. That's what I want more of - fun, complex combat. It's not crazy to play this EA and ask, "hmm, what changed?" and see the influence of 5e as a hinderance.

And let's be real, the BG label has almost nothing to do with the original games and is almost purely a marketing/nostalgia grab. There have been a slew of other games over the years with BG in the title that bore little to no resemblance to the originals.

Put simply, I just want the game to be good. Some people seem to think that as fidelity to the tabletop rules will create that, which is complete insane to me.


I've mentioned in other threads that I don't think a 1 to 1 adaptation would work. But if you're going to call your game Baldur's Gate 3, if you're going to use the 5e ruleset as a marketing tool, either adapt it to the best of your abilities (and take some creative liberties to capture the essence of the tabletop while still making an excellent game), or make a completely different game and drop the name. Because right now? What we have isn't dungeons and dragons and it isn't Baldur's Gate.

And I'm saying this as someone that enjoyed DOS2 quite a bit.

Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage
This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

Larian got the license because they demonstrated with D:OS2 they were capable of making an RPG with fun, complex combat. That's what I want more of - fun, complex combat. It's not crazy to play this EA and ask, "hmm, what changed?" and see the influence of 5e as a hinderance.

And let's be real, the BG label has almost nothing to do with the original games and is almost purely a marketing/nostalgia grab. There have been a slew of other games over the years with BG in the title that bore little to no resemblance to the originals.

Put simply, I just want the game to be good. Some people seem to think that as fidelity to the tabletop rules will create that, which is complete insane to me.


i have to give you that. you don't have to follow 5e rules to the brink. i like the changes they made to the ranger, for example. but using the 5e system as a baseline would helpt to balance a game.
instead (in the current state) larian scrapped basic balancing factors, to shoehorn in their own creations.
5e rules as base line with some changes are fine and necessary. but changing basic balancing principles, that WotC playtested for years is just insane to me.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mahe4

you haven't played 5e on TT yet, did you?
there are immense tactical differences, if you build your party to compliment one another. it is just a different tactical experience than DOS.
instead of using every explosive barrel in the environment, you use your battle master fighter maneuver to give your rogue a second sneak attack, effectively doubling his damage output by making one less attack yourself.
there is lots of different tactics in 5e.
using hold person with your wizard, to guarantee your teammates critical hits on an enemy.
so many things. they are just not as obvious as explosive barrels.

All of that requires at least level 3. There is just not that much synergy available in low level play. The majority of this first zone is low level.

And all of that gets you an extra rogue sneak attack. Not insignificant damage, if it hits, but especially below level 5 hitting is a crap-shot. You are also losing the commander's attack.

So yeah. Contrast with 4e, or even 3.x/Pathfinder or even further still 13th Age and in compairson 5e is just shallow. After you've blown through your alpha strike the first few turns you've either won, or you're trading d20 rolls to see who runs out of HP first.

Which, again, was WAD - WotC wanted that 'Old School' AD&D feel at low levels.

Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by mahe4

you haven't played 5e on TT yet, did you?
there are immense tactical differences, if you build your party to compliment one another. it is just a different tactical experience than DOS.
instead of using every explosive barrel in the environment, you use your battle master fighter maneuver to give your rogue a second sneak attack, effectively doubling his damage output by making one less attack yourself.
there is lots of different tactics in 5e.
using hold person with your wizard, to guarantee your teammates critical hits on an enemy.
so many things. they are just not as obvious as explosive barrels.

All of that requires at least level 3. There is just not that much synergy available in low level play. The majority of this first zone is low level.

And all of that gets you an extra rogue sneak attack. Not insignificant damage, if it hits, but especially below level 5 hitting is a crap-shot. You are also losing the commander's attack.

So yeah. Contrast with 4e, or even 3.x/Pathfinder or even further still 13th Age and in compairson 5e is just shallow. After you've blown through your alpha strike the first few turns you've either won, or you're trading d20 rolls to see who runs out of HP first.

