Baldur's Gate 3- What does fried Nautiloid taste like?

[Rising Phoenix]

Am a bit surprised that there is no thread for this yet.

I've been participating in the early access and all I can say is that the hype and praise are warranted. It is looking very promising.

I normally go Druid on my first playthrough, though given the new Dark Urge origin- I am seriously considering Paladin.

So what are folks expectations? What are you thinking of playing as? And please let us avoid conversations about that unbearable scene...

[Batcathat]

So what are folks expectations? What are you thinking of playing as? And please let us avoid conversations about that unbearable scene...

I'm kind of surprised about not really having any expectations. I've been playing the Baldur's Gate games on and off since they came out (I'm in fact halfway through BG1 at the moment) so it would make sense for me to be excited or worried or something about a new game in the series, but instead I've barely kept up with news about it. I'm sure I'll play it eventually, but it feels like less of a priority than it should.

[Zombimode]

First things first: I really can't see a future where I will not play the game. It is a big classic RPG and that is exactly my kind of game.

But as for expectations... my relation to BG3 is strange? complicated?

Expectations: Baldur's Gate 3 will be a game where a city with the name "Baldur's Gate" will play an important part. This city is located in a region going by the name "Sword Coast", which it self is part of a setting with the name "Forgotten Realms". That's about it... "IT IS JUST DIVINITY: ORIGINAL SIN 3" screams a cynical voice within me.

Other then that there are more question marks then expectations. I think my doubts can be boiled down to two points:

1. The use of D&D 5e rules. These are in my view the absolute worst D&D-style rules to use for a CRPG. I like Solasta, but despite of 5e not because of it. And there a several 5e-isms in Solasta that actively impact my enjoyment of the game in a very negative way. My hope for BG3 is that Larian pays more a lip service to 5e instead of actually implementing it.

2. The huge difference in style, setting design, and tone in writing in all of Larians previous games compared to the original Baldur's Gate series. And I'm not talking about the silliness. Silliness has always been a part of Baldur's Gate - especially the german version (german-speaking players will certainly remember the outrage when "Klebstoff" was patched and the subsequent "bring Klebstoff back" initiative). But in Baldur's Gate seriousness is the norm and silliness the relieve. In all previous Larian games silliness is the norm and seriousness the relieve.
The original Baldur's Gate series was build on a foundation of a rich history and lore of the Forgotten Realms setting - more then a decade worth of published material written by other authors. Baldur's Gate was written not just with acknowledgement but with respect of that lore.
Larian does not even respect its own lore.


I'm not decrying Baldur's Gate 3 or anything like that. I am open minded about it, but you were asking about thoughts and expectations. Well, those are mine.

[Rising Phoenix]

I'm kind of surprised about not really having any expectations. I've been playing the Baldur's Gate games on and off since they came out (I'm in fact halfway through BG1 at the moment) so it would make sense for me to be excited or worried or something about a new game in the series, but instead I've barely kept up with news about it. I'm sure I'll play it eventually, but it feels like less of a priority than it should.

Fair enough.


First things first: I really can't see a future where I will not play the game. It is a big classic RPG and that is exactly my kind of game.

But as for expectations... my relation to BG3 is strange? complicated?

Expectations: Baldur's Gate 3 will be a game where a city with the name "Baldur's Gate" will play an important part. This city is located in a region going by the name "Sword Coast", which it self is part of a setting with the name "Forgotten Realms". That's about it... "IT IS JUST DIVINITY: ORIGINAL SIN 3" screams a cynical voice within me.

Other then that there are more question marks then expectations. I think my doubts can be boiled down to two points:

1. The use of D&D 5e rules. These are in my view the absolute worst D&D-style rules to use for a CRPG. I like Solasta, but despite of 5e not because of it. And there a several 5e-isms in Solasta that actively impact my enjoyment of the game in a very negative way. My hope for BG3 is that Larian pays more a lip service to 5e instead of actually implementing it.

2. The huge difference in style, setting design, and tone in writing in all of Larians previous games compared to the original Baldur's Gate series. And I'm not talking about the silliness. Silliness has always been a part of Baldur's Gate - especially the german version (german-speaking players will certainly remember the outrage when "Klebstoff" was patched and the subsequent "bring Klebstoff back" initiative). But in Baldur's Gate seriousness is the norm and silliness the relieve. In all previous Larian games silliness is the norm and seriousness the relieve.
The original Baldur's Gate series was build on a foundation of a rich history and lore of the Forgotten Realms setting - more then a decade worth of published material written by other authors. Baldur's Gate was written not just with acknowledgement but with respect of that lore.
Larian does not even respect its own lore.


I'm not decrying Baldur's Gate 3 or anything like that. I am open minded about it, but you were asking about thoughts and expectations. Well, those are mine.

I've done two playthroughs of EA- The first time I played it was just after EA was released and it really did feel like DV OS 3. The second time which was just a few days ago it felt much more like its own thing. Systems have become polished.

Which brings me to your points

1- I have not really played 5 ed tabletop and Solasta failed to capture my imagination (may have to try it again as apparently it's really good now). Knowing tabletop rules does help you understand game mechanics for sure, but the combat and mechanics also seem fluid to me with a good UI that largely explains what's going on. You can event set your reactions. They have also homebrewed a lot of rules I think. Imo it works. I much prefer 3rd edition as I grew up on that, but I appreciate the simplicity that 5th ed brings.

2- Unfortunately the original BG games were before my time. I've tried playing them these days but I can't get into them. So far in EA most encounters can resolved in several ways... occasionally dozens of ways. But whether an outcome or not is good, bad, or neutral all depends on player decision. You can go grim dark if you want but it's your actions that lead to that choice.

[GloatingSwine]

1- I have not really played 5 ed tabletop and Solasta failed to capture my imagination (may have to try it again as apparently it's really good now). Knowing tabletop rules does help you understand game mechanics for sure, but the combat and mechanics also seem fluid to me with a good UI that largely explains what's going on. You can event set your reactions. They have also homebrewed a lot of rules I think. Imo it works. I much prefer 3rd edition as I grew up on that, but I appreciate the simplicity that 5th ed brings.


I think part of it is that 5e is designed to be a bit more fast and loose and DM supported than 3e or 4e in a way that computer RPGs can't be.

So a good CRPG using it as a base would have to massage it about as much as the original Baldur's Gate did to 2e.

[Rodin]

Am a bit surprised that there is no thread for this yet.


The fact it hasn't come out yet is probably the reason. I'm fairly sure there was a discussion thread when it was announced 4 years ago, but after that folks have just been waiting for the game to come out.

I played the EA after getting it as a Christmas present. It's pretty good, and I'm fairly hyped for the final release.

Based on initial impressions, I feel like they've done a good job of separating it out from Divinity OS. The tone is mostly serious - there haven't been any ditzy cow girls and there have been a few dark moments.

Unfortunately I'm also not qualified to speak on how similar/dissimilar the game is from the previous ones. I liked the storytelling in those games but hated the gameplay, so I never got fully through either of them. Also, the titular city isn't in the EA so...y'know.

Overall the fusion works for me. You can very much tell its a Larian game both through the gameplay and the storytelling...but at the same time, the dice rolling and D&D trappings give it a very tabletop feel. It's also not just Divinity OS 3 - the combat is very different from the other series even as it draws elements (like terrain effects) from it.

[Batcathat]

One concern I do have about the game (or rather about my own reaction to it) is that it might be a repeat of when I started playing Fallout 3. I love the first two games (and even kinda like the somewhat controversial Fallout Tactics), so I was looking forward to playing a new one. But since Fallout 3 is so different (in regards to both graphics, gameplay and setting), I kept getting annoyed with the differences to the point I didn't even finish it.

I did pick it up again like a year later and – knowing what to expect – was much less annoyed about the differences. I'm still not that fond of it, though I did end up loving New Vegas, which has a lot of the same differences.

