Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 40 of 77 1 2 38 39 40 41 42 76 77
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Dunno, I am currently playing Azata and I didn´t feel that, my char was a neutral good hunter and I did not experience any issues about my alignment.
Maybe some Paths like Lich or Aeon are more restrictive? Plenty of people asked for "The good lich" trope and it seems you can do it , but I didn't get that far.



Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Just cause "Evil" was brought up... hehe

I don't know about the writing, (maybe it sounds cooler in Russian?) but one thing I did enjoy going back to 3.5 is that Alignment actually still exists there. I felt immediately at home seeing the dual Axis thing again, even if its represented by the wheel there now, since it's honestly been a while.

I think getting rid of the alignment system is a little misguided, like truly ditching a core component of what differentiated D&D from other similar games.

Perhaps its overly simplistic, sure, but it was nevertheless a D&D innovation and pretty novel. To ask players to actually think about ethics when creating a character, and to do so in a slightly more nuanced way than just "Good vs Bad, Hero or Villain?" that was a gift real from D&D, and probably my first exposure to entry level ethics as a kid.

Encouraging players to consider the idea that one might be Lawful but also Evil at the same time, or that one could be Chaotic but also essentially Good, or to be Neutral with regard to either idea, Law vs Chaos or Good vs Evil. That's rather more sophisticated than what we typically get in real life, or what happens in-game when the scheme is eliminated with nothing to replace it.

When it's gone things just sort of revert back into a simple Good vs Bad situation, pancaking everything down onto 1 Axis again.
Removing Alignment removes some of the key internal/external conflict drivers that might inform the characterization or plot/paths too. Even the cosmology scheme gets upended in its absence.

Choosing an alignment starting point (even if its a fluid system, and not fixed forever) was one of the ways to get players thinking about their character as a Character, instead of just being totally impulsive or capricious in their choices. It provided a pause and a little separation between the character's motivations and the player's motivations.

Anyhow, I miss it, and I think its absence in BG3 is notable.

I know many people say 'good riddance' or that it was too meta or too inconsistent anyway, but I think its ultimately going to hurt the D&D experience in the long term, not having Alignment anymore. Eventually they're probably just going to have to reintroduce the idea again in subsequent editions, or they'll wind up with something that can't really escape the Good/Bad binary, which is kind of boring by comparison.

It is quite interesting if you look at the history of alignment system in D&D. Evil and Good wasn't even the basis for it, it was mainly Law and Chaos, whether you are a "civilizing force" or a "savage monster".

I do think it is a helpful tool when it comes to character creation, just to flash out the moral skeleton of a pc or npc. Though some people are weird with it, like they treat alignment as it were the end and not just a mean of role-playing.

Opinions about alignments are like noses, everybody has one (besides Voldemort). It was a staple in D&D and other games based on it for years. I have mixed feelings about it, because of the varied opinions about it, what @Spacehamster said and because alignment could be used as an excuse for some pernicious behaviours ( the chaotic stupid, the lawful stupid, the chaotic murder hobo evil), but that said, as a mechanic is useful because it adds some axis for abilities, spells, creature templates, planes, etc .

In a videogame, it becomes more interesting because it adds replayability. A character of different alignment could have options that a lawful good character would not have, so you have reasons to play another run and have a different experience. Also if you have the option to switch alignments while playing you could experience that your character is evolving and reacts to the world, that your decisions are making changes.
I do not say Kingmaker, NWN2, Wotr and other games did it perfectly, but it´s a fun thing (at least for me) to add to a videogame.

I understand in D&D5e alignment is not a central mechanic and it´s not encouraged but I miss an alignment system in BG3 too, for tradition and because of how could enrich your experience.

And to have endless debates in the forums about alignment. It´s been a classic since bg2 and before!

Last edited by _Vic_; 13/09/21 12:12 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I would say Azata might be the most flexible path of the ones I played in terms of alignment. Demon is possible as a good character, but like I said the game will punish you for playing that way. But like I said before, not sure it's a bad thing


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Jan 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
My problem with the alignment system was always that tying it to race feels a bit fantasy eugenics-y. But they've mostly fixed that these days and it corresponds more to religion and social mores, at least if I'm understanding the cosmology correctly.

