Hello everyone. I'm looking forward to the game but there is one thing that worries me. I don't know how similar in terms of game mechanics this game will be compared to Divinity OS 2 but if its all about the levels again, and if the difference between one level and another is so huge then count me out. That was Div's biggest flaw, because it made the game so linear. You had to feel your way across the map trying to find something to do at your level, blocked everywhere else by fights you had no chance of winning because you were a couple of levels too low. You had no choice but to take the path of least resistance. It removes any incentive for me to replay the game, because every playthrough will be the same.
It wouldn't be so bad if the difficulty options were better balanced. I've tried Explorer and Classic and have a hard time enjoying it on either setting because Classic is too hard for me but Explorer was too easy.
That's just me personally. I would be interested to know if they've addressed some of these issues in any of their announcements about the game. Sorry I'm a little late to the party.
I had a similar experience in dos 2 as well. Classic was a little tough and felt like it slowed the game down too much, explorer was too easy. But for me personally I feel like that happens in a lot of games, between the "normal" and "hard" difficulty settings. As for your actual question, I have no idea
I hope they learned their lesson from previous games.
It´s just a guess but if the game would be based on the 5th edition of D&D and that is not as equipment-centered (you have a limit on how many magic items you can attune, for example) and the equipment rules are much more balanced. They have advisors from WotC and they have 5 years of experience making loot tables for their campaigns. You can even download loot tables online per level for your campaign if you want to.
Unless they give you the deck of many things at level one I do not think that would be a problem, but let´s see.
If 5e is anything like low levels in IE then it should be even more impactful. While in BG2 you can power through many encounters by smart use of spells, scrolls, and items, in early BG you are completely at the mercy of the dice - and that gets in your favour with levels/better equipment.
I don’t know with 5th edition solved spellcasters problem - them being fairly useless on low levels and supremely powerful in late ones.
IS truth that they confirmed that wish will be in the game? If yes, it should be a EPIC quest to get wish and should be like one wish per campaign.
About dos2, i din't liked the eqquipment fever, the cooldowns, archers limited to 13m, necromancers to one summon, lets hope that Larian makes BG3 more old school like and less modern like. DOS2 is a good game, is just not for me who can't enjoy this modern mechanics and who has my immersion broken by this mechanics...
Well max lvl is 10 so no wish spell (excluding scrolls, magic items etc which won't have it anyway). Difficulty will be based upon levels as per DnD 5e. I'm curious what the difference between 'Normal' difficulty , 'hard' and 'easy'. No. of enemies? Hp? Availability of health potions?
I would prefer higher difficulty changes AI, enemy skills etc so each combat is both harder and different. Increases replayability. And difficulty is Optional so more casual players are not put off.
What will be good is if a wish scroll is integrated to the MC. For example, if the "tadpole" already damaged severely your character and can't be removed by conventional healing magic, so you need to find a wish spell scroll and once you get it, you need to do a moral choice ie - heal everyone including a enemy, heal only yourselves, etc
I dont know about wish spells, but maybe there will be an option to not fully reject the mind flayer "lifestyle". Maybe not became one but keep mind powers at certain risk to yourself and BG.
I don’t know with 5th edition solved spellcasters problem - them being fairly useless on low levels and supremely powerful in late ones.
High tier spells are far more limited. You can no longer have 6 wishes or 6 Stop time casts as a lv 20 sorcerer. A lv 20 warlock has only one use of tier 6/7/8/9 spells per long rest. High level spells are also much more nerfed. Finger of Death no longers OHKills. Metamagic is restricted to sorcerer BUT at low levels, casters has at will cantrips.
Eldritch Blast is the best cantrip by far. At lv2 you can pick Agonizing Blast, making your Eldritch blast into a force/charisma based heavy crossbow with unlimited ammo. So, casters are still much weaker than fighters at low level and much stronger at higher levels, but the difference is far smaller than on 3.5e.
IMO they should gave some unique abilities to martial classes on higher level, for example, Barbarians able to make people flee in terror if they fail in a intimidation check on mid combat, act like Guts from Berserker with Berserker armor, gaining DR and regen while raging, and superhuman STR/CON rangers to prepare deadly poisons that OHK on failed save or to have a huge critical range and TAME animals based on a check. Able to cripple the enemy with well placed shots also will be good.