[Rodin]

One concern I do have about the game (or rather about my own reaction to it) is that it might be a repeat of when I started playing Fallout 3. I love the first two games (and even kinda like the somewhat controversial Fallout Tactics), so I was looking forward to playing a new one. But since Fallout 3 is so different (in regards to both graphics, gameplay and setting), I kept getting annoyed with the differences to the point I didn't even finish it.

I did pick it up again like a year later and – knowing what to expect – was much less annoyed about the differences. I'm still not that fond of it, though I did end up loving New Vegas, which has a lot of the same differences.

It's a possibility, but I don't think you'd have the same degree of difference? Both the new game and the old are still fundamentally party based RPGs, whereas Fallout changed from a choice-driven RPG to an open-world Bethesda game.

I definitely see the analogy, but I think there's a lot more similarities between Larian's style and Bioware's than there was with Black Isle and Bethesda's. Larian knows how to write, for a start. The story hadn't really taken off in what I saw of EA, but there's a lot of promise there. Fair warning that this may be my bias showing - I quite enjoyed the story of DOS2.

[Batcathat]

It's a possibility, but I don't think you'd have the same degree of difference? Both the new game and the old are still fundamentally party based RPGs, whereas Fallout changed from a choice-driven RPG to an open-world Bethesda game.

I definitely see the analogy, but I think there's a lot more similarities between Larian's style and Bioware's than there was with Black Isle and Bethesda's. Larian knows how to write, for a start. The story hadn't really taken off in what I saw of EA, but there's a lot of promise there. Fair warning that this may be my bias showing - I quite enjoyed the story of DOS2.

True, it's certainly not guaranteed to happen. For example, despite playing the first two GTA games, I didn't mind the rather drastic change to 3D at all.

[Spore]

Is someone tech savvy enough to give me the details on how to reduce the graphical fidelity of it running at a constant 30 fps without my computer having a meltdown?

[Ionathus]

I'm kind of surprised about not really having any expectations. I've been playing the Baldur's Gate games on and off since they came out (I'm in fact halfway through BG1 at the moment) so it would make sense for me to be excited or worried or something about a new game in the series, but instead I've barely kept up with news about it. I'm sure I'll play it eventually, but it feels like less of a priority than it should.

This is usually my experience with most Early Access games, as well as kickstarter games for the most part. I get overexposed and desensitized to news about the game, because information about it is being parceled out over a long time rather than just released, all at once, as a coherent final product. It makes sense that your enthusiasm would be lessened by that dynamic, because instead of having a single big release date to build anticipation, you've got a stretched-out awareness of wherever the game is at currently and a fuzzy idea of how much further it still has to go before it's released.

An open Alpha/Beta makes sense for simulators or open-ended games like Minecraft, where "playing with the tools" is basically the whole point of even the "final" product. Not so much for anything story-, setting-, or character-driven.

Incidentally, I'm eager to play BG3 when it comes out. But I want to be surprised by the experience, so I have no intention of touching it until it's fully released.

[Clistenes]

I'm kind of surprised about not really having any expectations. I've been playing the Baldur's Gate games on and off since they came out (I'm in fact halfway through BG1 at the moment) so it would make sense for me to be excited or worried or something about a new game in the series, but instead I've barely kept up with news about it. I'm sure I'll play it eventually, but it feels like less of a priority than it should.

It's not so weird. The game's warts have been discussed to exhaustion; at this point we all know what we won't be getting. We all know this won't really feel like a Baldur's Gate game, even if it is a good RPG game.



1. The use of D&D 5e rules. These are in my view the absolute worst D&D-style rules to use for a CRPG. I like Solasta, but despite of 5e not because of it. And there a several 5e-isms in Solasta that actively impact my enjoyment of the game in a very negative way. My hope for BG3 is that Larian pays more a lip service to 5e instead of actually implementing it.

I love Solasta, but I can't see myself playing it over and over again like BG 2. I hope they create a new Solasta game soon.

[Spore]

It's not so weird. The game's warts have been discussed to exhaustion; at this point we all know what we won't be getting. We all know this won't really feel like a Baldur's Gate game, even if it is a good RPG game.

Because it is Divinity with a BG skin and 5e rules.

And the tadpole makes help the narration be varied enough for today's standards, it is somehow weird that your character rarely has to puzzle together a reaction from an enemy or friend from armor, stance, general demeanor and tone of voice. We more or less can read surface thoughts. Same with fully voiced acting. If the VA does not NAIL the inflections, the atmosphere suffers and we can not have varying interpretations like with written "stage directions" of games with more dialogue that is just written.

The Bhaalspawn from BG is a snarky sarcastic person gleaned from their journal entry and general dialogue options. They often have no clue what is going on and react to hostility with sarcasm, genuine care or violence. By comparison Tav is much more nuanced, but more of a blank slate (and thus boring) to me. I have not played much but I hope if I struggle to recreate my snarky evil mage, at least my bard blade or my cavalier paladin are possible.

[Zevox]

I'm interested in it, but unsure if I'll pick it up right away. Since I'm a console guy, it's coming out in early September for me, and not long after another game I have some interest in, Armored Core 6. I'll likely decide to pick one of them, and put the other on hold for a while. (Haven't touched the early access, for a single-player game like this I don't want to do that, I want to play it when it's complete and I definitely won't hit a point where I just can't proceed because the game's unfinished.)

In general though, seems like it should be good for me. Glad to hear it's properly turn-based, and 5E rules sounds great to me, I very much like those. Heck, a big of part of why I've never gone back and played the first two Baldur's Gate games despite so many people liking them is because they're 2E games. I've only experienced that edition once, when I played through Icewind Dale 1, but trying to figure that out was a pain when I did. Coming from 3.5E and 5E, a lot of it felt pretty bass-ackwards and difficult to adjust to for me. It did not leave me wanting to do that again.

[Clistenes]

I love Solasta, but I can't see myself playing it over and over again like BG 2. I hope they create a new Solasta game soon.

I have just discovered Palace of Ice!.

[Varen_Tai]

OK, I am having weird conflicts about the game so far.

First off, I am not worried about the tone difference between Black Isle and Larian. I've put a few hours in for the EA just to get a feel of the game, but have left it alone since just so I don't get burned out on the game early. Loved the parts I played and don't mind the differences in style.

Second, I played both BG1 & 2 when they first came out way back when. Loved them then, and did a replay earlier in this year to prep for BG3. I think Larian has done a great job translating 5e to a playable CRPG, and I'm excited to see how the lore plays out.

So here's where I'm getting hung up. The promise of RPGs has always been the flexibility to be whatever you want and do whatever you want with the understanding that there are consequences for your behaviors. Want to be a murder hobo? Be prepared to have the law come after you in force. Help people and non-people wherever you go? Well, watch for that karma to be returned as well. That's all fabulous, which is why I have been playing D&D since I was 6. It looks like Larian is achieving this goal on a level unheard of in previous CRPGs and will be a crazy bar to reach for other games.

This all sounds good, right? Well, IT IS. It's AMAZING, and I'm getting paralyzed by it. Because I'm Asperger's, I have a drive to be a completionist on the games I play, and look for a clear path in character creation. Like in BG1 & 2, I love paladins. Also love mages. And there's enough party slots to fill all the gaps you need. With 6 characters, you can have 2 melee types, a rogue, one or two healers and one or two arcanists. That way, you can hit almost all the content in a single run. Sure, BG2 has a Good path vs Evil path which you need more than one run to experience, but you have the freedom to explore and do almost every single side quest.

But BG3 is SO BIG, you cannot access even close to all the content in one run. This is compounded by the fact that you only have 4 character slots. If I want Minsc (and I have never done a BG run without him, he's the BEST), then I better not make another melee type, because then I'll be short on one of the other areas - rogue, healer, arcanists. But I LOVE a paladin! So do I make a paladin and Minsc, going short on something else? But what would I cut? Need a healer, rogues are the best for traps and the like, and mages/sorcs rule.