Also picked up WoTR and completed the first act. It seems decent so far but I'm not particularly blown away by anything. I'm playing cavalier and the opening dungeon crawler happens in a lot of tight corridors, making it easy for my horse to constantly get stuck. Also, there are a lot of trashmobs. RtwP helps alleviate the tedium a bit but it feels more like a band aide than anything. Even though Woljff and Nenio are probably my favorite companions so far, the introduction of Seelah made me realize how much I agree with people asking for a straight up 'good' companion in BG3. Wyll and Gale are bros (although I remain wary of Gale) but they're also clearly hiding some messed up secrets.

A lot of the WoTR VA work and dialogue is straight up awful, though. Just way too clunky and expository. One thing BG3 really hits out of the park is the voice acting, something that even with a budget can be tricky to get right. Kudos to them for that.

Edit: I’ll also add that WoTR is so far doing a better job balancing player freedom and narrative restrictions. BG3’s design philosophy feels a bit too sandbox at times and it gets in the way of the story they’re trying to tell.

Last edited by MyriadHappenings; 14/09/21 03:34 AM.

“But his mind saw nothing of all this. His mind was engaged in a warfare of the gods. His mind paced outwards over no-man's-land, over the fields of the slain, paced to the rhythm of the blood's red bugles. To be alone and evil! To be a god at bay. What was more absolute?”
Joined: Nov 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2015
Originally Posted by MyriadHappenings
Also picked up WoTR and completed the first act. It seems decent so far but I'm not particularly blown away by anything. I'm playing cavalier and the opening dungeon crawler happens in a lot of tight corridors, making it easy for my horse to constantly get stuck. Also, there are a lot of trashmobs. RtwP helps alleviate the tedium a bit but it feels more like a band aide than anything. Even though Woljff and Nenio are probably my favorite companions so far, the introduction of Seelah made me realize how much I agree with people asking for a straight up 'good' companion in BG3. Wyll and Gale are bros (although I remain wary of Gale) but they're also clearly hiding some messed up secrets.

+1 both to your general assessment and your reaction to Seelah. I'm hopeful, since Larian did say we were getting the neutral/evil characters first, that the good companions in BG3 just haven't been revealed yet (perhaps because their classes haven't been implemented yet), but I do hope that not everyone is as high maintenance and prone to exotic troubles as the first batch of BG3 companions.

I'm struggling to figure out why I haven't enjoyed WotR more--why it isn't engaging me more. Part of it's the bugginess and the fear that if I don't seek out spoilers the game is going to lure me to dead ends: builds that may rely on abilities that don't yet work properly or which just aren't suited to the immunities of this campaign, the need for meta knowledge to know which quests need to be done before timed events in order not to be shut out of things I want to experience, apprehension about the state of campaign mode, among other things. Also without anything being really wrong, the game just isn't luring me to turn the next corner in the expectation that I might see or experience something interesting.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah I guess maybe I was lucky in that Alignment was never really presented to me as a hard restriction, but rather as a tool to explain the cosmology, or to understand a given character's place within it. Often alignment was hidden anyway, except from the DM. Paladin's were always a special case and a special class I suppose, since you knew where they stood (with high rolls! lol), but I think they ended up kind of overshadowing and dumbing down the whole alignment construct by making it overly litigious. Other classes had Alignment restrictions too, but they were usually more amorphous and easier to work within or to rationalize for characterization. The generalized "Good" for Rangers say, or the "Neutrality" of Druids etc. Paladin was never a class I really wanted to play, so maybe the DMs got off easy there hehe. But it seems Alignment has since turned into something more vague, like a personal Ethos, rather than a scheme for explaining the cosmic forces that are actually supposed to be governing the game-world and the planes of existence.