Which, again, was WAD - WotC wanted that 'Old School' AD&D feel at low levels.


i got to lvl 3 pretty darn fast, so i don't see a problem here...
and i don't want to scrap all area effects. i just think that cantrips are the wrong activators for area effects, because it imbalances things.
i love the idea, that goblins spilled a lot of alcohol in their feast and that you can ignite that. but it should be special occasions (that can be activated with cantrips if used at those surfaces) or greater spells, that create those surfaces.
i don't want them gone, i want them to be special. and cantrips creating surfaces makes surfaces mundane and overused.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
OP, it would be helpful if you tightened up some of those thoughts. Things like "Let me take this time to take a tangent" - just make the tangent, you dont have to tell people it is one. The style makes it difficult for people to find your reasoning and respond. This isn't an attack, a lot of what I said was kind of tongue in cheek so don't read this as someone going after you.

General

1. "I have 25 hours in the game therefore I think I have a firm understanding. "

You could have replaced 25 hours with 30 minutes and it would have been true. At any point you could have deemed yourself to have a solid understanding. Did you finish it? Did you hit max level? I am not sure what perspective you are coming from. Stats are fine here, it isn't a pissing contest, it helps everyone to know what has happened in your experience.

I am over 70 hours into my first playthrough, have been max level for quite some time, and have not finished it yet. I have submitted dozens of bugs and suggestions both on these forums and on the steam forums and I do not think I have a firm understanding. There are a lot of skills and interactions I can't check until I replay the game several times due to class and race combinations. I can't judge all combat based on my 1 PC and the 1 party formation with the pretty much 1 spell build I gave my casters. You might put something more concrete in there on what you have parsed - hours are kind of arbitrary. I have restarted to pass every dialog tree (though ultimately chose one on each gate so there is still stuff I haven't seen), removed all fog of war from every map and, to my knowledge, found every secret area, button, wall, teleporter, etc...as evidenced by no wall or spot is left that a dice didn't appear and start rolling for a check.

I have completed all quests barring finishing it, turning in mushrooms to mind flayer, and the pregnant girls quest because I dont want to raise her dead husband - I will play with that later to see if there is another option. There is a lot in the game to unpack and try. I have over 800 hours in DOS2 and I am still finding new stuff in it, their games have a lot of depth. I want to try to go to the under dark early on next playthrough, sneak to the anti-magic tree early in the game, put the flowers in a pack (it blocks their effect) and then go back up and fight caster battles and throw flowers at the them and deactivate the magic. Who knows, if they catch on fire while on water is it anti-magic fog? I don't know, I don't have a firm grasp on what they do with that kind of stuff yet.

Selune's chest in the Owlbear cave could have been opened with the antimagic field, I carried the chest to the underdark because I wanted to try to get the Gem of Shaar that the statue is holding up that powers the defenses of the fort. I was really hoping I could throw the chest out in the pathway and shaars power would activate the defenses and open it or if I could get the gem and place them next to each other and shaars power would deactivate the chest. I never did get the gem out of the hand, it has 1hp so I cant knock it out, couldn't get mage hand to appear next to it, so I just shot the chest open, ultimately. Really with the Seulne / Shaar artifact proximity combo would have done something. Shortly thereafter I found the blossoms...almost made it. I have so. much. to. try. still.

2. Companions - "People are judging them too harshly. Perhaps they don't remember DOS2. This is a fandom meme. All fandom memes are untrue."

People judging them too harshly is your own harsh judgment that I harshly judge you on. I do remember DOS2, 800+ hours in it. Also this is based on your opinion that it is a fandom meme (whatever the definition or criteria for that is), and 2 - your claim that fandom memes are untrue. Thats pretty much where your logic stopped and turned into an opinion piece that didn't seem to be based on much. Some theorizing on companion numbers in the future happened. There are multiple threads on this and the point comes back, over and over, about what is justifiable versus what is the most fun. They are in depth conversations and you should participate in them if you have something to add.