You cannot cover all the bases in a single party, so you'll need multiple runs, and each run looks like it will be dramatically different from any other because of the depth and breadth of the game. YAY! and ACK! and YAY! And AHHHHHHHHH WHAT-DO-I-DO?

So I'm feeling weirdly anxious and excited at the same time. I mean... BG3! Wow! Love it!

But now kick in my FOMO anxiety, and it's also AHHHHH!

*sigh* First World problems. I get it. But anyone else feeling this as well?

OK, needed to vent. Still trying to work this out so I don't taint my gameplay with my anxiety, but I am crazy excited, so much so that I am having trouble playing other games because all I can think about is BG3 and they all seem to fall short. TWO WEEKS. For a game I've been waiting almost 25 years to play. Neat! And nerve-wracking!

[tonberrian]

I too am having a lot of option paralysis. And the full release is only going to make it worse, between the different origin characters, the new subclasses, and the Tasha's-like choose your own stat modifiers. I don't know if I wanna go Lore Bard and romance Lae'zal or go Berserker Barb and bathe in the blood of my enemies!

[Rising Phoenix]

I hear you regarding choice paralysis. Perhaps its best to treat it like Sven said- it's no missed content- it's the world adapting to your choices.

[Varen_Tai]

I hear you regarding choice paralysis. Perhaps its best to treat it like Sven said- it's no missed content- it's the world adapting to your choices.

In theory, that sounds great! In practice, my spectrum self says, "MUST HAVE ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE! CAN'T HAVE ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN BG3. MELTDOWN IMMINENT!" In fact, after I wrote my original post last night, I had a *very mild* panic attack, like 1 or 2 out of 10. Just sat telling myself it'll be OK, the game will be worth it all. My logical brain is just like *facepalm*. "Seriously, Heart? You're getting stressed over THIS? PULL IT TOGETHER, MAN!" :smallbiggrin:

Of course, my heart just responds with, "Shut up, Brain and go do Brain stuff while I deal with some FOMO anxiety over a video game. We're all good here."

In all honesty, I think that facing this head on will help me work through some of this anxiety IRL, so yay on how therapeutic video games can be, amiright?

Anyhoo, all in all, it's a really strange experience for me. I don't think I've ever had this kind of reaction to a video game before, so it's a good experience to work through. And what better game to get the opportunity to work through it, amiright twice now?

[Rising Phoenix]

Well the full game is out, but thanks to Australian internet it will take 9 hours to download for me. Initial reviews appear to be very favourable.

Thankfully I am at work, but can't wait to get home when it is done.

[InvisibleBison]

I'm probably going to be in the minority here, but I found the game to be deeply frustrating and unfun, so much so that I uninstalled it and submitted a refund request. I really enjoyed Solasta, and I can't help but think this game fall short of that one in basically every way (except presumably story, where Solasta was basically phoning it in).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm probably going to be in the minority here, but I found the game to be deeply frustrating and unfun, so much so that I uninstalled it and submitted a refund request. I really enjoyed Solasta, and I can't help but think this game fall short of that one in basically every way (except presumably story, where Solasta was basically phoning it in).

Can you clarify what was frustrating or unfun? Not trying to like argue your opinion, just open discussion.

[Spore]

I'm probably going to be in the minority here, but I found the game to be deeply frustrating and unfun, so much so that I uninstalled it and submitted a refund request. I really enjoyed Solasta, and I can't help but think this game fall short of that one in basically every way (except presumably story, where Solasta was basically phoning it in).

Absolutely the reverse for me, but I havent refunded Solasta because it is the kind of game I want to see more of. (Solasta's lack of story does not gel with me as well, but I have enjoyed BG 1/2 and played Icewind Dale, which is basically the same of "story" vs "combat sim"). May I ask why BG 3 is not your cup of tea?

I have only play 2 hours last night, and I plan to spend the weekend with my boyfriend whom I see rarely so my actual run will be delayed further. So far, it feels like a competent little cRPG. But nothing too ground breaking. Yes, the class, race and background reactivity is nice (and so is striding around butt naked as a Barbarian because there is no reason to cover these guns!) and the world is cool, but the starting area is just "Fort Joy 2.0".

And I am a tad disappointed in the lack of customizability of the companion characters. Shadowheart's Trickery Domain is kinda pointless, I would love her to be a War domain (for better armor) or Life Domain (for better armor and heals). Rogues are finnicky, so Astarion would be an archer fighter with some thieves' tools for me, and Gale? Well, at least I can pick his school. Anyone who played 5e for a month knows how OP Diviners are.

Game does not look too great on my old hardware, but at the very least the release version (and the fact I updated my ANCIENT drivers) makes it playable with a choppy 20-30 fps now.

[Rising Phoenix]

Absolutely the reverse for me, but I havent refunded Solasta because it is the kind of game I want to see more of. (Solasta's lack of story does not gel with me as well, but I have enjoyed BG 1/2 and played Icewind Dale, which is basically the same of "story" vs "combat sim"). May I ask why BG 3 is not your cup of tea?

I have only play 2 hours last night, and I plan to spend the weekend with my boyfriend whom I see rarely so my actual run will be delayed further. So far, it feels like a competent little cRPG. But nothing too ground breaking. Yes, the class, race and background reactivity is nice (and so is striding around butt naked as a Barbarian because there is no reason to cover these guns!) and the world is cool, but the starting area is just "Fort Joy 2.0".

And I am a tad disappointed in the lack of customizability of the companion characters. Shadowheart's Trickery Domain is kinda pointless, I would love her to be a War domain (for better armor) or Life Domain (for better armor and heals). Rogues are finnicky, so Astarion would be an archer fighter with some thieves' tools for me, and Gale? Well, at least I can pick his school. Anyone who played 5e for a month knows how OP Diviners are.

Game does not look too great on my old hardware, but at the very least the release version (and the fact I updated my ANCIENT drivers) makes it playable with a choppy 20-30 fps now.

You can in fact respec your companions.

[Zombimode]

Why can't I configure a difficulty that includes all the AI and encounter changes in Tactician but NOT the stat increases?
I HATE stat increases for difficulty. But I want the other stuff!

[InvisibleBison]

Can you clarify what was frustrating or unfun? Not trying to like argue your opinion, just open discussion.


Companions. I don't care for games with companions at the best of times; they make me feel like I'm playing a secondary character in someone else's story rather than the protagonist. And I really don't like the system where the companions are constantly judging your actions, since I don't care about them and don't value their opinion.
Romance. The romance options that I encountered were incredibly heavy-handed and premature. The second time I made camp, two of the companions had romance-related dialogue and a third straight up propositioned me. We barely know each other, it's ridiculous that this is happening so quickly!
Skills. Basically everything about this skill system rubs me the wrong way. For one thing, they implemented the 20-autosuccess/1-autofail houserule, which I abhor. The animations for rolling the skills are extremely slow and can't be skipped. And most frustratingly of all, only the lead character can use their skills! This was bad enough in D:OS2 where you could customize your character to be good at the important skills, but in a 5e-based system that's just not possible. It's absolutely absurd that the wizard with +5 insight can't make an insight check because he's a couple feet behind the bard with +0 insight.
A really irritating quest. There's this quest where you get robbed by some kid thief, which I found to be just a huge pain in the ass. My character noticed she'd been robbed immediately after it happened, and it was blindingly obvious that the kid was responsible, but there's no way to demand she give the stuff back. I had to look up online how to get into the thieves' lair, but apparently I broke the quest by doing so, because things simply stopped advancing after I did that. Whatever, I recovered my stolen stuff, no big deal. Except then I get randomly attacked by the guards later? And there's a skill check to avert it, but after one character passes another has to make the same check? Intolerable.
UI. The game does a bad job of presenting abilities to the character; they're all just shoved into a big mass of buttons, without any organization or prioritization. Comparing to the UI in Solasta is like night and day. I also dislike that dashing is something you have to manually activate instead of just something that happens automatically when you move beyond your move distance.
Thieves tools breaking on failure. Acceptable in a game like Skyrim, where you can actually be good at lockpicking, but in a game where even an expert can't have more than maybe a 60% chance of success this just mandates save-scumming.
No multiclassing. Pretty self-evident; multiclassing is fun.
No hexblade. It's my favorite gish option, it's not in the game, and the mod that adds it isn't available (or at least, wasn't available when I went looking for it).