I guess I should clarify, I know Alignment hasn't disappeared from D&D altogether, but it does seem to be getting nixed from the Computer/Videogame adaptations. I think what we get in its absence is a flattening down into a much more simplistic Heroic vs Villainous concept. Perhaps that's all most people really need, and they should just make it a binary choice? But there's something charming about the older scheme which had some obliques to it.

Not that Pathfinder is doing anything particularly brilliant with Alignment there, usually its just another dialog option in the multiple choice spread, but I like that they still made it a part of character creation.

Oh I recall hearing that too, that the Law and Chaos Axis was the earlier development conceptually. I thought that was interesting! Curious as well that there was some resistance to including the second Axis as "Good vs Evil" initially, for fear it would overshadow or subsume the Alignment system completely, which I suppose it sort of did. Once they included Good and Evil, Alignment quickly blinks into a Gods vs Devils thing, cause the Celestial/Infernal angle is so readily adapted into a medieval-like setting. Its hard for Law vs Chaos to compete conceptually with like Angels and Demons swooping in swinging flaming swords, so Law/Chaos was basically subordinated and became the secondary Axis I think, at least in most people's heads. Except maybe for explaining the Dragons, or the Gnomes, or why stealing is ok in this particular instance lol.

Alignment choices and concepts are only interesting in so far as the Game/DM actually makes them relevant to the gameplay, so the Good vs Evil Axis was bound to take over there probably, just cause its more familiar like from christian mythology or whatever. Law vs Chaos is somewhat less flashy by comparison.

I can also see why the Law vs Chaos Axis is a bit problematic in itself, just from the language chosen. For starters Chaos is kind of a pejorative. Not as pejorative as Evil, sure, but it comes close. In Ancient Greek the word meant void or abyss, but the game presents it more like randomness or caprice. What we get there in D&D might have been better framed as Chance, like the randomness of the ancient atomists, instead of Chaos. Similarly Order, like the logos of the stoics, might have been a better word choice than Law. Law makes it sound rather mundane like "who's law?" as opposed to an overarching cosmic principle.

It's easy to predict where the hangups might occur when trying to parse things out that way. I mean it still needs to be a game right, not a philosophy class hehe. But maybe that's another approach, like separating off Good and Evil into its own thing, then create an alternative Axis with new terms that connects to the game world in novel ways. The game frequently traffics in ideas of Will vs Fatalism, so that might have been another way to frame out an Axis for character development. Or perhaps something like an Individualism vs Communitarian Axis or Ego vs Other Axis. Like how acquisitive a character is, or for what ends? Obviously that doesn't sound as cool as Good vs Evil lol. But Good vs Evil often just devolves into Angels vs Demons, like what we saw in ToB or which we definitely see in WotR, without really showcasing the equivalent extremes along the Law vs Chaos divide. Like maybe it would be more interesting if the main plot choices we were given wasn't between supporting the Good Dragon people vs the Evil Bug Demon people, but rather between two competing Demonic factions, one Lawful and one Chaotic. Or two Angels, one lawful and one chaotic. Or just do it like that with the various colored Dragons, since there's plenty of lore there to build on.

I think BG3 could do one better, especially with the tadpole thing, but I worry they'll just do the usual, Good vs Bad with not much between. In games like that you lose a bit in party diversity, because it's hard to justify characters with opposing alignments grouping together. Instead you get a Good Guys party or a Bad Guys party, or a Heroic path vs Villainous path without much crossover, which would be too bad.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 14/09/21 07:06 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Regarding alignment, on the owlcat forums people gave examples of how paladins lose their status because the good options in dialogue shifts a character towards (neutral good). My character's alignment seems to be travelling on the circle (?), instead of moving just along the axis depending on the dialogue choices. Tbh at this point I am not sure whether it works as as good/evil and lawful/neutral, or still works like in PK, only with less choices in dialogues.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I noticed the same. I think they made their scheme rather too fluid, because it seems that just a few dialog choices can shift your initial alignment choice pretty rapidly.

Having your Class abilities nerfed out of existence just from selecting a few arbitrary one liners in convo, that feels like the sort of thing Niara mentioned, like the DM just brow-beating or trying to micromanage a player character by proxy using the alignment system.

