Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Another new player's opinions

I'm sure there's been countless topics just like this one so I shall try to keep this one as brief as I can while getting my opinions out.



1. As the game currently stands I have a real issue calling it BG3 and not DoS3. (Other than title and location what is supposed to make this a BG game and not a DoS pretending to be BG) Not that there is anything wrong with DoS , however , there are certain features that made BG games amazing.
1a. Expand party size BG=6 people. DoS=4
1b. More companions ( Huge part of BG was the banter between different companions , whether positive or negative.)
1c. More interactions between companions. I've seen few and small comments from one to another , but it seems most interactions are between the PCs and NPCs.
1d. More variety in companion classes. Currently I know there is only 6 classes to chose from so I am hoping with the addition of more classes there will either be more companions with different classes or the ability to chose the class of the companion (including possible multiclassing without requiring it for instance if I want a druid and paladin in party)

2. Tutorial focused more on PC's chosen class.
2a. If PC is a rogue , have a trap or 2 and show how to disarm.
2b. Spell caster show benefits of cantrips vs. spells that require spell slots.

3.Rework skill systems (maybe just my experiences but that's what this thread is about)
3a. Attacks/spells missing/hitting. From my experiences so far , I've seen more misses with 75%+ and more hits on 45%- than I would expect.
3b. Being proficient with a skill seems to not really matter. For example I created a character who should be very persuasive , yet tends to fail on easy DC persuasion checks (less than 10) however when I try a skill I'm not proficient with that has a harder DC option (higher than 13) I tend to succeed. While it does feel nice succeeding something that you assumed you were going to fail at , it does make choices in character creation seem pointless.


4. Less "cheese" tactics.
4a. I know with harder difficulties in DoS a bunch of people learned ways to "cheese" encounters. IMO game should be balanced more around proper setup of a fight (scouting around the area/buffing/debuffing before fight) rather than trying to figure out how to end the fight before it even starts (example of this currently is the fight at the windmill. If you stand on the building before the stairs and range attacks the mobs , only a couple will ever even try to return attacks) IMO there's a difference between using the environment to help ease a fight (shoot something to drop heavy item on a creature) vs. using it to neglect fights.

This is a short but good feedback.

About 1d this will come.
We don't really know the number of companions they plan but we have clues.
1 companions per class is the minimum.
I hope Larian is not going to create only 8 companions... That would mean we HAVE to create a specific class for our custom character if we want to play a few classes.
That would be terrible.

I totally agree with 4, including in "cheese" : jump/disengage as a bonus action, shove as a bonus action (we have so much spells and skills to shove to push), backstab advantages, high ground advantages, Sword in candle to create a magical fire sword (dipping), OP poisons (additionnal 5D6 LOL),...

Hope they'll change all that because as you said... At the moment the game is balanced arround those terrible mechanics. It totally determine what combats are and that sucks in a game that claim to offer many choices.

If the additionnal choices are OP and determine the difficulty.of the game... That's not choices anymore : that's how we have to play and that doesn't suit a great BG game.

3.a
I did a test, 3x200 hits with different hit chances.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/kifog9/400_hits_later_numbers_dont_lie/
Numbers and % are accurate.

The game has a very strong streak of DOS2 philosophy at its core, from how the environment is made, to encounters, to cheesing in fights, to origin characters, to a complete lack of BG elements... and I am neither talking about something simple as re-using assets, code or balancing issues within action economy. (Non surprisingly) the DOS-dev team approaches every issue infront of them like they did it in DOS and then adjusts it for D&D 5e rules and polishes it with their own understanding of what is fun (=DOS).

Overall I really regret getting this game, for I didn't want to play a DOS game ever again. On the other hand from, a professional standpoint, it is interesting to get an insight into the development of this ambitious project that most likely will be again well accepted by a large market while leaving both DOS and BG hardcore fans disappointed.

Yeah, i don't doubt that. I think we as humans simply are crap when it comes to perceiving chances

Pathfinder Kingmaker on the other hand is an example for the most odd RNG that I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure it ends up with the correct distribution with very large sample sizes, but I have never before seen games with such long streaks of fails and success when facing 50%... I had 8 out 10 fails on 50%, followed by 8 of of 10 successes on 50% and stuff like that extremely often - at the end of the day its 10 fails vs 10 successes, but its still extremely unlikely to happen nearily all the time with this distribution

I had few series of 5 misses in a row during that 50% test, but this is how it works. It would be more suspicious, if every attack was a hit/miss/hit/miss...

EDIT: I just flipped a coin 10 times, guess what. 7/10 were heads. So I used an app, maybe I do It wrong. First 4 were also heads.