Most of these things would be tolerable in isolation, but added together they're more than I'm willing to put up with.

[Psyren]

I couldn't start yesterday (finally got my chance to see the Barbie movie!) but I am definitely diving in this weekend after work.

As an avid D&D 5e player, I'm particularly interested in the choices they made to tweak certain classes and subclasses. For example, in their dev interview with Kenreck (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0bXIC_FCBs), Larian all but admitted that the 5e monk as a whole and the 4 Elements subclass in particular were underpowered, and received some buffs in the video game translation. I REALLY hope that gets through to the OneD&D design team when they take another pass at the monk.



I love Solasta, but I can't see myself playing it over and over again like BG 2. I hope they create a new Solasta game soon.

Now that they can use Creative Commons instead of the shakier ground of the OGL I fully expect a sequel. As settings go, Solasta is pretty generic (compared to other big-name non-D&D CRPG settings like Rivellon or Eora) but the kickstarter was big enough that they should have the opportunity to iterate and flesh out the world the way Larian did.


You can in fact respec your companions.

Does that include their subclass? And how extensive is that? Shadowheart's deity is pretty core to her character, so I can't imagine that you could change her to be e.g. Light out of nowhere.

[Dragonus45]

Am I the only person who finds it weird that the character creation options kind of randomly include genital mutilation? It's kind of sucked the excitement for the game out of me.

[Zombimode]

Any experiences with the localisations?

The german localisation is absolutely horrible, a zero effort inclusion.

Right at the character creation screen we get gems like "Proficiencies" -> "Übungen" (Excercises) and "Saves" -> "Spielstände" (save games).
No quality control, no effort at all.

Oh, and the "Who are you" that you can hear at the start of the character creation was of course still in english - probably because it is a sound effect and not a dialog line. Again, no passion, no effort, no quality control.

Edit: The list goes on... "Zauberplätze" :smallyuk:

[Psyren]

Am I the only person who finds it weird that the character creation options kind of randomly include genital mutilation? It's kind of sucked the excitement for the game out of me.

I think "mutilation" in uncharitable, they're providing multiple options so your custom protagonist has a variety of expressions. Modern western RPGs, especially those with romance cutscenes, seem to be increasingly going this direction (see Cyberpunk.)


Any experiences with the localisations?

The german localisation is absolutely horrible, a zero effort inclusion.

Right at the character creation screen we get gems like "Proficiencies" -> "Übungen" (Excercises) and "Saves" -> "Spielstände" (save games).
No quality control, no effort at all.

Maybe this is something they can patch? I'd submit a bug report. (https://larian.com/support/faqs/how-to-submit-a-bug-report_85)

[Dragonus45]

I think "mutilation" in uncharitable, they're providing multiple options so your custom protagonist has a variety of expressions. Modern western RPGs, especially those with romance cutscenes, seem to be increasingly going this direction (see Cyberpunk.)


Yea Cyberpunk bothered me as well and it's disturbing to see it being normalized as an option, because mutilation is exactly the correct and factual description.

[Zombimode]

Maybe this is something they can patch? I'd submit a bug report. (https://larian.com/support/faqs/how-to-submit-a-bug-report_85)

Of course I could report it, but what exactly would I report? "Your german localization sucks, do it again"? Because that is the state of things. Pointing out the dozen or so errors in the character creation screen alone would just be a drop in the ocean.

And since audio is english only I have no reason to stick with the german localisation anyways.

[LaZodiac]

Yea Cyberpunk bothered me as well and it's disturbing to see it being normalized as an option, because mutilation is exactly the correct and factual description.

So I actually went to the effort of looking up what, exactly, you're talking about, and...

Man. Really? This sets you off? Better not have any ear piercings then.

[Dragonus45]

So I actually went to the effort of looking up what, exactly, you're talking about, and...

Man. Really? This sets you off? Better not have any ear piercings then.

Ear piercing? That's on odd comparison, since when does having an ear pierced mean you have to lop of a perfectly functional earlobe?

[LaZodiac]

Ear piercing? That's on odd comparison, since when does having an ear pierced mean you have to lop of a perfectly functional earlobe?

It felt an apt comparison for a variety of reasons- namely that "aesthetic" is not the only one might get their ears pierced. Some do it for similar reason as the in game option you seem so sternly against.

[Dragonus45]

It felt an apt comparison for a variety of reasons- namely that "aesthetic" is not the only one might get their ears pierced. Some do it for similar reason as the in game option you seem so sternly against.

At least as far as it goes for the vast majority of people they don't get a choice about it at all, but sure I guess I'm just being "stern" and all. So when you think they fix the obvious oversight here and enable a toggle for all characters instead of just half of them?

[LaZodiac]

At least as far as it goes for the vast majority of people they don't get a choice about it at all, but sure I guess I'm just being "stern" and all. So when you think they fix the obvious oversight here and enable a toggle for all characters instead of just half of them?

It's ludicrous to suggest they'd force everyone to be circumcised.

Ultimately this is a topic that can't really be touched on more than this here, I was just curious if this was really such a hard-line stanch for you.

[Ionathus]

Still haven't been able to play the game but this recent discussion got me curious so I googled it...according to one interview, apparently the whole reason you even have customization options for genitals is because the team decided to make underwear a piece of equipment that you can swap out for new, better, higher-stats, potentially magical options later on.

The chainmail bikini/chainmail speedo has risen like a phoenix from the ashes! :smallbiggrin:

[Jophiel]

I couldn't start yesterday (finally got my chance to see the Barbie movie!) but I am definitely diving in this weekend after work.
Ha, my wife wanted to see Barbie and so we did last night, also delaying my start (it's a good movie and I didn't mind seeing it; just amused to see someone else delayed for the same reason)

Solasta was fun and a good translation of 5e to a CRPG setting but also felt very much like a framework for future stuff than a fully realized world/campaign. I think that'll be the greatest difference here based on the little bit of BG3 I've played did far.

[Rising Phoenix]

Does that include their subclass? And how extensive is that? Shadowheart's deity is pretty core to her character, so I can't imagine that you could change her to be e.g. Light out of nowhere.

I believe so.

[GloatingSwine]

Still haven't been able to play the game but this recent discussion got me curious so I googled it...according to one interview, apparently the whole reason you even have customization options for genitals is because the team decided to make underwear a piece of equipment that you can swap out for new, better, higher-stats, potentially magical options later on.

The chainmail bikini/chainmail speedo has risen like a phoenix from the ashes! :smallbiggrin:

Golden Pantaloons better be in there somewhere.

[Rodin]

I believe so.

When starting a new game you are locked to their actual origins., but apparently there is a respec NPC that will show up at some point.

However, this will not change their story arcs. You can make Gale a Barbarian who is dumber than rocks, but he's still going to be eloquent in conversation and have a Wizard based storyline. You can change Shadowheart to a different deity, but she's still going to talk about worshipping her canon one in all her dialogue.

[warty goblin]

Played the opening section this morning. It's good. I like the plethora of skill checks (wish the animation was faster) and the unhinged sorts of options that come up. The interface is pretty average, better than Pathfinder, not in the same galaxy as Solasta. The voice acting is great, the writing is fine, the combat is combat, it's all solid.

[Keltest]

You can rush the die rolling animation if you just click again. That will skip straight to the post-bonuses total.

[Psyren]

It's ludicrous to suggest they'd force everyone to be circumcised.