Bioware did similar things for Paladins in BG2, but it was always presented as a redemption questline, and the breakpoint was pretty obvious and straightforward, quick to resolve. WotR seems to have this stuff more automated, which has definite downsides. Probably they will need to introduce something similar to reputation in BG1/2, but where praying or donating to a temple can put the character's alignment back on track. Otherwise I think players will probably find it pretty frustrating.

Another approach would to only offer special "Alignment" dialogs that support the characters chosen alignment, and not those which break with it. Or else denoting it somehow more clearly if the choice is going to be really consequential, like with a [break alignment] prefix or something? I haven't played enough of the game to tell whether their implementation is ultimately satisfying or not, but it was one of the things that stood out to me going from BG3 to Pathfinder just to see the choices on offer again. I hope BG3 finds ways to keep the flavor, even if it's not really built-in the way it used to be.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 14/09/21 07:04 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Imryll
I'm struggling to figure out why I haven't enjoyed WotR more--why it isn't engaging me more. Part of it's the bugginess and the fear that if I don't seek out spoilers the game is going to lure me to dead ends: builds that may rely on abilities that don't yet work properly or which just aren't suited to the immunities of this campaign, the need for meta knowledge to know which quests need to be done before timed events in order not to be shut out of things I want to experience, apprehension about the state of campaign mode, among other things. Also without anything being really wrong, the game just isn't luring me to turn the next corner in the expectation that I might see or experience something interesting.

I had a pretty similar feeling, I gotta say.

Just another point of comparison that hasn't been brought up much yet, but the different ways BG3 and Pathfinder approach Maps.

I'm a big fan of maps, and typically appreciate a good world map with some interactivity. But I think Pathfinder leans on it too heavily, and introduces it too quickly. Too much of the game takes place on that map I think, which makes the gameworld feel somehow more disjointed than connected. Its a weird thing too, because at first the map was something that impressed me quite a lot. Its a different approach than I've seen lately so it felt kind of classic, and I liked the throw back game table vibe. But the more time I spend navigating around, the more I miss the more simplistic approach of BG. You know, where walking to the edge of one area naturally brought you to the next "area." In WotR the map definitely feels like an expedient, like where the game couldn't really function otherwise and they needed an easy way to stitch stuff together. WotR is just showing me too much map I guess, and it pulls me out of the adventure somehow. Which is a little weird, cause again, I love maps!

In BG3 I have like the exact opposite impression, I guess because we haven't really seen much of the map since the EA game pretty much ends at the first transition. Hard to say how it will feel once that part of the game is opened up. But in BG3 the map, and by that I guess I mean more the minimap, feels like a hinderance. Like it doesn't present enough information to really feel useful, and I find that if I look at it too much I get more disoriented than if I'd just been paying attention to the environments instead. In BG3 the minimap is supposed to stand in for the actual environment you're currently walking around in, but it's hard to tell what's a path vs cliff or what's a door vs a wall, the elevation and topography just kinda gets lost in the muddle, and I find it difficult to tell where the camera is oriented relative to the characters/map. I've tried it both ways, with the orientation locked and free rotating, but neither feels particularly comfortable.

WotR doesn't provide a minimap, but instead gives an area map, similar to what we had in BG1/2. But its super awkward to use too, and I think is maybe even more disorienting for me than the BG3 mini map. The jump to view doesn't seem to work very well in either game. I think what I miss most is being able to issue movement commands from the mini map or jump to area view, like if its going to exist that would be what I want it for, which neither game really provides. I don't know that Pathfinder can do much at this point to make their map system more engaging for me, but BG3 certainly still has time to put some work in.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 14/09/21 07:24 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Regarding alignment, on the owlcat forums people gave examples of how paladins lose their status because the good options in dialogue shifts a character towards (neutral good). My character's alignment seems to be travelling on the circle (?), instead of moving just along the axis depending on the dialogue choices. Tbh at this point I am not sure whether it works as as good/evil and lawful/neutral, or still works like in PK, only with less choices in dialogues.