Well max lvl is 10 so no wish spell (excluding scrolls, magic items etc which won't have it anyway). Difficulty will be based upon levels as per DnD 5e. I'm curious what the difference between 'Normal' difficulty , 'hard' and 'easy'. No. of enemies? Hp? Availability of health potions?
I would prefer higher difficulty changes AI, enemy skills etc so each combat is both harder and different. Increases replayability. And difficulty is Optional so more casual players are not put off.
If they have access to WoTC resources and it´s based in 5e, increasing the difficulty is as easy as increase (or decrease) the CR level of the encounters. There are tables that allow you to do that in DM and campaign resource materials. To increase the level of the encounter those tables usually increase the enemies´ stats, numbers, add new abilities or equipment, depending on the creatures.
Yes and no. DOS2 wasn't strictly level-reliant; it was overly loot-reliant. Weapons and armor scaled *way* too much with item level - which tied into your level progression. A simple mod to alter the scaling made this much less of an issue however. D&D 5e is strictly more level-reliant, especially so at lower levels, but since BG3 will be *much* less loot-reliant, the impact should be lessened. The tactics; from the unprecedented verticality and mobility to interactive environment, will matter that much more.
I have no issues with the game being linear; open world mostly only makes sense in sandbox-games and MMOs. BG2 was somewhat linear; several chapters were location and story progression locked, but in the open regions you could skip ahead to more dangerous areas though it was counterproductive to do so. Mostly an illusion of freedom. The replayability of DOS2 lies in the origin stories and the choices taken, *not* in the order of which you encounter the enemies. In BG3, the generic characters will be put on somewhat equal footing with the origin stories for even more replayability. Considering most gamers, allegedly 9 out of 10, don't even finish a game though...the issue of linear vs non-linear is a matter only for the most hardcore fans who likes to play the game a certain way.
its based on dnd and only has 10 levels in total What do you bloody think?
I have no effing idea, pal. That's why I'm asking people who have more knowledge than me.
Comments like this contribute absolutely nothing to the conversation. You may as well have just made a funny noise for all the good your comment did. I dunno, maybe you do that in real life. Do you just stroll up to people who are in the middle of a discussion, make a fart noise and then stroll away. Is that just the kind of guy you are? In other words a waste of space.
I have no issues with the game being linear; open world mostly only makes sense in sandbox-games and MMOs. BG2 was somewhat linear; several chapters were location and story progression locked, but in the open regions you could skip ahead to more dangerous areas though it was counterproductive to do so. Mostly an illusion of freedom. The replayability of DOS2 lies in the origin stories and the choices taken, *not* in the order of which you encounter the enemies. In BG3, the generic characters will be put on somewhat equal footing with the origin stories for even more replayability. Considering most gamers, allegedly 9 out of 10, don't even finish a game though...the issue of linear vs non-linear is a matter only for the most hardcore fans who likes to play the game a certain way.
That's a good point. If its going to be linear maybe they should have the recommended level in the journal, like Witcher 3 (if memory serves)? Then you wouldn't feel like you're hitting your head against a brick wall so much as you run into one impossible battle after another until you find something you can handle.
Have you ever played Gothic 1 and 2? They used a similar system of locking off areas with very difficult enemies, which felt natural and organic and man was it engaging, because you were always so keen to level up so you could take on that dragon snapper or that troll or whatever had peeled you. But at the same time there was a large chunk of the game world that was accessible, so you didn't get the feeling that you were blocked at every turn. And there were quite often ways you could use the environment to your advantage and get a higher level kill and boy was it rewarding when you found that nice sword it was guarding.
I think maybe Larian had been going for that sort of thing but I don't think they handled it as well.
Have you ever played Gothic 1 and 2? They used a similar system of locking off areas with very difficult enemies, which felt natural and organic and man was it engaging,
A unarmed guy taking out a shadowbeast at lv 0
There are a huge difference between Gothic and TB/RtWP CRPG. Gothic depends a lot on player input(mainly melee) while this RPG's depends much more on character stats. It is also possible to get really powerful weapons like Lars Axe on G1 relative early on.
The difference is that on a D&D game, if you got lucky, you can in a single dominate spell, turn a enemy into a allied and CHANGE the result of the battle. On DOS2, this is impossible due the mechanics like armor, cooldowns, etc.