Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Patch 7 new items !

Love the Spellsparkler and lightning charge items for casters.😊

To add to this, the app I am talking about has all races and classes. It has lists for all spells, all standard weapons, all backgrounds... It keeps track of initiative, has random encounters suggestions built in... Pretty much everything but maps and character icons. It also doesn't add up rolls for you like Fantasy Grounds does, but it provides everything you could use in a video game D&D setting except the maps and figures.

If they can do it, why can't Larian? The only TT items that wouldn't translate well would be certain spells and abilities related to storytelling.

And combat would actually be faster if they didn't start you out with so many options. The point is to build a simple base and then add to it over time, little by little so you get to know all the things your character can do. When you start with all these options, you take longer to decide what to do because you aren't familiar with anything. You have to learn more right away than with standard RAW 5e.

And, to bring it back to topic, the same is true with items. Larian is inundating us with special items. I hardly use any of them because there are just too many. I pick the ones I am most familiar with and dump the rest. It's just too much too fast. Spread the special items out more over time. That would be much better.

Hello @GM4Him.
I wasn't really sure whether to reply to this, as you seem to have misunderstood my post, but as you have replied to me, I shall see whether I can explain more clearly.

I played and occasionally was DM for games using the original D&D rules and AD&D 1e and 2e, obviously many years ago. I am also a Software Engineer by background, and can absolutely confirm that even the first PC that I used ( Intel 8086, running Microsoft DOS circa 1985 ) was more than capable of doing the math in realtime for ANY version of D&D, past or present. D&D ( and other similar games ) rules are simply not a computationally challenging problem.

That fact, however, is beside the point. In 1985, input and output on PCs were mostly restricted to ASCII text, with some very primitive graphics, and early attempts at input devices like the "mouse" and "joystick" that were really quite lame, so videogame implementations were very limited by hardware inadequacy.

So, yes, if the D&D rules could easily be implemented back then, they can easily be implemented now, and I made no assertion that such was not possible. What I said ( or meant to be understood ) was that the 4e ruleset was designed to appeal to MMO and other videogame players, while 5e rules were designed to appeal to the traditional TT players.

As a result, implementing 5e in a videogame is a challenge if you also want to appeal to non-TT players, who make up the bulk of the modern audience. It may not be important to you that BG3 be financially successful, but it is to Larian, and it is to WotC; so they make changes that they consider to be appropriate, and you clearly don't like.


I would say that Larian simply exacerbate problems that are intrinsic to the 5e rules. The early D&D rules pretty much required Thief/Cleric/Wizard/Fighter ( which, therefore, became the "classic" 4-person party ), because those classes (and derived classes) had unique features or strengths that have either disappeared or become possible for all characters.

For the Thief, Locks, Traps, Hide in Shadows, Climbing are all specialty skills that everyone can now perform in 5e. Healing used to be restricted to Divine spells and magic items like potions and scrolls, but in 5e, everyone can apparently regain health by playing cards for an hour. Wizard and Cleric spells used to be their USP, now in 5e 10 of the 12 classes can be casters if you so choose. Magic items ( the actual topic of the thread ) used to be hugely important in defining and developing your character, but in 5e they seem almost meaningless.

Certainly BG3 Early Access doesn't stick to the 5e rules, because they do want to appeal to the primary videogame audience, who do not play TT. As the 5e rules are not particularly to my liking anyway, I have no particular problem with that, and I will simply ignore or work around anything that I don't like. However, it's worth repeating what I said in my original post, that I hope the released game DOES have a "strict" game mode for TT players like yourself that don't want the Larian Homebrew. Ideally there would be multiple settings and mode choices, but that might be left to interested modders.


Good, I do too, even though I didn't like Original Sin enough to finish it or buy the sequel. Making a videogame that is able to appeal to a wide enough variety of opinions and tastes to be profitable is not easy, particularly if you spend as much as Larian are in making BG3. I feel it is mostly going in the right direction, but they still have a lot of challenges in making their story coherent and intelligible regardless of how you choose to play the game, and that is probably my major concern.