I haven’t read the owlcat forums, but I can understand why selecting too many good options and not enough lawful would do that.

Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
On the subject of maps, chapter 4 is so different from how the entire rest of the game is structured that the sheer contrast makes it that much more striking. Like to be as vague as possible, there's zero access to the world map for the entirety of that chapter, and there are different ways to get to various areas. I'd say it's actually the closest the game gets to DOS/BG3 in map design philosophy.

---

There are in-game hints that seemingly point to the next game likely being Ruins of Azlant rather than the previously believed Iron Gods. From what I've looked into how the AP is structured, it's based around an attempt to colonize a former continent and cradle of human civilization, that got shattered into a chain of islands by an event called Earthfall in the super distant past (something a certain recurring NPC exclusive to the cRPGs has a deep connection to). The first half of the AP seemingly focuses on the settlement itself with survival/mystery themes (and I bring this up because it sounds like there won't be much of a world map to speak of), and the last half shifts gears into dungeon delving into a bunch of ancient ruins. The big feature of the AP is apparently underwater combat. It seems like a really interesting premise.

---

How has my playthrough been going so far? I just hit chapter 3 myself, and...

[Linked Image from cdn.discordapp.com]

...Yeah. Single classed Eldritch Archer gonna Eldritch Archer. Before anyone asks, I didn't roll 4 separate crits in a row, what happens is that Eldritch Archer gets the ability to infuse certain spells into their first arrow every round. The downside is that this converts the compatible spells from targeting touch AC into actual AC, and that one roll will determine whether both the arrow and the entirety of the spell hits or misses. But if that initial arrow crits, especially with a Scorching Ray behind it... The results are pretty explosive. Especially since Scorching Ray normally rolls each ray separately, but EA's ranged spellstrike apparently has them all use the same attack roll.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 14/09/21 07:31 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
The other nice thing about alignment systems is that they can provide a useful guideline for writing different types of dialogue. I’ve seen some complaints at the way WoTR split good/evil and neutral/lawful/chaotic, but so far I enjoy the way it diversifies dialogue options. Although a lot of the evil options don’t seem terribly well-written. BG3 has that issue too but it’s pretty easy to play as evil without necessarily siding with the goblins.

The tadpole has interesting implications because it’s a fairly obvious metaphor for power—much like the angelic powers you receive in WoTR. But, because using the tadpole isn’t necessarily tied to certain paths the way using your angelic powers are (aeon, devil, hero, etc.) it can open up some different role playing angles on how a character approaches power and at what point they’re willing to justify using something to service either a form of altruism or their own personal survival. It has potential and hopefully Larian can make it work.

Two other things about WoTR:

I can’t believe I tried to romance the gay guy in yet another rpg. My gaydar is seriously whack. (And you can’t just give me the fantasy equivalent of ‘draw me like one of your French girls’ and expect me not to pick that option, wtf.) On a more serious note, I do wish there was a black romance option available for a female pc. It would be nice to romance a black dude that’s not freaking Jacob from ME. Or even a girl, hell, I’m fine with playing a lesbian. Just give me something.

And also, something I like about BG3 is that it ties dialogue not necessarily to alignment but to class and race. In WoTR I picked a dhampir expecting some interesting new dialogue akin to playing as a drow or githyanki in BG3. And so far I’ve got an animation for inflict wounds at the start and not much else. Which is a cute detail but not all that narratively compelling. WoTR has a lot of depth to its class system but it seems almost entirely rooted in the combat (yes, there are persuasive dialogue options but that’s a flat stat dump with zero connection to your background) as opposed to social situations. And as someone who doesn’t mind combat in rpgs but isn’t all that invested in them either, this is a tad disappointing. My main character is an aasimar and I’ve had maybe two characters note this in some fashion.