Well app wouldn't be the place to start as randomness generators for software are not really random, but code faking it (some more sofistacted than others as far as i understand)
And I wouldn't not have mentioned it if it was a rare occurance it actually was a majority of time, especially obvious when rolling not with d20 but d100. I much more often had streaks of 4 fails or hits on 5 attempts for 50% than other distributions combined.

Naturally my perception isn't more accurate than other people's so it can easily be just biased observation. But a appropriate analyses would require more static skills than I want to deal with since simply counting the total results isn't going to show that something was off in this case

As someone who could be called a hardcore DOS fan (though I've only played DOSII. On the other hand, I beat it about five times, plus went seven or eight times through early access and wrote a lot of the TV Tropes page for it (including quite a bit of the stuff about Sebille, more on BG I and II in a second), I am not at all disappointed, so I'm not sure if you've overstated your opinion by applying a too wide brush to opinions fans of DOS and BG or I'm just unique (and I doubt there's any way to know short of interviewing a random sample of about 1% of BG III buyers).*

On BG I and II, while I only cleared the first one once and the second one I only got about halfway through before getting bored (I'll explain why in a different thread), I can say that I see a lot of BG and D&D in this game already. Do things need to be changed up to make a better fit? Hell yeah! Does it play like DOS with a D&D skin on top or just using DOS solutions to all problems? Only if I focus on the most obvious (and in some cases, most superficial) details. Scratching the surface, I feel like it's very much a modernized BG with elements of Dragon Age in it (the origin story: basically going from a skilled nobody (in most origins) to part of something bigger without any choice in the matter, as the player character did in DA:O, though this time from the villainous side and fully animated and voiced character dialogue and cutscenes, both of which BG I and II and DOS II lacked). Also, I'm sure more ties into BG I and II will be made as we actually get closer to (and eventually into) Baldur's Gate.

* Really that's a problem I keep seeing here, people treating their own experiences and opinions as the baseline, most broadly accepted, applicable ones. It's why I always am careful to state I'm only speaking for myself, because I am. It's also why I challenge people who seem to make that mistake.

I'm not going to repeat what I've been discussing in other threads here again( ), but no, its definitely not only superficial what makes BG3 closer to DOS2 than BG. I'm also not talking about re-used assets or a stupid arguement like 'its tha engine's fault they need to pick another engine!' (that's just utter crap, as taking a look at games using Unreal and Unity shows that engines can handle very diverse games, the differences in engines are typically not really noticible for players). I'm also not talking at all about cinematics being the issue - that's just simple zeitgeist that probably we would have seen already in BG1 and 2 if it was technically possible.

If you are really interested you can check threads regarding map being too constricted and level scaling.


But yes, I painted fans too generalized. At the same time I do see a lot of complaints coming from both sides directed at exactly this. Might not be representative, but you can see the discussions at the beginning of earily access with a relatively clear split between DOS and BG fan expectations. Back then I was convinced BG3 was not too heavily influence by DOS (sharing your thoughts) - an opinion that I changed based on looking at the development approach and core decisions they made, not surperfical UI. The best discussion I've seen regaridng being a modernised BG closer to DAO was the one analysing the cinematics a couple of weeks ago.

I have read those threads, I find myself disagreeing that they're too D:OS (as a random side note, I literally wrote the TV Tropes page for level scaling, so I am very familiar with the concept), and really I didn't see any strong arguments in either that made me think that this is more like DOS II than BG II, especially in the scaling one where people kept calling the observers beholders (important because the former are much weaker than the latter, and are the sort of thing a level four party could fight), which didn't help with credability. As to maps, well that's less a BG vs DOS thing to me and more a changing from an annoying standard to one that's better to me. I hate going through constant load screens every time I transition between areas and having a big explorable map (even if it is carved into various paths) is just a QoL thing for me (To me, having numerous small areas you have to transition between makes the world feel disjointed and lacking in continuity (especially in those odd cases where you hit a random encounter that is in an environment that looks nothing like the two areas you're moving between, I remember a few of those in BG I), whereas a few big areas create the feeling of a proper world where you can actually see the changes). I think it depends on what you personally emphasize. For me it's the lore and feel of the setting, as well as various mechanics (like how combat is dealt with) that determines whether something is truly part of series x or not, not things like map size or the presence or absence of explosive barrels.

There is no judgement in quality of content by saying something is more build like DOS than BG (quality lies in the execution not these decisions themselves). You just look at it from your experience and if you like it more or not, it doesn't change the fact that there is a reasoning in doing it one way or the other. I even wrote for what they are going for it makes more sense with the system they have in place for maps, still the result is a extremely gamey experience that is closer to DOS than it is to BG/DA:O.

Edit: on a side note the level scaling thread was not just about level scaling, but also enemy design and usage, which is tided to the encounter and map design. Also neither the enemies nor the companions nor the story itself lend themselves as 'origin stories' going from nobody to hero - that's probably one of the biggest complaints in that thread and regarding the companions overall. A very stark difference to BG1 and DAO - even though DAO didn't even have you starting out as a nobody, as neither game mechanics nor story were designed in that way.

