Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 92 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 91 92
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Imma add my 2 cents to this conversation and say no, stick with 4. MAYBE 5, but thats absolutely it.

All this nonsense that players are saying about conversations should be with everyone involved, huge parties, and what have you. This is 2020, games are no longer easy, or handed to you. You have to actually -PLAY- them, and that means making, (everyone duck!), decisions!

Everyone can talk in one conversation? Offering their rolls to conversational choices? Why have choices at all then? You are loading the dice. How is this even fun when you "win" every conversation? Why. Roll. The. Dice. At. All.

6 member party? Why choose what classes you want to bring that would be best for whatever situation? You aren't making any decisions at this point, you are just freerolling and claiming a win for something you didn't Actually win in the first place because you started a combat with a loaded out squad.

To be completely fair to the OP, whom for the record is the exact same age as I am, down to the month, which is creepy and cool, their suggestion is essentially the creating of a different mode, which also includes a warning that this makes the game easier (I would use the word 'free', but I digress), I don't hate having more options, nor will I ever, but this distinction MUST be made.

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit


Everyone can talk in one conversation? Offering their rolls to conversational choices? Why have choices at all then? You are loading the dice. How is this even fun when you "win" every conversation? Why. Roll. The. Dice. At. All.



There is a difference in failing a check when a character tried something they are decent on, then failing with something they can't do at all. No I don't want my rogue reading this arcane book and failing because guess what, i know he will, i want the wizard 2 feet back to try instead. Now if he fails, sure, w/e, lets move on!
D&D is a team game. Not a single person game. The team works together to overcome challenges, not look around at butterflies while one character does everything, ESPECIALLY when you get ambushed into a convo and the person they talk with is...less then ideal. This isn't a solo adventure, it's a team of adventurers.

Every crpg does this now. Pillars, Pathfinder, Wasteland, even Solasta with its much smaller budget and team, because they realize that you're playing a team game. As a group of adventurers.

Last edited by UnderworldHades; 08/10/20 07:05 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
UnderworldHades has it right. What's the point having a party if they're not goint to contribute to dialogue checks? That's a major part of the system and you as the player should be able to make use of all the tools at your disposal. Especially when you can get into conversations that take you by surprise and thus you have no input in who you want to tackle the challenge.

Furthermore what are you even talking about with implying that games were once handed to players?

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit


Everyone can talk in one conversation? Offering their rolls to conversational choices? Why have choices at all then? You are loading the dice. How is this even fun when you "win" every conversation? Why. Roll. The. Dice. At. All.



There is a difference in failing a check when a character tried something they are decent on, then failing with something they can't do at all. No I don't want my rogue reading this arcane book and failing because guess what, i know he will, i want the wizard 2 feet back to try instead. Now if he fails, sure, w/e, lets move on!
D&D is a team game. Not a single person game. The team works together to overcome challenges, not look around at butterflies while one character does everything, ESPECIALLY when you get ambushed into a convo and the person they talk with is...less then ideal. This isn't a solo adventure, it's a team of adventurers.

Every crpg does this now. Pillars, Pathfinder, Wasteland, even Solasta with its much smaller budget and team, because they realize that you're playing a team game. As a group of adventurers.


I'll grant you the ambush conversations, you should probably get like an initial decision point of 'Who would you like to talk?" type of deal, but outside of that, no, sorry. Someone failing at something they can't do at all is them failing because they NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT EVERYTHING. Your book example they already solved, when its an item or an area check, everyone gets a roll. But when you have a conversation with another person, you dont listen to each sentence, and then turn around to your group of friends saying "HEY WHAT SHOULD I SAY HERE? DOES SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO INTERJECT?" Thats not a conversation. Thats loading the dice. And if you DO do that, the person, creature, whatever, would ABSOLUTELY have a reaction to that situation, and would just say "ya I know what you are gonna do now and now you lose instantly." or something to the degree of making the roll EXTREMELY hard, even if you are proficient at the check, because you literally just announced to the room that you are changing it up for the sole purpose of 'winning' (for lack of a better word) the conversation. I realize when you play a tabletop game, with a DM, you all are CAPABLE of talking out of character, and making that decision as such. But this is you playing a character who is alive and truly acting things out as they come. The situation you are wanting does not have a place here. It just doesn't make sense, other than loading the dice in your favor.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit
Imma add my 2 cents to this conversation and say no, stick with 4. MAYBE 5, but thats absolutely it.