“But his mind saw nothing of all this. His mind was engaged in a warfare of the gods. His mind paced outwards over no-man's-land, over the fields of the slain, paced to the rhythm of the blood's red bugles. To be alone and evil! To be a god at bay. What was more absolute?”
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by MyriadHappenings
Two other things about WoTR:

I can’t believe I tried to romance the gay guy in yet another rpg. My gaydar is seriously whack. (And you can’t just give me the fantasy equivalent of ‘draw me like one of your French girls’ and expect me not to pick that option, wtf.)

You have to respect Daeran's audacity. He almost won me over too, but my heart is committed to Arueshalae.

The best part is the entire rest of the council reacting to his shenanigans, especially when...

...You walk into the command room during early chapter 3 and find that Daeran somehow managed to fill it full of giant pots of roses. First thing I did was get on the Owlcat discord and ask if the roses stay there for the rest of the chapter, but apparently the rest of the party/council throws them out after a while. frown

Also, the logistics half of the crusade system is certainly flavorful. The council meetings really bring the party's personality to the table, and the problem cards actually have meaningful choices.

But I have to say, for that one problem card where you're told that shopkeepers brought in cats to keep the vermin away but the crusaders had fears that demons might masquerade as them... If you chose the option to cull the cats, we can never be friends.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 14/09/21 07:41 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
I was more referring to Sosiel, although I have been pleasantly surprised by Daeran. I thought myself tired of the hedonistic evil archetype so often portrayed in media (I don’t outright dislike Astarion but he’s probably my least favorite bg3 companion so far) and yet Daeran straddles the line just perfectly.

Also, yes. Cat cullers must be excommunicated lol. Even evil people need some cats around to stroke while seated in a villainous manner.


“But his mind saw nothing of all this. His mind was engaged in a warfare of the gods. His mind paced outwards over no-man's-land, over the fields of the slain, paced to the rhythm of the blood's red bugles. To be alone and evil! To be a god at bay. What was more absolute?”
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Regarding alignment, on the owlcat forums people gave examples of how paladins lose their status because the good options in dialogue shifts a character towards (neutral good). My character's alignment seems to be travelling on the circle (?), instead of moving just along the axis depending on the dialogue choices. Tbh at this point I am not sure whether it works as as good/evil and lawful/neutral, or still works like in PK, only with less choices in dialogues.

I haven’t read the owlcat forums, but I can understand why selecting too many good options and not enough lawful would do that.
I think it depends on how the alignment shifts are coded, which I am not sure about. Unlike in PK, here you have only four choices represented in dialogues. So the question is whether they correlate with moving along one axis on the alignment circle, or if they are basically the neutral good and neutral evil options from PK, just renamed. Same for lawful & chaotic, no idea if they are on an axis, or are just lawful/chaotic neutral.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't know if it's on topic, but just since the romance thirst was brought up hehe. One thing that's sort of curious about every D&D computer game ever made, is how the Protagonist is always assumed to be single, with like no family, and already at the point where they have nothing left to lose when the game begins. I mean virtually every plot opener is orphan/amnesia driven, where the PC is already totally unencumbered, with no obligations, but also no real reason to care. Like beyond some vague self preservation concept or even vaguer altruistic one.

Sure they give you some background options to be a street urchin or whatever, but none of those ever include the old ball and chain, or like a kid in tow, or something with some real impact like that. Something that could potentially light a fire under the PCs ass, give them a purpose or a personal goal that makes sense as a character driver. Or which could make the animus the character feels towards the game's primary antagonist into something much more personal.

For a game system that traffics so readily in well worn cliches, and where players are obviously pretty keen on romance, they never really use the idea to help establish the PC, or to set up some relatable motivations there. Like why the PC is so dead set on campaigning in the first place. Instead of always expecting the player to instantly give a shit about regional political intrigues or the impersonal machinations of some random Dragon or Demon. How about something that hits closer to home? You know, like they just killed your dad ala BG1? Or kidnapped your sister ala BG2? Or you wake up, and suddenly remember you have a wife who you need to get back to, like Odysseus at Calypso's place. Oh fuck! lol

There just seems like a lot of places they could go with it, and hundreds of movie/character intros they could just rip off, if they're really struggling that hard to get creative. It doesn't need to be insanely complex, there are a lot of stock backstory tropes one could choose to play off of, that would still make the protagonist more interesting than an amnesiac who can remember everything in their spellbook, but like nothing notable from their previous life beyond that.