@etonbears

Cool background BTW.

I think the main thing I find wrong by what you are saying is that you think 5e is a challenge if you also want to appeal to non-TT players. I think 5e is SO much simpler, by far, than 3 and 3.5. Playing Pathfinder after Solasta really smacked me in the face with this. I then went back and played a bit of Neverwinter Nights 2 and was like, "Geez! So many options. So many choices for level ups and jazz. I forgot how complicated D&D could be compared to other RPGs.

Never played 4e, admittedly, but I've always heard bad things. So, is 5e harder than 4e? I guess maybe. I don't really know since I never played 4e.

But I can say that 5e is simple and easy to master. That's what I love about it. It would work SO well with a video game, which is why it drives me crazy that they aren't being faithful to the game. I fully believe a faithful adaptation could be done very well, and gamers would really like it. The problem is, we won't know because they're not doing it.

EA would be the perfect time to test it out. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. But why not test it and find out?

DOS2 have itemization issue due to 'fixed' number of battles. I agree to UNIQUE items/weapons/armors compared to some randomly generated items that i wished to obtained and failed (after misssing and completed an area where you are required to grind/farm on that specific location/monster until you get your RNG).

DOS2 has no random encounter. I played first released BG3 EA (maybe not even patch 1?) and there's no random encounter. Someone correct me if i'm wrong if latest patch has random encounter already.

The only way for these itemization to work would be endless combat/grinding on specific areas that respawns enemy and that combat gains little to NO experience. And the reward is the loot. I like the older BG style and pathfinder kingmaker and wrath of the righteous where those items are UNIQUE.

Just so you know, I do care if Larian makes money. I want BG3 to be successful. I want them to make more.

That said, people who have never played 5e are standardly the ones who say things like, "It would not work well as a video game or be fun. It's only good for TT." I think it's a common misconception, along with a number of things said.

Items, for example, are still very important in TT. BG3, however, turns them into the have all be all, making everything else null and void.

Example: Clerics are still supposed to be the primary healer class. You can have other healer classes, but cleric in 5e still is king of healers. Not in BG3. Have a potion? Throw it at friends and heal them. You don't need to be a cleric or druid to heal. EVERYONE heals.

Wizards? In 5e, they are still the most versatile spellcasters. Not in BG3. EVERYONE can cast spells because items now give anyone the ability to: Entangle, Create Water, Ray of Frost, and so on, and since everyone can use revivify scrolls and well, all scrolls, any spell is anyone's game.

So why need classes at all in BG3? They're pointless. Don't even get me started on how BG3 destroys the Rogue class. No Expertise to make them far better at certain skills, no Fast Hands to make potion drinking as a bonus action only available for rogues, no lots of things.

And the health restored during Short Rests is meant to symbolize resting, eating, bandaging and tending to wounds, fixing armor and equipment, etc. And it is supposed to be limited by Hit Dice. Yes, you can heal during that time, but it does not in any way replace a healer. Trust me. D&D session tonight. During combat, one character was almost knocked out of the fight. The healer was all that stood between them and being dropped.

The point of short rests is to avoid the need for players to have to Long Rest to continue. It isn't to replace the healers in any way. Those hit Dice go fast.

Descent into Avernus. My players didn't long rest once during one of the beginner dungeons fighting the cult of the Dead Three. I didn't let them. Why? Didn't make sense. Yeah. They were glad to have a cleric in the party. They short rested once, for they were in a hostile dungeon. It in no way replaced their healer.

Anyway, my point is that people don't even give it a chance. Then they say it is unappealing or it won't work. 5e is hugely successful. D&D is exploding with popularity. So if 5e is the edition that is making D&D so popular, why are people writing it off without even trying it?