All this nonsense that players are saying about conversations should be with everyone involved, huge parties, and what have you. This is 2020, games are no longer easy, or handed to you. You have to actually -PLAY- them, and that means making, (everyone duck!), decisions!


If you actually read other comments like the second before yours I've voiced, as a D&D player and sometimes DM that having more characters doesn't make the game "free" as you'd like to state or easier, it's just a matter of balancing encounters. By the way having more characters in a party if you do play D&D means, in basic words, that your encounters can be harder and have more legendary and epic monsters, specially in the end game which is where Larian needs to plan it really well right now.

BG2 actually made the top 10 games of all time due to the insane level of awesomeness they throwed at us, who can forget the first time they encountered the mind flayers, the dragons, beholders liches and other bhaal spawns? BG3 has to rise to the same level in the end (even if we need to take ir to BG4) . Those encounters were hard as f* even if you had 2 multiclassed Clerics and a Wizard and a Rogue and Misc.

Last edited by HeavensBells; 08/10/20 07:36 PM.
Joined: Nov 2016
E
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
E
Joined: Nov 2016
To be clear, I do not care at all about companions offering their skills for dice rolls in conversations. In fact, I'd prefer if the checks always rely completely on my main character's stats (and getting my own speak with animals ring so I don't have to rely on the warlock to do the talking). I just want to hear their input and the extra lore tidbits without having to replay the game with different combinations. I don't want to be able to know what other branches of convo would result in; I want the dialog I'd get from my choices just with the other companions in the group to respond as well.

This is not about mechanics. It's just about getting a few extra lines of dialog from missing oh hey that NPC knows that Companion. What is the point of having to jump to camp, swap someone and manage inventory from that, then teleport back and start a dialog, then back to camp, get the companion you want for everything else....

Some people you just want for that 1 specific interaction, and the rest of the time they can stand back. Like when you find a corpse drained of blood, you're gonna want the vampire to be with you. You can send all the locked chests back to camp to be opened later, but you can't drag a dead hog to camp to have a round table discussion.

I fully accept that we are using 5e rules, so I'm not suggestion Larian switch to the far superior system of having skill checks that you either pass or fail based on your actual stats from games like Outer Worlds. We are playing D&D officially licensed 5e, so we are stuck with the dice rolls that make a lot of sense in person with other people and a DM to react, but are entirely unsatisfying alone. That's the price of paying licensed IP content.

But you can be damn sure I will be save scumming to get the outcomes I want in the actual release. I'm here for the content, and enduring the WotC 5e mechanics to get at it; not the other way around.

If you don't want 6 companions, fine just let us hotswap characters in place. It's tedious to have to load a quick save for things where if you leave people die etc, just to return with the "right" companions to hear the backstory that in no way effects anything other than my own curiosity of the lore.

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit


Everyone can talk in one conversation? Offering their rolls to conversational choices? Why have choices at all then? You are loading the dice. How is this even fun when you "win" every conversation? Why. Roll. The. Dice. At. All.



There is a difference in failing a check when a character tried something they are decent on, then failing with something they can't do at all. No I don't want my rogue reading this arcane book and failing because guess what, i know he will, i want the wizard 2 feet back to try instead. Now if he fails, sure, w/e, lets move on!
D&D is a team game. Not a single person game. The team works together to overcome challenges, not look around at butterflies while one character does everything, ESPECIALLY when you get ambushed into a convo and the person they talk with is...less then ideal. This isn't a solo adventure, it's a team of adventurers.

Every crpg does this now. Pillars, Pathfinder, Wasteland, even Solasta with its much smaller budget and team, because they realize that you're playing a team game. As a group of adventurers.


I'll grant you the ambush conversations, you should probably get like an initial decision point of 'Who would you like to talk?" type of deal, but outside of that, no, sorry. Someone failing at something they can't do at all is them failing because they NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT EVERYTHING. Your book example they already solved, when its an item or an area check, everyone gets a roll. But when you have a conversation with another person, you dont listen to each sentence, and then turn around to your group of friends saying "HEY WHAT SHOULD I SAY HERE? DOES SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO INTERJECT?" Thats not a conversation. Thats loading the dice. And if you DO do that, the person, creature, whatever, would ABSOLUTELY have a reaction to that situation, and would just say "ya I know what you are gonna do now and now you lose instantly." or something to the degree of making the roll EXTREMELY hard, even if you are proficient at the check, because you literally just announced to the room that you are changing it up for the sole purpose of 'winning' (for lack of a better word) the conversation. I realize when you play a tabletop game, with a DM, you all are CAPABLE of talking out of character, and making that decision as such. But this is you playing a character who is alive and truly acting things out as they come. The situation you are wanting does not have a place here. It just doesn't make sense, other than loading the dice in your favor.