When I first launched BG3, I got kind of excited, because I thought the whole "who do you dream of" follow on to Char creation, might actually try to set something up along those lines. I also got excited by the word Origins, until I realized that what they meant by it had nothing to do with the custom PC.

But honestly, even if it was totally cliche... Say the PC creates a dream lover who then gets immediately fridged in the opener, slayed by Gobbos or whatever, they could still use the inputs there to determine what the PC is after in a generalized sort of way. Then feed it back to them later on, with a companion down the line who sort of fits the bill. I think Niara mentioned a similar idea in one of the other threads, but basically giving the player a way into the plot that also provides a template for what sort of romances or subplots and such might get thrown their way over the course of the campaign.

NPC companions are often compelling in these games, precisely because they can have those sort of familial ties, or obligations, or relatable backstory motivations pulling them around, that the PC typically doesn't get to have. Not in a crpg anyway. Creating a simple system for the PCs to design an origin and then have that actually feed into the main plot drivers would be pretty cool. Sure they couldn't really do it justice in the 80s or 90s, but we've come a long way. I mean it would certainly be a lot cooler than just filling in the blanks for the player, or making their character for them, which is what the BG3 Origins strike me as right now. Rather than writing a mini bio, which is the method in PnP, perhaps the game gives you a series of prompts when the Illithids are mind probing you, helping to craft a character Origin that you can actually care about and get into?

I'm sure the standard retort would be that there are just too many permutations to account for, but I'm not really sure that's the case. I bet they could distil it down to like a dozen openers that would cover most of the bases. Or even if they didn't want to go that far, they could at least go there with the dream lover bit to give us a bit more than the daisy doll.

Joined: Jan 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
That’s something I’ve pondered myself. Games like Disco Elysium and Planescape Torment explore pre-established bonds throughout their stories, but they also incorporate amnesia as a tool to keep both the protagonist and the player in the dark about the extent of these bonds. They’re also fairly cerebral high concept games while stuff like BG3 and Pathfinder are more straightforward power fantasy adventure stories. (Which is fine, to be clear, I enjoy both.)

Then there’s something like Mass Effect Andromeda (yes, yes, please don’t stone me, I know the game isn’t good but it’s my guilty pleasure) which has a relationship with a twin, father, and mother that you can unlock as you progress to the story—but ME games utilize a sort of half-and-half protagonist that’s a mix of, say, a Geralt (established character you guide) and a blank slate.

I think Dragon Age Origins is the only Baldur’s Gate styled rpg I can recall off the top of my head that lets you potentially establish a romantic relationship with npcs before the main story kicks in (dwarf noble, city elf, and human) but the relationship pretty much never sticks. It would’ve been a cool option if we could have, like, a wife to defend from the darkspawn. And similarly for, say, BG3, if you’re a Baldurian, it’d be cool if there was a way to meet your family upon return to Baldur’s Gate.

Last edited by MyriadHappenings; 14/09/21 11:42 AM.

“But his mind saw nothing of all this. His mind was engaged in a warfare of the gods. His mind paced outwards over no-man's-land, over the fields of the slain, paced to the rhythm of the blood's red bugles. To be alone and evil! To be a god at bay. What was more absolute?”
Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
[Linked Image from cdn.discordapp.com]