3. Shadowheart

She is my least liked character for the reasons you outlined. Voice on her has the edgey edge, not just an edge. When she is nice shes palatable but, like Astarion if you pick the wrong thing (who literally went from "I trust you, thank you" in one sentence to him crouched down, snarling, saying that he is going to "kill you in your sleep if you ever dare even think to breathe such a thing again" in reaction to a very mild statement) is manic in her swings line to line. The overall levels of disgust, disdain, annoyance, distrust, and impatience shown with you sentence too sentence is like talking to a crazy person. They are too big and bury the glimmers of genuine companionship they exhibit.

D&D

1. "Just about every complaint/issue that it looks like BG3 is running into comes from the fact the system is a heartless algorithm being run by a computer with pre-determined outcomes"

As a DM, I am offended at being described like this. You aren't supposed to know that you are all hurtling to an ultimate point in the story regardless of your actions - those just make the journey better or worse along the way. Matt Colville has the best take on dice "fudging" that I have heard - DMs don't fudge dice to fix your mistakes, they do it to fix their own. If a DM makes something too hard or just got 5 natural 20s in a row, they will most likely change it because this was a decision the players could do nothing about that is going to adversely affect them. The DM can only account for so much, we are only computers human. If a player attacks a guard post in a city - no fudging. That was your mistake, and I am not going to fix it for you.

I know loosey goosey games are out there, but my game's rules are pretty much by the book. The rules rarely leave a case uncovered and allow for pretty much everything ive come across. You have to be allowed to do something not allowed by the rules to piece rules together to figure it out - which I have always been able to do. This game isn't letting you try to polymorph a Tarrasque into a chicken and fly up 1000 feet and drop it on BG and see if it wipes out the city. You're shooting a goblin in the face. I don't think a DMs magnanimity or rule bending is required for this format as they limit the very options which would necessitate that by virtue of it being played in a bounded space as opposed to your imagination.


2. People need to get over the name, it ain't changing. I don't know if people are actually serious when they say this, but if they are all I can think of is a lack of awareness on how businesses work. This is done in partnership with the owners of Baldur's Gate. The name change would come from them, and this is too tied into what they are doing with the edition and the drumming up of excitement for D&D.

3. "Savescumming"

Its an option. Any feeling of needing to use it is yours. I have also put hundreds of hours into the games you mentioned and reloaded in them a lot. I like testing things out and then going 'huh, neat' and going back to what I actually wanted to do. Ive done 5+ playthroughs with save carryovers from the priors as well on PoEs and whatnot. Its a feature, utilize it if you want. If you don't like having a character that can fail that kind of thing...well...make a better one or roll better bruh. A point could be made that at that level, the proficiency level bonus is so low at that level and combined with the fact that rogues don't have expertise at that level (yet), that its too early to introduce critical path segments for a character with that high of a DC.

However, I will say that you go from saying that "I've played through Wasteland 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire recently and did it without reloading". And then go to "players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough.". Those are incompatible statements and the issues you raise with one, negates the validity of the other. You want to do it all, even though you cant possibly do it, in one playthrough, but without save scumming - as you have somehow managed to do in the past in other games where experiencing it all would also be impossible by not savescumming. It feels like the argument that spreads through the post regarding potential, rolls, saves, and options is just too muddy to understand what mechanic you don't like and what you hope to accomplish as a player via the mechanics.

Not getting everything in 1 playthrough. Thats most big games. That is also D&D, except in D&D there is no other playthrough. You just never get it. The number of times I say to my players, "Actually, make an intelligence check" and the player says "10" and my response is "Ok, so what are you guys doing next?" is a large number and they all grimace wondering what they just missed out on. I have written hundreds of hours of gameplay they never got to, items they never got and never will, and places to go that they probably never will - at least not in that campaign, with those characters. They have, of course, used those failed saves to make really incorrect decisions which ended up in flying castles and storm giants giving them rocs to fight on in the clouds - because they failed and made decisions based on the info hey had. But they never actually did find the right thing.