That's what you're not getting. I'm not saying that "SOMEONE should be GOOD AT EVERYTHING". This is a TEAM Game. and as a team you tackle your problems and try to solve them as a TEAM. Whether you succeed or not is a diffrent story. Right now it's ONE person doing everything in a conversation, not the group. Again, you're missing the point. It's not about one person being good at everything. And no, in tabletop, when a group comes across an encounter, even in character multiple characters are interacting. One does an insight check while other persuades. Then the NPC starts talking about history or magic, then the person profecient in it can be like "oh i get this" or if the roll fails for that person then they don't. That is how real life/tabletop works. As a team you tackle your issues. Not to mention its completely immersion breaking when the wizard or someone that knows stuff is standing 2 feet behind you but won't bother, letting the dumb barbarian figure out a magic puzzle or w/e example you want to use, or letting you get grappled at knifepoint by a fucking vampire while my warrior and healer will look at butterflies and not interject or do anything. This is the opposite of immerson. Whether the group fails or not is still dependent on the Dice, just bc group members can roll for you doesn't mean you automatically succeed.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit
I'll grant you the ambush conversations, you should probably get like an initial decision point of 'Who would you like to talk?" type of deal, but outside of that, no, sorry. Someone failing at something they can't do at all is them failing because they NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT EVERYTHING. Your book example they already solved, when its an item or an area check, everyone gets a roll. But when you have a conversation with another person, you dont listen to each sentence, and then turn around to your group of friends saying "HEY WHAT SHOULD I SAY HERE? DOES SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO INTERJECT?" Thats not a conversation. Thats loading the dice. And if you DO do that, the person, creature, whatever, would ABSOLUTELY have a reaction to that situation, and would just say "ya I know what you are gonna do now and now you lose instantly." or something to the degree of making the roll EXTREMELY hard, even if you are proficient at the check, because you literally just announced to the room that you are changing it up for the sole purpose of 'winning' (for lack of a better word) the conversation. I realize when you play a tabletop game, with a DM, you all are CAPABLE of talking out of character, and making that decision as such. But this is you playing a character who is alive and truly acting things out as they come. The situation you are wanting does not have a place here. It just doesn't make sense, other than loading the dice in your favor.


Don't be ridiculous. In pen and paper around the tabletop, human players can jump into a conversation and interject at any time. The rules expect that. The rules are not designed for one person to be able to easily pass every check in the pen and paper version, so why are you insisting that one person and one person only has to make every single check in the videogame?

You're arguing in favor of loading the dice AGAINST the player to make success nigh-impossible at all.

Last edited by Stabbey; 08/10/20 07:45 PM. Reason: clearing up who I'm responding to
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Just to add my point of view to the discussion, while like most of you guys I would preferer a party of 6 for multiple reasons most were mentioned before so no point in going over them again.
Larian has already acknowledged that many fans want a 6 player party and they still decided to go for a 4 party build because they felt it was the "sweet spot" so asking them to change to 6 party and rebalance the whole game in very unlikely, I think we should be more realistic with our requests and go with what the OP suggested - they continue to follow there vision and create the game for a 4 man party, add a option in menus to unlock a 6 man party with a pop up notifying you that the game was balanced for 4 man party and difficulty level is untested for this build.
this has a much higher chance of happening if they see the demand for it.

and for those thinking that what's the point of a 6 man party if combat is balanced for 4 - well i can give you at least one laugh
after act 1 we need to choose who moves on with us to act2 and who is left behind, this way we get to take more companions with us - more companions quests to do, better RP and banter etc..

Last edited by jayn23; 08/10/20 08:00 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Given everything said, I would be pretty happy with 5 to a party.
I think the odd number can add interesting synergy vs aggro with party members of various "alignments".

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit


Everyone can talk in one conversation? Offering their rolls to conversational choices? Why have choices at all then? You are loading the dice. How is this even fun when you "win" every conversation? Why. Roll. The. Dice. At. All.