...Yeah. Single classed Eldritch Archer gonna Eldritch Archer. Before anyone asks, I didn't roll 4 separate crits in a row, what happens is that Eldritch Archer gets the ability to infuse certain spells into their first arrow every round. The downside is that this converts the compatible spells from targeting touch AC into actual AC, and that one roll will determine whether both the arrow and the entirety of the spell hits or misses. But if that initial arrow crits, especially with a Scorching Ray behind it... The results are pretty explosive. Especially since Scorching Ray normally rolls each ray separately, but EA's ranged spellstrike apparently has them all use the same attack roll.
I played around with Regongar a lot in my 1st playthrough of Kingmaker, with lots of different weapons, and it was fun, but at some point in my 2nd playthrough I suddenly had doubts about the value of the ability to "infuse a touch spell into a basic attack" - one combined attack against normal AC vs. one normal attack against normal AC plus one touch attack against touch AC. Because the touch attack against touch AC is always going to have much better chance to hit, why should I want to infuse it into a normal attack against normal AC? The end results in the majority of cases are the same in the two cases: one weapon damage dice roll plus one spell damage dice roll. The only upside I can think of for the infused attack is that, with a single dice roll if you roll a crit then both the weapon damage and the spell damage will crit, as opposed to trying to get two separate crits for two separate attacks. But this is way too marginal. The harder the enemy i.e. the harder to hit this enemy is, the less incentive you have to want to go for the infused attack.

You can improve it a bit by using a keen weapon with threat range 15-20 to increase your crit chance of that one attack. Or you can also use some funky weapons that have bonus damage properties, and the spell damage in your infused attack will proc the bonus damage from the weapon again. It's amusing but but even with all this, the whole "infusing spells into attacks' mechanics of Magus suddenly become very iffy, and if you decide to not use it anymore then the class just kinda loses a lot of its identity. You'd mostly be just a regular fighter mage like in BG/BG2.

Last edited by Try2Handing; 14/09/21 11:56 AM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
PSA for Fellow WoTR Players: DO NOT use the respec function:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_Kingmaker/comments/pnzyzj/avoid_respecs_until_the_next_patch/

Quote
Crusaders! An important announcement: We are now working on an issue that turned out to be really serious and the fix deeply affected the internal structure of the game. Please note that if you saved after using respec in Act II or further, your saved game may remain corrupted, potentially blocking your playthrough. Mythic Demon and Lich are the most affected by this problem. We are very sorry for the inconvenience caused, and strongly recommend to revert back to a save made before respeccing. Please stay away of the respec function up until the next patch. The problem will be gone then.

Quote
A bit of clarification on this:

The issue is that respec bug was affecting the mechanics so deeply, that we were not able to guarantee that your game will manage to repair itself even after the fix is deployed. I.e. things may be so broken in a given playthrough after respec, that even a fix won't help it. Highest chance to bump into this is with demon and lich mythics, other mythics have a chance to be affected, but it's considerably lower.

It does not necessarily mean your game won't work or that it will suddenly stop working after the patch - it simply means that if it was already broken, there's a chance it will remain such. Thus we recommend to revert back to an old save if possible.

Patch itself is about to come really shortly. Issue is fixed there and respeccing after patch is no longer dangerous.

Apparently it's the Demon and LIch campaign's that are most affected. Owlcat hasn't been clear on how to determine if your save game has issues. I'm personally losing about 7-8 hours of gameplay if I have to back (having respecced on Sunday), though I'm playing an Angel so I might just risk it. Make sure you do not respec for now.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Yep, just saw this. I've used the respec option in Act 2. I think I won't continue my current playthrough, it's a bit too similar to how it felt playing Kingmaker when it came out.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
More information from Owlcat in that same reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder...id_respecs_until_the_next_patch/hct7ft5/

Quote
Question:
What is the issue caused that crops up later? When does the game break if this bug does appear?

Answer:
I know that there's a high chance you won't be able to enter the prison if you respecced as a demon.

Quote
Question:
Is there anything we should look out for that might indicate a corrupted save? Also do you know if it's caused by respeccing to a different mythic path, or is it just respeccing in general?

Answer:
If you see mythic quests behaving oddly in later chapters (uninteractable NPCs, non-appearing NPCs, non-opening locations), that is most likely it. It is reported that demon breaks almost 100% if respecced, lich has a relatively high chance, for others chance to get it broken is more or less minor.

Caused by any respec that touches your main character, not just mythic path respec. Companions are not affected.

I've been enjoying WotR very much, it's brilliant despite having some major flaws. This is quite discouraging though.

Page 40 of 77 1 2 38 39 40 41 42 76 77

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