In BG3 I expect to fail an insight check and go off of the face presented to me - this guy looks shady, lets kill him in his house and steal his stuff. Oops, he ran an orphanage and just has a hateable face. I made that decision though, I could have read his journal before killing him. Is it save scumming to go back and redo that? I didn't think of the choice until later of sneaking around reading personal things, or talking to his servants in a disguise self to see if they said something about their master, or eavesdrop on their random conversations. I had tools, I didn't use them. In this playthrough, Id like the head of the orphanage alive. Ill kill him next time. I cant experience both in a single playthrough without going back pretty far at some point and walking the other path.

So, I am not really sure what your problems are. The fact is that there is the ability to save often in the game. Thats it. That is not a terrible thing, it is a thing. Its a hammer on a table. You making a house or bashing someones head in doesn't make the hammer a bad thing to have around because it can be used. So is it the story? The fact it has options and you can only take 1 path at a time? Again, I am not seeing the problem you are solving here. Just a disgruntlement that the game can be used in ways you have chosen not in other games.

4. Perception checks et al

This is something that really bothers me too. Perception checks that reveal doors reveal the doors and they shimmer. If you perceive footholds on a cliff that weren't there before then make them appear. Tracks appear and if you mouse over them it says "Humanoid tracks" on a low one "goblin tracks" on a medium one and "12 goblins, heading east, 1 hour old" on a great one. Insight checks need to be more readily available and, in general, there is very little player feedback and awareness alteration that happens. They need to connect skills to things people can look at, read, and interact with for sure.

5. Nettie

This was a good example of broad thinking. If you do every quest you see right now, you are limiting options. They TOLD you the other dude was the healer and shes some apprentice. You had the option of the real deal or the apprentice. You got the apprentice experience when you chose the apprentice and it was comical in how bad she is compared to the master of the circle. Thats a straight D&D choice. As a DM id be tickled pink if my party had said "Yeah, lets have the apprentice try to heal us". I love their idea on what she did, its a hilarious DM punishment. It taught me to not finish quests immediately or choose what seems like a final option until ive run around a bit and done related acitivities.

6. The Face

I am loving that there is 1 person you use to talk to people. In multiplayer, I get to be lazy or dictate the pace. Either way, it doesnt leave a lot of "no, you talk to him this time". You know who should (except backgrounds might make you think wait, im a pirate, i have no charisma but maybe us both being one will help *save*) Every party has one. What would be good is to weave other people's skills in. This is complex for them, but I think it would be amazing. Your face is talking, and she mentions that the goblin attack wasnt going to be the last. The NPC says "I think it was". A ranger with survival skill could say "The tracks I saw were of a force double that size. I don't know if you could withstand another such attack, much less the one of what I saw." Persuasion check, from the face, with advantage because of the specific knowledge of one of the players who had perceived tracks earlier (and if they hadnt was just a random goblin factoid that maybe didn't lower the DC as much). The roleplaying does kind of suck in that regard without a sorc, paladin, bard, or warlock as persuasion/deception turns to intimidation after that which isn't really fun going around being a jerk to everyone just as a player selecting options. It isn't how I want to conduct through the game. It isn't how I want to conduct my or my character's actions. I think you have a very valid point on RP limitations, especially early game without the stats to help.

7. Modifiers are boring

Modifiers are modifiers, there isn't really anything thats going to be emotional about them. What I am reading is you saying the way the game uses your skills is boring because it doesn't give the option to use use character's background or actions to affect the story often enough and when it does, it isn't particularly exotic or based on some "oh wow, they kept track of that?" moment. This might tie back to a more complex background creation process that allows you to set certain pieces of information as blocks for yourself. Yes, you can min/max second playthrough if you wanted, but you cant change the game NPCs, just your own. Knowledge of gods, races, say that you escaped from a slave pit, etc...a slave pit escape back story might let you know when you get to the part of the castle that slaves get fed from, you know there is a slave pot and only the slaves ate it. Time to put in a potion of fire breathing or giant strength to the pot and watch a slave jail break. They give you ideas or allow conversation options on something like that. Otherwise, it IS hard to just say "change the modifiers". A lot of what you mentioned was a reputation system - which should lower the DC, I agree.