There is a difference in failing a check when a character tried something they are decent on, then failing with something they can't do at all. No I don't want my rogue reading this arcane book and failing because guess what, i know he will, i want the wizard 2 feet back to try instead. Now if he fails, sure, w/e, lets move on!
D&D is a team game. Not a single person game. The team works together to overcome challenges, not look around at butterflies while one character does everything, ESPECIALLY when you get ambushed into a convo and the person they talk with is...less then ideal. This isn't a solo adventure, it's a team of adventurers.

Every crpg does this now. Pillars, Pathfinder, Wasteland, even Solasta with its much smaller budget and team, because they realize that you're playing a team game. As a group of adventurers.


This!

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
To end this discussion about party members doing rolls.

https://old.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...rolls_are_coming_just_not_ready_in_time/

As it states in the title, 44 min mark of the stream that is linked.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit


Everyone can talk in one conversation? Offering their rolls to conversational choices? Why have choices at all then? You are loading the dice. How is this even fun when you "win" every conversation? Why. Roll. The. Dice. At. All.



There is a difference in failing a check when a character tried something they are decent on, then failing with something they can't do at all. No I don't want my rogue reading this arcane book and failing because guess what, i know he will, i want the wizard 2 feet back to try instead. Now if he fails, sure, w/e, lets move on!
D&D is a team game. Not a single person game. The team works together to overcome challenges, not look around at butterflies while one character does everything, ESPECIALLY when you get ambushed into a convo and the person they talk with is...less then ideal. This isn't a solo adventure, it's a team of adventurers.

Every crpg does this now. Pillars, Pathfinder, Wasteland, even Solasta with its much smaller budget and team, because they realize that you're playing a team game. As a group of adventurers.


I'll grant you the ambush conversations, you should probably get like an initial decision point of 'Who would you like to talk?" type of deal, but outside of that, no, sorry. Someone failing at something they can't do at all is them failing because they NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT EVERYTHING. Your book example they already solved, when its an item or an area check, everyone gets a roll. But when you have a conversation with another person, you dont listen to each sentence, and then turn around to your group of friends saying "HEY WHAT SHOULD I SAY HERE? DOES SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO INTERJECT?" Thats not a conversation. Thats loading the dice. And if you DO do that, the person, creature, whatever, would ABSOLUTELY have a reaction to that situation, and would just say "ya I know what you are gonna do now and now you lose instantly." or something to the degree of making the roll EXTREMELY hard, even if you are proficient at the check, because you literally just announced to the room that you are changing it up for the sole purpose of 'winning' (for lack of a better word) the conversation. I realize when you play a tabletop game, with a DM, you all are CAPABLE of talking out of character, and making that decision as such. But this is you playing a character who is alive and truly acting things out as they come. The situation you are wanting does not have a place here. It just doesn't make sense, other than loading the dice in your favor.


So when you and your friends are out as a group and you all bump into another friend or a sibling, does your entire group stand behind one person refusing to give input so that the conversation only involves you and the new arrived individual? The reason other games do this now is because it more closely emulates how social interaction actually works. People dont stand silently behind one elected speaker and not offer input or their expertise on a topic.

If you're out with your engineer brother and you get asked a random question about engineering don't you think its possible or even likely that your brother would chime in? You're interpretation is absolutely silly. Of course your party members would chime in, I don't think its appropriate for all rolls but there are many where it would be silly and inappropriate for your party members to stay silent or not intervene.

Edit: A good example of what i mean would be Gorion's Ward about to touch a dangerous looking magic rune while Edwin is standing behind them. If Edwin likes him, it's a chance for Edwin to demonstrate his superiority by saving him, or it might be a potential opportunity for Edwin to remove Gorion's Ward from equation by pretending not to be watching. Party members contributing to or even taking over rolls is an excellent way to build upon your companions' characterisation and improve immersion.

Last edited by Malkie; 08/10/20 10:28 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HeavensBells
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit
Imma add my 2 cents to this conversation and say no, stick with 4. MAYBE 5, but thats absolutely it.

All this nonsense that players are saying about conversations should be with everyone involved, huge parties, and what have you. This is 2020, games are no longer easy, or handed to you. You have to actually -PLAY- them, and that means making, (everyone duck!), decisions!


If you actually read other comments like the second before yours I've voiced, as a D&D player and sometimes DM that having more characters doesn't make the game "free" as you'd like to state or easier, it's just a matter of balancing encounters. By the way having more characters in a party if you do play D&D means, in basic words, that your encounters can be harder and have more legendary and epic monsters, specially in the end game which is where Larian needs to plan it really well right now.