I did see you mentioned that you hope there's a mode. I do too. But I hope they don't just balance everything based on the nerfed version in EA and then kill us with the 5e difficulty that is too hard to beat because every encounter is Deadly. That's what I'm afraid they'll do. Then they'll say, "See? It doesn't work.". Well, yeah. You're making 2 level 1 characters face 3 intellect devourers - 3 of them. Naturally, that's gonna be next to impossible if you use genuine rules and stats. The only way to make that encounter work is to increase party size to at least 5 and wound those puppies to start with.

Yes, I agree with you that 5e is probably the simplest and most understandable version of D&D since about 1980. That is by design, since TT players actually need to be able to hold everything in their heads; and arguably the evolution of both 2e and 3e got out of hand to the point that it was sometimes impossible to determine what was "correct" in a given situation. That was also true with the original 1970s rules that were added to in a haphazard manner as TSR came up with their next "great idea" leading to frequently inconsistent rules. And that inconsistency was what led to AD&D, an attempt to draw a line under the previous anarchy and provide a clear and consistent set of rules; which is probably why I really quite liked that version.

The 4e rules ( which I also have not played TT ) were a clear departure from the "feel" of D&D, and a deliberate attempt to "follow" the evolution of computer RPGs which had moved away from the concepts of TT. This computer RPG evolution was no accident, more a recognition that modern PC/console hardware could provide more dynamic and complex games than were suited to TT, and also that most of the PC/console player base liked more action-oriented games anyway; just look at how Bioware RPGs have changed from BG1 to DAI.

WotC made a clear mistake with 4e with respect to the TT audience, which led to the 5e rules. But they were not wrong about what the PC/console audience wanted. As far as I can tell from public sources, the only 4e game, Neverwinter MMO, has been more successful than any other D&D videogame, and has been active with continual new content for 10 years. It has a lot of players who are critical, as do many MMOs with their pay-2-play models, but it is still the sort of game that they choose to play, rather than party RPGs.

So, I would say that, reflecting on these experiences, Larian and WotC are trying to walk a path between the TT and the broader PC/console audiences. I'm sure they don't want to alienate either group, because that is bad business.

My guess ( and it is just that ) is that Larian, with their cheese, have been successful in widening the potential PC D&D player base beyond those that usually play party RPGs, and that may be part of why they got the BG3 licence. Similarly, WotC have made it quite clear that their D&D franchises are not tied to particular interpretations of rules, and they are quite cool with digital D&D being quite different ( like "Warriors of Waterdeep", for example ).

So, which rules are being used, and whether they are strictly accurate is probably secondary to maintaining a broad appeal, for both Larian and WotC. You should definitely keep saying what you want, just don't expect you can argue your way to changes that may work against their interests.

And on all this, we agree. I am totally expecting nothing at this point but hoping for the best.

I never played TT, and this is how it seems to me mostly because of the long rest system of balancing spells and all the penalties being suggested for casters (such as timed quests, etc.).

Hopefully they will include lots of options for everyone.

The whole point of scrolls IS to offset the limitations placed on Wizards and clerics and like classes. You have X number of spells per long rest, but you can use your class specific scrolls to compliment the limitations, allowing you to cast more spells per day than your spell slots allotment.

And Rituals are another way to add spells to your day without long rest. For example, the identify spell can be used as many times as you want per day outside combat because it is a ritual spell.

The point is, there's lots of ways spellcasters can cast more spells per day, but the implementation right now in BG3 makes all the other tools and methods pointless.

I find the argument that videogame audience wouldn't accept more faithul video game adaptaion to be shaky. Firaxis whole thing is doing very gameboardy games and they have been popular for years. Blizzard made a fortune on a card game. Make the feel good to interact with and add fancy visual effects and wider audience will eat it up.

I would replace "primary videogame audience" with "Larian's established D:OS fanbase".

I don't know, I am tired of game devs/publishers constantly leveraging existing IPs. Get off my nostalgia lawn, Larian.

+1!

It should - however - be a D&D/FR game.

You know, I do too. I really do.

The reason I fight so hard out here is because it's more likely you'll get what you want. It seems not so likely those like me will.