Ultimately this is a topic that can't really be touched on more than this here, I was just curious if this was really such a hard-line stanch for you.

It's a pretty... uh... unique reason to write off an RPG, I'll give him that.


When starting a new game you are locked to their actual origins., but apparently there is a respec NPC that will show up at some point.

However, this will not change their story arcs. You can make Gale a Barbarian who is dumber than rocks, but he's still going to be eloquent in conversation and have a Wizard based storyline. You can change Shadowheart to a different deity, but she's still going to talk about worshipping her canon one in all her dialogue.

That's deeply weird and I'm not sure how I feel about it. It made sense in Divinity which was functionally a classless system, and where the party members/origin characters are canonical polymaths for story reasons (e.g. Red Prince makes a point of flaunting his superior education on martial and mystical fronts.) But a game like this letting you transmute your party members completely with no connection to their personal stories is functionally like modding or editing the game files.

It would be like Dragon Age being able to change Varric into a mage or Solas into a chevalier or something.

[Dragonus45]

It's ludicrous to suggest they'd force everyone to be circumcised.


That's not at all what I meant but ok.



That's deeply weird and I'm not sure how I feel about it. It made sense in Divinity which was functionally a classless system, and where the party members/origin characters are canonical polymaths for story reasons (e.g. Red Prince makes a point of flaunting his superior education on martial and mystical fronts.) But a game like this letting you transmute your party members completely with no connection to their personal stories is functionally like modding or editing the game files.

It would be like Dragon Age being able to change Varric into a mage or Solas into a chevalier or something.

The game in general suffers from feeling like there is too much Choclate Divinity in the Peanutbutter of the D&D mechanics. Also I found a Soul Coin and I can only hope they handle the pure virulent evil of making any use of those things in the Forgotten Realms correctly but I expect disappointment.

[Batcathat]

That's deeply weird and I'm not sure how I feel about it. It made sense in Divinity which was functionally a classless system, and where the party members/origin characters are canonical polymaths for story reasons (e.g. Red Prince makes a point of flaunting his superior education on martial and mystical fronts.) But a game like this letting you transmute your party members completely with no connection to their personal stories is functionally like modding or editing the game files.

It would be like Dragon Age being able to change Varric into a mage or Solas into a chevalier or something.

Yeah, while I can't say for certain until I've tried it, I agree it feels pretty weird. Moving around something like skills a bit feels alright (though even that does stretch my suspension of disbelief) but completely changing (the mechanical part of) a character like that feels a bit much. Though I suppose I can just not do it if/when I play the game, so I guess it might be nice to have for those who don't mind using it.

[LaZodiac]

That's not at all what I meant but ok.


By all means do elaborate.

[Keltest]

It's a pretty... uh... unique reason to write off an RPG, I'll give him that.



That's deeply weird and I'm not sure how I feel about it. It made sense in Divinity which was functionally a classless system, and where the party members/origin characters are canonical polymaths for story reasons (e.g. Red Prince makes a point of flaunting his superior education on martial and mystical fronts.) But a game like this letting you transmute your party members completely with no connection to their personal stories is functionally like modding or editing the game files.

It would be like Dragon Age being able to change Varric into a mage or Solas into a chevalier or something.

I mean, it's an option. You are free not to take it if you don't want to. Personally I like that I can have Shadowheart as ie a rogue if I want to play a cleric.

[Errorname]

By all means do elaborate.

Or don't! We can absolutely talk about other things instead of this


I mean, it's an option. You are free not to take it if you don't want to. Personally I like that I can have Shadowheart as ie a rogue if I want to play a cleric.

Yeah, it's a gameplay feature that's nice to have even if it doesn't make story sense.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, it's a gameplay feature that's nice to have even if it doesn't make story sense.

Seems mostly there for either the super dedicated character optimizers, or else if you're gonna replay the game a lot.

Also this morning I pushed a wizard off a very tall ledge and they went splat. This is very satisfying, I absolutely love environmental interaction like this. 10/10, would shove to their doom again.

[Errorname]

This is a game where you can stack boxes on top of each other in order get a clean line of sight to teleport onto a roof, which is some immersive sim nonsense I never thought I'd see in a CRPG

[Rising Phoenix]

I just made it to act 2 for the first time...

The writing ranges from decent to good (and occasionally to great). Apart from some companions being too eager to get in your smallclothes they are all interesting. I was not expecting to like Lae'zel. But she's quickly becoming my favorite.

[Zombimode]

So, one and a half days of gaming in I have range of emotions regarding BG3 but for the most part I'm puzzled.

If you look online, for instance on youtube, you see nothing but glowing reviews. And not just "this game good" - no, we are talking in superlatives. "Masterpiece", "best RPG ever" and even really stupid stuff like "BG3 is setting the bar to high" or "other developers fear/are angry at BG3 for being too good".
User reviews on GoG and Steam are similar overwhelmingly positive.

What I'm puzzled about is: in which way does the game capture the fascination of so many reviewers and players? What are the aspects that are so great?

Lets go over a number of aspects that are usually important for a game like BG3. They are important to me, at least.
These conclusions are obviously informed by my own preferences and by what I have seen so far from the game.

Worldbuilding and lore.
There are games that are brimming with worldbuilding potential. Where you can feel the writers going "Ooh, ooh, I have this really cool setting here, please let me show it to you, PLEASE!".
Worlds full of history, concepts big and small, places, people, cultures, factions, religion. Games like Morrowind, Mass Effect and Tyranny.
BG3 doesn't do that. It picks some elements from the greater D&D lore and throws in some Realms references without elaborating on anything. Yes, I know what the Tears of Selune are. I know what Ilithids and Gith(yanki) are. And I know the history of these two races because another game spend a whole lot of effort in telling me 23 years ago.
It is not just a lack of exposition. From everything that I have seen so far I genuinely believe that there really is no rich and vibrant setting for me to explore in this game.

Characters - Comapanions and otherwise.
I agree with the above poster: Lae Zel is great. Easily my favorite companion so far. I like her intensity and her vivid descriptions. She is a fish out of the water and acts all high and mighty and arrogant but is actually rather humble and respectful. She has values and believes, some of them are strong, others are already cracking. There is subtlety in her character and conflict.
Sadly Lae Zel is the exception. Shadowwhatshername has the charisma and presence of a cardboard cut-out. And that's good! She's kinda just there without getting on my nerves. And that is more than what can be said about the rest of the team.
Gale, Asterion and Wyll all meld together where I have trouble telling them apart. I feel they are just variations of the same archetype: flamboyant, full of themselves, "witty" and oh-so-mysterious. And this archetype can be seen in many NPCs as well. So let's talk about non-companions characters.
The writing and acting of the NPCs is all over the place. Many are unremarkable. Then you get the ones of the archetype mentioned above. Others are surprisingly interesting, sensible or likable (the bard who has trouble composing a song, or the couple deliberating which tavern to visit in Baldur's Gate). More of those, please. Many act and sound like teenager. Less of those, please. Then we have the Oi-punk style parody goblins. Blech. They feel out of place for Faerun and I'm not a fan of the trope in general.
The tone straddles between serious and overt parody.

Character building.
It's 5e. You have some choices, some possibilities. You can do some character building. It's alright in what it offers. But simply by virtue of using 5e it is not outstanding compared to Original Sin 2 or Pathfinder.
In fact I get the impression that the game doesn't even want me to enact in the character building minigame. I had to watch a youtube video explaining how to multiclass because I did not find the button on my own. The button is easy to overlook and not advertised by the game at all. Races are little more then a cosmetic choice. And the real kicker: the game does not tell you class features of the classes! It only shows what you get from taking the level. But there is no class overview.