I think you had a great write up!

My penny of thoughts on them smile


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
I agree with you on most except the combat downgrade. I'm fine with the action economy right now, except how reactions are done. But the surface crap is terrible. Its unavoidable dmg at the start of your turn when that shouldn't exist so readily. Why are there 3+ archers every fight with bombs? Bombs should be rare, they are rare in D&D. The game loves to put you at a huge disadvantage at the beginning of fights with you getting low ground and getting bombarded for some reason. Terrible encounter design.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Good post - well thought through. I agree with some of the claims, not sure about others and I completely disagree with the title of the post.

In general, I wouldn't underestimate the emotional impact of sticking to the 5e rules. DOS games where great but I did not feel as invested in them as I do in this early access. The mere fact that it tries to recreate the tabletop rules adds value in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a system designed to be used in a fairly collaborative, friendly manner between humans... one person playing the world (and making sure it all runs smoothly.)

That is very true. It was said on may occasions that the rule set should be treated as guidance more than hard rules. You can't replace a human DM with an algorithm.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
BG3's skill checks.. feel like they fit the mould of succeed or fail....

...it felt like I was being screwed by a dice roll. When I have a +4 modifier, it doesn't feel good to fail a DC10 check. DC20 checks just seem ridiculous. DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either...

I completely understand. It does feel bad failing a skill check. I personally try hard to not frame it as a failure. I try to play along with it (that is how things went down. How would me character react?). I do it because I think it will be a better experience in the long run and I'll experience stories I wouldn't have otherwise (if everything went according to plan). It will also add to replayability.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
I really like the rest mechanic, but it's another of those things that gets smoothed over by a DM. I don't think I can stress enough how much I'd missed on my first playthrough by not going to camp every so often... Winnowing it down to a short rest and a day end is really interesting, but it gets complicated when there's story and character beats tied to it. But without any sort of mechanic, how often should I be going to rest? And what am I missing if I don't?

I would love to see some sort of mechanic tied to the rest. Maybe a day passes everytime you rest and some events happen after some time has passed. Maybe a fatigue mechanism to time the rests. Currently I avoid going to rest just because it feels like cheating resting after every encounter. Considering Larian said a lot happens in the camp I'm probably doing it wrong. btw, I've rested twice and met the demon on my second rest - it felt connected to the story so I have no issues with it.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
...players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough...

I'm exactly the same, and I'm fighting myself against it. It had been way too many time where I played a game while exploring everything, talking to everyone, checking every barrel, etc.. without fail it always hurt my experience rather than improve it. Everything takes longer so the pacing of the story is off. It drastically reduce the replayability. I appreciate it when games understand that and put in place mechanisms that won't allow me to burn myself on a single playthrough and never touch the game again.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

...They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history...

I would love to see this implemented. That will definitely add to the immersion.Btw, are we sure it is not already implemented - by changing the DC - just not visible enough to the player?


Originally Posted by Milkfred
...people wanting an increased party size... feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into

I'm actually on the other side of this issue. I don't feel like managing more inventories and skills, and I think it's perfectly ok NOT to be able to do something you want to do. It devalues my own character when I have every single option available in every playthrough.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
...minor (issues) that can definitely be fixed during the EA period (more loot, ... , XP outside of combat, missing loot from shoving people into pits... )

Not sure how much loot is optimal I just don't want it to become the loot fountain we see in a lot of other games. A lot of useless loot is just clutter and a lot of good loot devalues the loot and removes the excitement of finding something good.
Definitely needs xp for non combat actions.
And I'm perfectly ok with no loot from enemies in pits smile I made a choice I'll bare the consequences smile


I think you've made some very good point here and I hope Larian think about it. However I wouldn't want to make this game resemble DOS even more. It's already too close in my eyes. I think a significantly different game (mechanically and atmosphere wise) will only do Larian good - as it will increase the potential customer base. We can always have DOS3 for those who love that one.