I really hope they do give tons of settings to customize the game for the vast majority. It may not come out until late 2023, but I'd rather have that then get a game that cuts out a huge crowd of people. I want the game to do well, and I do want them to make more, but only if they aren't going to just cater to the crowd the game is currently catering to.

It's only a shaky argument if you prefer qualitative arguments over quantitative ones. Sure, some videogame players that don't play D&D would play a completely accurate D&D 5e videogame. We know that because a similar cohort have bought other D&D games, some of which were quite accurate. The question is not if anyone would, but how many.

I get the sense that many people want to believe that game ( physical or digital ) companies think of their current player base in an altruistic manner, doing the "best" for their loyal audience. Some ( usually smaller ) companies do, and some can even make it work, but by and large, companies follow the money because they have to, even if they would rather not.

The most apposite example of that is probably the D&D 4e rules. Utterly hated by the player base, but WotC were seduced by a desire to attract the 10x larger audience of digital RPG players who were moving to more action-oriented games and MMOs, so they copied what seemed popular.

Even back in the days of Gygax and TSR, they had the same problems of getting enough revenue from the "loyal" player base, and produced some questionable products before eventually going bankrupt ( including the completely unnecessary, but money-spinning polyhedral dice sets ).

As best I can judge, there are no previous videogames in the party RPG genre ( including Firaxis games like XCOM ) that have had sales that would justify the investment being put into BG3. The only reason Larian can sink the money into BG3 that they are, is because they attracted part of the primary videogame audience with their DOS games, so yes, they absolutely need to be sure they keep those players engaged.

None of this is to say I LIKE the way most games franchises go over time. I have been disappointed by the direction so many games have taken that I've lost count. I've just become sanguine enough to understand why it happens, treat advertising and marketing claims with the contempt they deserve, and not to expect anything more that what I can actually see is true.

The fact that BG3 is the first early access I have ever purchased, that I don't like DOS games, nor the 5e rules, either speaks to the value of nostalgia lawns, or that I am getting senile

After seeing this thread on reddit about soloing the Gith patrol with a druid cause of these items...
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/t1nln7/so_the_new_sparky_set_is_kind_of_ridic/
I'm definitely going with OP for this stuff. Stupidly so imo. And by the sounds of it the other new abilities/conditions allow for equally OP stat and damage boosts/etc.

And suddenly the game is more about collecting gimmicky homebrew sets rather than using your class abilities and fighting normally.

This level of "magic lightning builds" on low level characters goes against the spirit of D&D. I don't mind it in Diablo but I mind it in D&D. The lack of magic junk gear grind is fun in a different way and something that makes D&D unique.

First it was the OP homebrew high ground and backstab mechanics. Once that was somewhat fixed, they're starting with the homebrew magic item spam which is also OP and doesn't fit D&D. Larian are trying way too hard and not trusting D&D enough. Could they just stop with the excessive homebrew? Who wanted it anyway?

We did ...
There was several occasions in the past when people were litteraly asking for new magic items. :-/

Yep, for every person expressing the opinion that something is rubbish, another will say it's golddust.

Adventure, exploration, magic and treasure were the key pillars on which D&D was built. Those are far more important to me than combat, which is just a means to an end.

... but I still don't want to be tripping over items that only work on a Thursday afternoon while standing on one leg and wearing pink ...

Exactly. I like magic items. What I don't like is when magic items take the place of the need for classes or when you have to jump through hoops to use them. The ax that used to be able to set people on fire now only does extra damage if the person is on fire already. I liked it better before. I liked the ability to be able to set an enemy on fire. It was overpowered at this point in the game, but it was an awesome weapon that I always made sure I bought.

I want that weapon back. What I want them to do however is make it so that I can't just buy it from the local merchant. It would make a great weapon to find at Grymforge in a treasure chest somewhere in a dark corner. It would also only need to be nerfed a little from its original form. Instead of always setting an enemy on fire, the enemy has to make a dexterity savings throw of like 13 or higher. That's the kind of thing that I'd like to see.