Combat and game mechanics.
It's 5e. You have your fail brigade because of the way too high reliance of the d20 spread (problems that other d20 games DO NOT have since D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder actually allow characters to be good at something). Character power is subdued. Larian does spice things up with adding some more actions and also environmental effects as seen in the Original Sin's. But not as complex or integrated into the rest of the game mechanics.
The combat encounters can be surprisingly punishing. There is some good and interesting stuff here. But I don't think it surpasses or even equals Larians previous work in Original Sin 2 or other games like the carefully constructed scenarios of an Expeditions: Rome.

Music.
Is entirely forgettable. Next.

Audio-visual design.
BG3 is a pretty looking game. The animations are a bit hit-and-miss but especially the environments are great. But there is no common style, no design-language binding things together.
Take Witcher 3 for instance. Also a pretty looking game, I would argue. But there is more to it. The music you hear in Velen is carefully composed. As is the palette, the way the sun glimpses through the trees, the sounds of the birds and the wind. Velen looks, sounds and feels miserable and desperate. Contrast this to Novigrad or Skellige. What the player sees and hears is used to create a specific atmosphere. That is audio-visual design.
BG3 doesn't do that. Things just exist. Music just plays. Sound effects are just there.


So. If it isn't the world building and lore, if its neither the characters, nor the character building, nor the combat and game mechanics, not the music or the whole audio-visual design - what IS then what makes BG3 a masterpiece?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to understand.

[GloatingSwine]

Worldbuilding and lore.
It is not just a lack of exposition. From everything that I have seen so far I genuinely believe that there really is no rich and vibrant setting for me to explore in this game.


TBH I think this is sort of a design feature of the Sword Coast.

It's supposed to be this big fuzzy area where most maps just say "here be adventures".

(I have a suspicion that they've saved a lot of meat for the city of Baldur's Gate itself.)

[Psyren]

Is it just me or did they forget to put in the Dodge action?


This is a game where you can stack boxes on top of each other in order get a clean line of sight to teleport onto a roof, which is some immersive sim nonsense I never thought I'd see in a CRPG

Now I feel old, because Ultima 7 let you do this 30 years ago :smalltongue:


I mean, it's an option. You are free not to take it if you don't want to.

I know and I won't, that doesn't mean I can't also express my opinion on it.


Personally I like that I can have Shadowheart as ie a rogue if I want to play a cleric.

I'd have no problem with Shadowheart being a rogue - Shar has plenty or rogue followers.
In fact, I think that would have been a superior way to do this - each character has a small pool of alternate classes you can respec them as. For example, Shadowheart could be a Cleric, Rogue or Bard, while Gale could be a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock - that kind of thing.

[Zombimode]

Is it just me or did they forget to put in the Dodge action?

That and the Ready action is also missing.

And effect duration is relative to the recipient - NOT to the source.
To illustrate: Say we have the following initiative order
%Charname | Bandit Leader | Bandit 1 | Lae Zel | Wyll | Bandit 2 | Shadowheart

%Charname has Inquisitors Strike active which can Daze the target of a melee attack. The Daze effect has a 1 round duration. With how durations are implemented in BG 3 that means the Daze effect will end when the turn of the target ends!

If %Charname dazes the Bandit Leader or Bandit 1 none of the companions can actually capitalize the reduced defenses. Dazing Bandit 2 will at least allow Lae Zel and Wyll to attack the weakend bandit, while Shadowheart is out of luck in any scenario.

That HAS to be a bug. But it looks so intentional...


I'd have no problem with Shadowheart being a rogue - Shar has plenty or rogue followers.
In fact, I think that would have been a superior way to do this - each character has a small pool of alternate classes you can respec them as. For example, Shadowheart could be a Cleric, Rogue or Bard, while Gale could be a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock - that kind of thing.

Yes, that sound like a good solution.
Hm, am I imagining things or wasn't there a game that did just that? Pillars of Eternity 2, perchance?



TBH I think this is sort of a design feature of the Sword Coast.

It's supposed to be this big fuzzy area where most maps just say "here be adventures".

(I have a suspicion that they've saved a lot of meat for the city of Baldur's Gate itself.)

Maybe. But then again, consider the original Baldur's Gate. History, places, people, religion - all there. BG1 did provide a rich setting to explore. So no, the choice of region does not make worldbuilding impossible.

[Keltest]

The ready action is sufficiently open ended that they probably just couldn't feasibly put it in. You have to specify an action, and a trigger, and also spend your reaction. Thats an unbelievable amount of moving parts.

[GloatingSwine]

Maybe. But then again, consider the original Baldur's Gate. History, places, people, religion - all there. BG1 did provide a rich setting to explore. So no, the choice of region does not make worldbuilding impossible.

I'm not so sure about that.

BG1 didn't do a massive amount of worldbuilding beyond what was required for its immediate plot TBH. Like sure, you had all sorts of things to find around the maps but they were mostly just stuff that was there, it rarely had any wider meaning to the sword coast as a place. There were all sorts of different temples but they kinda didn't matter.

BG1 provided a packed world full of things to poke your nose into, but it very much expected fantasy tropes and intermittent cameos of FR characters to hold up the worldbuilding end.

BG2 does quite a bit more, and PS:T is dense with it, but BG1 not really.

[LaZodiac]

Seems mostly there for either the super dedicated character optimizers, or else if you're gonna replay the game a lot.

Also this morning I pushed a wizard off a very tall ledge and they went splat. This is very satisfying, I absolutely love environmental interaction like this. 10/10, would shove to their doom again.

Larian's always been good at that, and I've noticed as I've played that most encounters that are like, worth thinking about have stuff like this. It's not as extensive as OS2, but it doesn't have to be- sometimes you play a violin so hard it launches everyone five thousand feet through the air to their death and it rules.


That and the Ready action is also missing.

And effect duration is relative to the recipient - NOT to the source.

Maybe. But then again, consider the original Baldur's Gate. History, places, people, religion - all there. BG1 did provide a rich setting to explore. So no, the choice of region does not make worldbuilding impossible.

"Readying an action in case X trigger happens" is something that seems easy to program on the surface... but after playing through the EA version and seeing how long it took for them to make reactions that functioned in any reasonable capacity, I'm gonna say they probably just couldn't get that working. It's honestly better this way anyway.

I'm pretty sure for most of the stuff that happens for, that makes sense. Some are "until your next turn" but I feel like most effects in 5e aren't that?

Obviously to each their own on that front. I've found the world to be pretty rich and interesting. I've enjoyed reading the books, talking with NPCs (the tielfing children thieves den is adorable) and stuff. It's all been a good time, but to each their own.

Speaking of "to each their own", Lae'zel is a character who has been surprisingly grating on me. I don't hate it, but she has a bone to pick with me and I don't appreciate it... though I warmed up to her the instant she said Teeth-ling. Poor dumb green idiot. Shadowheart conversely is someone who was just, The Most Rude in the EA version, but has actually endeared herself quite well here (probably helps that I managed to save her from the Mind Flayer ship this time). While I understand the concerns of Asterion, Gale, and Wyll being potentialtly too similar... I feel like they're different enough that it works.

Astarion is the rich, pompous type, a noble who knows it- who is finally free to feel the sun again. He's better about hiding the fact that he's a vampire in the official release, too!

Gale is... someone I legiteimately never encountered in the EA version. Completely pased him by. He seems nice though, very irreverent- but not in an unkind way. Reminds me a **** ton of Anders from Dragon Age, orange tabby as a best friend and all. Exceptionally easy to impress, I don't think I've ever done a single thing to make him upset at me- though if he tries to eat my good gloves I might have to bop him.

Wyll, meanwhile, has a much more unique folksy, hero of the wilds tone to him. He's not as undeservedly pompous as Astarion, and not nearly as irreverent as Gale- he talks a good game that carries with it the experience of being a high level warlock who got kicked down to level 1 due to circumstances and has to cope about it. He's exceptionaly sylish and I love him and- oh dear he wants to kill the **** out of the tiefling berserker that I definitely intend to smooch uh oh.