Last edited by Alon Binyamin; 11/10/20 10:59 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Oct 2020
"I think people will have to get used to this bunch. I'm not convinced there'll be many more companions, if there's any at all. Consider that D:OS2 had you meet everyone initially, much like BG3 has done. Unless Larian has been running an extremely long game of only previewing the party members they'd show off in EA, I wouldn't hold out hope for another four or five party members. I feel like we might get one or two, but I don't think we'll get one for each class, nor get more than one for any class."

Larian said before EA's release that they will add more companions later (even in the EA), they opted for more "evil" ones at start to encourage us to try out playing evil characters, as people generally play good characters in the game. I agree half of them seem to be of a pretty good alignment though.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by jonn
I get the feeling that there may eventually be another solution to the Nettie problem, remember Larian are asking us to focus on the usually underplayed evil route through the game at this stage, and there is a stone slab in the room which leads out into a tunnel which you are currently unable to open (room behind it is full of poison gas)

You can lockpick the slab. It leads to an area that is accessible by other means but provides a more advantageous starting position.



You can also get hold of the missing rune to open the door. There are hints to find as to who has the missing rune. This was the option I went for.

Last edited by Cantila; 11/10/20 08:00 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I generally disagree with the OP. I liked D:OS and D:OS 2, but I am also interested in D&D 5e. Larian promoted this game as operating under the 5e ruleset. There are certainly room for tweaks and changes, but this is supposed to be a 5e game, not a hybrid of 5e and D:OS.


Originally Posted by Fisher
1. I agree that the fail or pass model isn't so great. The extent to which you fail or succeed should change the outcome of certain situations. If I fail to persuade someone by 1, I think it's reasonable to expect they'd react different than if I critically failed by rolling a 1 -- they might even react far worse than before in the latter case.


They aren't going to add additional dialogue for rolling a natural 1 or natural 20 in dialogue, there are just too many permutations that it's impossible.


Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred

(As an aside, Baldur's Gate 1 had this exact issue and people rightfully hated it. Don't keep those rose-tinted goggles on, people.)

I didn't hate it. I want a game that recreates tabletop gameplay, and my tabletop gameplay was always simulationist. If the dice said you died, you died.

Baldur's Gate (the original, not the sequel or remake) is one of the 5 best CRPGs ever made. It's not quite Ultima IV, but it's close.
Quote
I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

That's literally my favourite thing about the game. Dice rolling gives the player character tremendous agency without transferring that agency to me, the player. That's how RPGs work. You're not playing a game; you're playing a character (or multiple characters, in the case of a party-based RPG).

The character's interaction with the world should be be influenced by what outcomes the player wants.
Quote
3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.

Those players are playing it wrong. They're trying to play a game.

RPGs aren't games. They're toys. RPGs don't have winning conditions. Playing an RPG successfully involves making in-character decisions and... that's it. Whether the character succeeds or fails isn't relevant to whether the player succeeds or fails.

This is why I do reload games if my character dies due to player error, but not if he dies due to a poor decision on his part or even just a bad dice roll. The world is unforgiving; that's what makes achievement worthwhile.
Quote
-snip-

Throughout this post, you refer to "players" several times as if they are a homogeneous group, but I don't recognize the group you describe at all.

Last edited by Sylvius the Mad; 11/10/20 08:32 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 00zim00
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Tuco
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
+1

+1 to both

+1

I really wish Larian had announced D:OS 3 before launching BG3 Early Access. It seems like a lot of starved hardcore Divinity fans with no love for the old Infinity Engine duology are asking for this game to be a serviceable spiritual successor to Divinity, or just a fresh cRPG experience altogether. It's Baldur's Gate 3, though. This should be a worthy successor to the series, and the old games are so famous and beloved in part because of the tight, faithful transposition of tabletop mechanics into a digital environment. Being able to play a campaign without your friends is what engendered so many people to the series to begin with, to leave that behind and call it Baldur's Gate 3 seems a bit silly.