BG2 actually made the top 10 games of all time due to the insane level of awesomeness they throwed at us, who can forget the first time they encountered the mind flayers, the dragons, beholders liches and other bhaal spawns? BG3 has to rise to the same level in the end (even if we need to take ir to BG4) . Those encounters were hard as f* even if you had 2 multiclassed Clerics and a Wizard and a Rogue and Misc.



yeah anyone who thinks video games these days are harder and that "old video games where easy" is full of themselves. I've been playing video games since the 90s. they've gotten a LOT easier

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
+1, think 5 over 6

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
+1, though whether Larian adds this officially or not, it's a certainty that modders will. (Not that that helps non-PC players, I suppose.)

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I created my own post for this, not seeing it. I agree that we need 6 man parties in BG3

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 to having a 6 party team. 5 could work (perhaps) but a 4 person team is too restrictive. The current size forces you to pick certain characters so you have your bases covered (rogue, caster, cleric, tank). No room for a bard, ranger, monk, etc. in there.

If the intent is to choose characters for your party because you like their personalities, then they're failing at that. I'm choosing who joins my team purely on what my PC's class is. E.g. if I'm a rogue, i'll drop Astarion but keep Shadowheart (cleric), Gale (mage), and Lyzael (tank). I could probably sub out Gale and Wyll but the others are locked unless I change my main class.

I suspect part of the issue for Larian is the effort with creating new party members (voice lines, choice & consequence, etc). Wasteland 3 had a good solution for this - you can have 2 companions, and 4 player made characters. Maybe the answer for BG3 can give you 3 player made characters and 3 companions, or some variant thereof.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah, i need 5 or 6 size of group too, because 2 reasons.

Please forgive my english... far away from my natural language xD

1. Last i played Pathfinder:Kingmaker (size of group is 6 and loved the tactical options and the diversity in the group) and thougt that i can play D:OS2 but the size of group is horrible. Mage, Klerik, Fighter and a Rogue or Archer or a Archer with options for Lockpick ... i hate it. And than i have so many options for classes that i cant make a decision. (EDIT: Because of this, I deleted the game before escaping the island and will probably not continue to play it.) Here i have the same problem. Why i can chose from so many rasses and classes if i can play with 4 only in a group by 3 fix classes? Thats not funny. I like Wasteland 3 more than BG3 alone because the size of group.

2. and this is my fault too, i thought i order a BG3, after i played BG2 so mutch with this huge group ... but with a group of 4 i have not the feeling this is a BG. Okay, that was my expectation and I was disappointed. In short, if I had informed myself beforehand and had known that there are only groups of four, I would not have bought the game.

In this moment i get the 5. member i praied that the group is bigger than 4 and ... no. No good feeling.

I would not refund this game because i think thats would be great in future but this fault, dont collect information before i bought a game, i dont to that a second time...

Last edited by dSchmetterling; 08/10/20 10:57 PM.
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by dSchmetterling
Yeah, i need 5 or 6 size of group too, because 2 reasons.

Please forgive my english... far away from my natural language xD

1. Last i played Pathfinder:Kingmaker (size of group is 6 and loved the tactical options and the diversity in the group) and thougt that i can play D:OS2 but the size of group is horrible. Mage, Klerik, Fighter and a Rogue or Archer or a Archer with options for Lockpick ... i hate it. And than i have so many options for classes that i cant make a decision. (EDIT: Because of this, I deleted the game before escaping the island and will probably not continue to play it.) Here i have the same problem. Why i can chose from so many rasses and classes if i can play with 4 only in a group by 3 fix classes? Thats not funny. I like Wasteland 3 more than BG3 alone because the size of group.

2. and this is my fault too, i thought i order a BG3, after i played BG2 so mutch with this huge group ... but with a group of 4 i have not the feeling this is a BG. Okay, that was my expectation and I was disappointed. In short, if I had informed myself beforehand and had known that there are only groups of four, I would not have bought the game.

In this moment i get the 5. member i praied that the group is bigger than 4 and ... no. No good feeling.

I would not refund this game because i think thats would be great in future but this fault, dont collect information before i bought a game, i dont to that a second time...


Even if they don't add, wait for full release and then get the mod. They specifically said in some interview/panel that they left room for more because of how popular the mod for more party members was in Div OS2.

Page 15 of 92 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 91 92

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