Anyway I'm having a blast. I've playing as a Drow Bard- Azeroth the Tempest, Faerun's newest up and coming rock violinist. Unfortunately I'm lolth-bound because that's the subrace I made her in and when I tried doing the same in the other subrace the hair didn't look exactly right despite being the same god damn options which was weird- this is one of the only like, negatives I've had mechanics wise. On that note of mechanics; I love how the option menu shows visual comparisons for the graphical options. I'm **** at telling the difference because minor texture changes so seeing it laid out like that helps me a good deal.

Also at some point someone brought up feeling like race doesn't matter. Naw, it does. Each race gives you a variety of nice little bonus features, but otherwise doesn't limit your capabilities. You can be a gnome fighter if you want and that's okay- as well it should be, DND has always been really weird about race and the more they knock that down the better imho.

[Keltest]

I was playing a wood half-elf and one of the Drow NPCs was racist towards me, which was a nice touch. Used words I haven't seen since the early Salvatore novels.

Lae'zel is interesting to me in that she's very obviously a fish out of water, and reacts to that by... I guess reinforcing the correctness of her worldview. And not just on me. Shadowheart isn't having any of it, and it actually came to blows... then they talked it out enough to not actively murder each other, without my intervention.

[Rising Phoenix]

I think I am approaching the midgame now. Level seven Dark Urget multiclass Paladin of Vengeance/Bard. It's fun.

As for the companions all I can say is that they have layers upon layers for you to peel back.

I am using Lae'zel, Shadowheart, Gale and Astarion. Of the four Lae-zel is the one that's impressed me the most. She's a fanatic, but she is not stupid and if presented with evidence will change her stance. I appreciate that. She can also be ignorantly funny. All in all a good character I'd say.

Astarion is slimy, petty and pretty. He has taken the longest to warm up to me not surprising given that I am playing a goody two shoes. Accept him and he becomes much more honest with you. I wouldn't say I like him, but I can respect his behaviour. Heck it seems that my Tav may be rubbing off on him.

Shadowheart is not nearly as sharp as she appears to be. In fact if you ask her she flat at tells you that she's not heartless. There's something warm and bright inside and I definitely want to see if I can make it shine :smallwink:.

Gale is uh a smart idiot or was a smart idiot and very straightforwardly good. I haven't seen anything surprising yet with him.

Wyl appears to be much better written then EA, but I've not used him. Karlach appears to be an utter sweetheart that would cleave you in half if you looked at her or her friends wrong. Will need to use them in a future play through.

As for world building. The Sword Coast is generic fantasy line. You don't really need much apart from that and imo the game does plenty to provide you with the information you need when you need it.

Music is decent and the game is very pretty. I have to say that I am encountering a lot more lag in full release in crowded areas then I did in EA. I hope they fix this.

Am having a blast overall defo GOTY material in my opinion.

[Eurus]

I really like the class based dialogue options. I'm sure they get old on a replay, but being able to just Monk at people in conversations feels like I'm playing a D&D Jedi, which is kinda great. I've heard Barbarian gets good dialogues too.

[Zevox]

If you look online, for instance on youtube, you see nothing but glowing reviews. And not just "this game good" - no, we are talking in superlatives. "Masterpiece", "best RPG ever" and even really stupid stuff like "BG3 is setting the bar to high" or "other developers fear/are angry at BG3 for being too good".
Worth noting on that point, particularly for people on Youtube: the internet heavily encourages superlatives. The more strongly you're praising or condemning something in the thumbnail/title, the more clicks you're likely to get, which partially translates into revenue/subscribers/etc.

That said, I haven't played the game yet - waiting on the console release next month - so I can't speak too specifically to the subject. I would suggest though that the game being 5e D&D likely helps it there. 5e is popular, and for a reason - it's simple and effective. Speaking for myself, for comparison, the big reason I haven't even tried the Pathfinder games is the fact that they're Pathfinder, and I know that was made by people who really liked the optimization element of 3.5e. Which I did enjoy to a degree at one point, but nowadays I feel like it's simply excessive and more effort than it's worth. What I used to like about multiclassing in 3.5e I find I get in full just from the subclass system of 5e - I can have my Fighter/Mage hybrid in various flavors with different degrees of each element (Eldritch Knight Fighter, Bladesinger Wizard, Valor Bard, etc) without needing to bother with multiclassing anymore, for example, and that's great to me, far preferable to planning out how many levels of each different class to take. I therefore need to spend less time planning my "build" and get to spend more time just playing the game, which is more enjoyable.

[Dragonus45]

So. If it isn't the world building and lore, if its neither the characters, nor the character building, nor the combat and game mechanics, not the music or the whole audio-visual design - what IS then what makes BG3 a masterpiece?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to understand.

Pretty much nothing, you hit the nail on the head for certain. Especially the samey jerkass quotient of the companion pool. I dislike almost all of my options so far being evil *******s who have a disapproval popup every time I try and do anything nice for anyone especially though. Also the romance is kind of boring, one of the reasons I dislike "player sexual orientation" as the new default for these things is it tends to lead to vaguely boring and samey romances since the characters lack any real character.


The ready action is sufficiently open ended that they probably just couldn't feasibly put it in. You have to specify an action, and a trigger, and also spend your reaction. Thats an unbelievable amount of moving parts.

If Solasta could manage it on 5 dollars and a quarter of a subway sandwich for a budget then Baldurs Gate 3 should be able to pull it off.

[LaZodiac]

I was playing a wood half-elf and one of the Drow NPCs was racist towards me, which was a nice touch. Used words I haven't seen since the early Salvatore novels.

Lae'zel is interesting to me in that she's very obviously a fish out of water, and reacts to that by... I guess reinforcing the correctness of her worldview. And not just on me. Shadowheart isn't having any of it, and it actually came to blows... then they talked it out enough to not actively murder each other, without my intervention.

This but in reverse; someone told Azaroth that she's quote "brave" for walking about without her face covered so people can tell she's a drow, in that condescending "genuinely means this positively but it's coming from such a racist starting ground that I was actually ****ing baffled".

[warty goblin]

So, one and a half days of gaming in I have range of emotions regarding BG3 but for the most part I'm puzzled.

If you look online, for instance on youtube, you see nothing but glowing reviews. And not just "this game good" - no, we are talking in superlatives. "Masterpiece", "best RPG ever" and even really stupid stuff like "BG3 is setting the bar to high" or "other developers fear/are angry at BG3 for being too good".
User reviews on GoG and Steam are similar overwhelmingly positive.

What I'm puzzled about is: in which way does the game capture the fascination of so many reviewers and players? What are the aspects that are so great?

So I've played all of like 3 hours (and won't get to play anymore for a couple days as I'm housesitting for the parents) and therefore do not want to bill myself as some sort of BG3 expert. But here's my answer, for what it's worth:

BG3 lets you do stuff.

The last cRPG I really tried to play was Wrath of the Righteous, which manifestly did not let me do stuff. It let me walk into a 20x30 room, kill two trash mobs, loot some vender junk, then walk into the next room and do it again. If gibbing mooks in an endless attrition of resources is your thing, WoTR has you covered. I find it stupifying.

I got to make more skill checks and interesting decisions and environmental interactions in the the first fifteen minutes of BG3 than in hours of WoTR. Many of them are obviously bad ideas, I've failed some of them, but I can try to do stuff and have things happen.


Lets go over a number of aspects that are usually important for a game like BG3. They are important to me, at least.
These conclusions are obviously informed by my own preferences and by what I have seen so far from the game.


I think the short version is that most of these don't matter to most people all that much.