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.

As someone who has limited exposure the Larian's other games, but is an old-school BG fan, so far I'm a big fan of what I see from BG3.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Hawaii
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Hawaii
Agreed

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
I really wish Larian had announced D:OS 3 before launching BG3 Early Access. It seems like a lot of starved hardcore Divinity fans with no love for the old Infinity Engine duology are asking for this game to be a serviceable spiritual successor to Divinity, or just a fresh cRPG experience altogether. It's Baldur's Gate 3, though. This should be a worthy successor to the series, and the old games are so famous and beloved in part because of the tight, faithful transposition of tabletop mechanics into a digital environment. Being able to play a campaign without your friends is what engendered so many people to the series to begin with, to leave that behind and call it Baldur's Gate 3 seems a bit silly.

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.


Agreed... and I also worry about people harping too much on the: BG is how RPG's have been done in the "olden days" and DOS are what they should be these days, which is idiotic. BG (or rather D&D) and Divinity are simple two completely different types of RPGs. Especially considering that D&D 5e is indeed a very modern, slick pen and paper system, that should lent idself very well to be translated into video game form.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.

As someone who has limited exposure the Larian's other games, but is an old-school BG fan, so far I'm a big fan of what I see from BG3.

I generally agree, it's quite an entertaining game as is. I'll be happy to play a complete version of the game more-or-less as its balanced and paced today. I'm not a doomsayer and not particularly interested in the internet style of argument where we debate whether it's the greatest thing ever or the worst piece of shovelware to hit shelves.

Suffice it to say there are number of departures from the tabletop system and I question whether or not they were made with sufficient intention. Cantrips leaving behind surfaces and having utility, for example, is a very strange decision. Without getting too into the weeds, there are a number of reasons JC was able to give 5E casters their spellcasting stat modifier to hit and, in some cases, damage, while simplifying the weapon proficiency system and giving all Ranged class weapons Dexterity to hit and damage, but the careful balancing and extensive playtesting of Cantrips was probably chief among them. Firebolt was not intended to have any utility, and fire spells which ignite surfaces explicitly say so in the rules of the PHB for balance purposes. As is, it's almost strictly better to be casting Firebolt in BG3 than using any other ranged weapon because of the DoT and potential AoE ignition damage (potential here meaning all but certain, as you can easily pull some AoE damage out of Firebolt in almost every fight.) That Larian missed this design note or simply decided to ignore it is not very encouraging and endemic to the criticisms I've seen from fans of the original duology. It changes the scope of many fights - I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a D&D campaign module where a significant portion of the damage in early 1st-3rd level encounters was environmental, discounting simple traps, which are entirely unlike barrel explosions or igniting Entangle.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
stranger
Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
" You can't have it both ways. You mention how it sucks that even with a +4 bonus you can fail. Well, the flip side is with no bonus you can still succeed. "

Wait, why do you perceive the fact that you can win a skill check with no bonus as a good thing? If everything is a Dice roll, then why should it matter what I am proficient in?

How is that fair? I mean, I know that in D&D that is how things are, but when talking about odds here, how does a warrior with no charisma persuade a lich to not suck his soul or whatever, whereas a warlock with lots of charisma, and he himself being a magic user not persuade the said lich?

Look, I`m not trying to destroy the D&D ruleset. I like the ruleset. But there are certain things that need to be addressed if we want this game to be actually enjoyable by "people", not just "D&D people".

Also I think somebody mentioned it earlier, but does it really feel rewarding when you pass a check by plain luck? Like let`s say you are supposed to intimidate a Troll to let you pass a bridge. Cool - > Intimidation/Persuasion check - > You, are a halfling cleric or whatever. You have no points in charisma/strength and you roll a Nat 20 on the check. So knowing all that, do you actually feel like you achieved something by passing that check through pure luck? I don`t.
And I`m curious what your opinion is on this issue laugh

Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11

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