In YOUR opinion.

It doesn't feel that way to me at all (plus, as someone who lives in a very hilly area where there are areas that are like the BG III map around, sans coast of course (in fact, my options for evacuating amount to going over a very steep hill or down some narrow one lane roads that would likely be packed and you see areas that have nothing built on them because there would be too much work involved all the time, even in more built up areas), I could say that overly flat terrain feels too gamey and unforgiving if only because it doesn't give you a clue what directions you should head to get anywhere, in fact that was a criticism of several of the earlier Final Fantasy Games. Go the wrong way and you're dealing with monsters far stronger than you could hope to beat). It honestly works for me because it's basically similar to how things end up around here.

Really, IMO constrained pathing gets too gamey only when it gets near this level:



or this level:



(admittedly we have a bit of the latter now, because certain areas are not ready to be played forcing you to take other routes, but...)

And either way, it's still infinitely better and less immersion breaking than being ambushed by a trash mob moving between two maps that are supposedly right next to each other (happened too many times to count)

Just noticed your edit, and I'll say this, before going to bed: when I say nobody, I'm thinking like some poor elf in the alienage or urchin off the street (DAO and BGIII) or a casteless dwarf or some petty criminal (again DAO and BGIII), not someone who sprung into existence from nowhere, but someone who's station in life was so low that they most people didn't know or care about their existence. (I am of course speaking of custom characters).

As to level scaling and the origin stories, I believe Wyll said he thought that the tadpole was interfering with our skills and abilities somehow. He does say that he's been feeling weak since his abduction at least, which would explain starting at level one. There is in-story justification for why all the characters, no matter how highly experienced, are scaled to your level, even if they should logically be higher.

The rules are D&D but keeping in mind that this is just a setting, here is a list of what taste BG1/2 in BG3 :

- the worldmap
- (maybe) the story
- 1 origin companion (not in the game at the moment)

I don't really understand how anyone who played the old BG games can say that BG3 is closer than BG1/2 than DoS... Whatever we're talking about gameplay mechanics and game design.


Maps aren't supposed to be right next to each other whatever we're talking about BG1 or BG2.
There are always a few hours when you travel between maps.

I should add that if you had the wrong mix of characters in BG1/2 that they would eventually attack one another. But you need a lot more companions before they can throw in that mechanic.


Some were supposed to be right next to one another, like the different sections of Baldur's Gate itself or the temple directly east of the first city south whose name I forget (was it Beregost?). But I don't recall ever being waylayed by enemies travelling between them.

In BG2 there are some random encounters when travelling between districts. Not sure if they were all story / quest related, but you had those ally fights happening. Don't remember if BG1 had them as well. My recent playthrough stopped once I got to Baldur's Gate.

This is only available for Baldur's Gate and I don't remember any random encounter in the city.

About Athkathla, the district aren't completely connected.
They aren't on the worldmap and when you travel from a district to another, your party travel between undesigned areas.
When you have a random encounter in BG2, your party is always located on the worldmap between those districts.

We can cross every streets in Baldur's Gate (BG1 - 90% sure there aren't random encounters), but not in Athkathla (BG2 - 100% sure there are random encounters).

3b. Being proficient with a skill seems to not really matter. For example I created a character who should be very persuasive , yet tends to fail on easy DC persuasion checks (less than 10) however when I try a skill I'm not proficient with that has a harder DC option (higher than 13) I tend to succeed. While it does feel nice succeeding something that you assumed you were going to fail at , it does make choices in character creation seem pointless.

Your experience with rolls are anecdotal, but also just the nature of early level skill checks. You are a level 1 adventurer and your ability to influence the world isn't much greater than a commoner yet. As your character increases in level, both their attributes and proficiency bonus will increase, which will create a more pronounced effect on skill checks.

Your highest possible bonus to a skill check at Lv1 is +5(3(MOD)+2(proficiency)) without assistance from spells or expertise. A level 20 character can have a +11(5(MOD)+6(proficiency) without assistance.

I believe in one of comunity updates Swen himself was talking about not having implemented all companions yet.
Im not sure here, but i believe he was talking about having right now implemented only evil or neutral characters ... and now working on good ones.

I would also like to see more tence interactions ...
For example in so many times mentioned Dragon Age: Origins ... some companions even become hostile if you did something they didnt like, as Wynn in mage tower, when you decided to wipe our mages tells you something like "Either you can join me, or get through me ... decide now!"
Not sure if this is good example, but i would like so see simmilar reaction (just not so extreme ... more like "one of us will not follow you anymore, either i will go, or she will ... decide now!") when you are helping Lae'zel with Shadowhearth in your party.