Worldbuilding and lore.
There are games that are brimming with worldbuilding potential. Where you can feel the writers going "Ooh, ooh, I have this really cool setting here, please let me show it to you, PLEASE!".
Worlds full of history, concepts big and small, places, people, cultures, factions, religion. Games like Morrowind, Mass Effect and Tyranny.
BG3 doesn't do that. It picks some elements from the greater D&D lore and throws in some Realms references without elaborating on anything. Yes, I know what the Tears of Selune are. I know what Ilithids and Gith(yanki) are. And I know the history of these two races because another game spend a whole lot of effort in telling me 23 years ago.
It is not just a lack of exposition. From everything that I have seen so far I genuinely believe that there really is no rich and vibrant setting for me to explore in this game.


Know what worlds full of history and concepts and lore sound like? Either the game narrating an RPG manual to me, or me reading an RPG manual. Aka I'm not doing stuff. I really cannot overemphasize how tedious and repellant the emphasis on lots of lore and setting details can be in in RPGs, it's getting assigned homework about ridiculous goddamn fake history. I like history, I read a lot of history, but reading history is work, and it's not work I'm willing to put into magic sword elves anymore, particularly when the payoff is "go kill Lord Evil McVillainpants."

What BG3 seems to be doing is what I like to call 'fantasy nonsense.' I love fantasy nonsense, just unbriddled cool stuff thrown around for the joy of having cool stuff, but without the endless background and codex entries* that keep me from doing cool stuff with the fantasy nonsense.

*I will never forgive Mass Effect the Codex.


Characters - Comapanions and otherwise.
I agree with the above poster: Lae Zel is great. Easily my favorite companion so far. I like her intensity and her vivid descriptions. She is a fish out of the water and acts all high and mighty and arrogant but is actually rather humble and respectful. She has values and believes, some of them are strong, others are already cracking. There is subtlety in her character and conflict.
Sadly Lae Zel is the exception. Shadowwhatshername has the charisma and presence of a cardboard cut-out. And that's good! She's kinda just there without getting on my nerves. And that is more than what can be said about the rest of the team.
Gale, Asterion and Wyll all meld together where I have trouble telling them apart. I feel they are just variations of the same archetype: flamboyant, full of themselves, "witty" and oh-so-mysterious. And this archetype can be seen in many NPCs as well. So let's talk about non-companions characters.
The writing and acting of the NPCs is all over the place. Many are unremarkable. Then you get the ones of the archetype mentioned above. Others are surprisingly interesting, sensible or likable (the bard who has trouble composing a song, or the couple deliberating which tavern to visit in Baldur's Gate). More of those, please. Many act and sound like teenager. Less of those, please. Then we have the Oi-punk style parody goblins. Blech. They feel out of place for Faerun and I'm not a fan of the trope in general.

Haven't gotten far enough in yet, can't really speak to the companions.


The tone straddles between serious and overt parody.
Yes. Larian has been doing this since forever, because they have a goofy sense of humor. Very much a taste thing, but I do love fantasy that both takes itself seriously and admits just how utterly silly it is.


Character building.
It's 5e. You have some choices, some possibilities. You can do some character building. It's alright in what it offers. But simply by virtue of using 5e it is not outstanding compared to Original Sin 2 or Pathfinder.
In fact I get the impression that the game doesn't even want me to enact in the character building minigame. I had to watch a youtube video explaining how to multiclass because I did not find the button on my own. The button is easy to overlook and not advertised by the game at all. Races are little more then a cosmetic choice. And the real kicker: the game does not tell you class features of the classes! It only shows what you get from taking the level. But there is no class overview.

Look, it's 2023, every bloody game is an RPG now. I am incapable of getting excited about planning a build anymore. Honestly, being able to press level up and just, like, getting some new cool abilities is a heavenly relief. I've had playthrough in WoTR stall out because leveling up is so complicated and unfun.


Combat and game mechanics.
It's 5e. You have your fail brigade because of the way too high reliance of the d20 spread (problems that other d20 games DO NOT have since D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder actually allow characters to be good at something). Character power is subdued. Larian does spice things up with adding some more actions and also environmental effects as seen in the Original Sin's. But not as complex or integrated into the rest of the game mechanics.
The combat encounters can be surprisingly punishing. There is some good and interesting stuff here. But I don't think it surpasses or even equals Larians previous work in Original Sin 2 or other games like the carefully constructed scenarios of an Expeditions: Rome.


The flipside of having characters be able to be really good at stuff is that then you are very strongly encouraged to only do things you are good at. If I have +15 in one thing and +1 in another, anytime I have a choice between using one ability or the other, I'm gonna do the +15, which means I realistically don't actually have options. I have a single choice I made pretty much at the start of the game to dump everything into option A instead of option B. Because I'm here to play a game and do cool stuff in the game, I don't like this.

The liberating thing about 5E is that you can do what you want and not suffer huge opportunity costs for not choosing the strictly optimal thing. If your primary pleasure in an RPG is to have the biggest numbers, this is bad. If your pleasure is trying whatever looks interesting or fun or cool and rolling with the outcome, this is great.


Music.
Is entirely forgettable. Next.

Seems fine, but I don't think very many people play games because the music is just that good. Buy the soundtrack maybe.


Audio-visual design.
BG3 is a pretty looking game. The animations are a bit hit-and-miss but especially the environments are great. But there is no common style, no design-language binding things together.
Take Witcher 3 for instance. Also a pretty looking game, I would argue. But there is more to it. The music you hear in Velen is carefully composed. As is the palette, the way the sun glimpses through the trees, the sounds of the birds and the wind. Velen looks, sounds and feels miserable and desperate. Contrast this to Novigrad or Skellige. What the player sees and hears is used to create a specific atmosphere. That is audio-visual design.
BG3 doesn't do that. Things just exist. Music just plays. Sound effects are just there.


It's a high fantasy nonsense game. The appeal of high fantasy nonsense is precisely because it doesn't even really bother trying to cohere, it can put lots of cool stuff in. Witcher 3 is borderline grimdark low fantasy, it needs a coherent atmosphere of everything being awful and probably covered in mud.


So. If it isn't the world building and lore, if its neither the characters, nor the character building, nor the combat and game mechanics, not the music or the whole audio-visual design - what IS then what makes BG3 a masterpiece?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to understand.

BG3 is a game that lets you do stuff. The environment is highly reactive (shockingly reactive for an RPG), and its packed with things that the player can try. It doesn't require you to read lots of background information, work out a 20 level character build from the word go, or otherwise get in its own way. It isn't tonally limited to being a farce or a self serious exercise in the sorta buddy Tim who's DMing's writer's 5,000 pages of background lore, and instead delivers cool and weird fantasy stuff to interact with.

All of these are maybe not good features if you are a super hardcore RPG person, but most people who like fantasy are not hardcore RPG people. I love fantasy, I've got 3 ceiling high bookshelves full of nothing but fantasy and sci-fi novels (plus another bookshelf in the basement packed double deep with mass market SF&F mass market paperbacks), I've backed fantasy movies on Kickstarter, I like dragon miniatures, and I love the idea of using a game to step into a cool fantasy world and have fun adventures. But most cRPGS treat the RPG mechanics as an end even of themselves, not a tool for letting you interact with the fantasy world. I haven't played enough of BG3 to be sure, but it sure feels like it gets out of its own way and lets me do stuff in a fun fantasy world without worrying too much about the exact way I make my spreadsheet numbers bigger.


The ready action is sufficiently open ended that they probably just couldn't feasibly put it in. You have to specify an action, and a trigger, and also spend your reaction. Thats an unbelievable amount of moving parts.

I can't actually think of any turn based cRPG or tactics game that gives you a freeform readied action system. The trigger + action would basically require giving the player some sort of (probably visual) programming language, which is a design nightmare and a huge amount of work for a pretty marginal action. A lot of games give you something like Overwatch, which has a single obvious and pre-determined trigger, and even the more complex variants where you set the field of fire and range are easy to make instantly player-legible. I also suspect that this covers like 80% of the general uses of a Ready action (shoot the first bad guy to walk through the door), with more complex uses probably turning into exploits pretty easily.

(There's an argument that games like Frozen Synapse or other simultaneous turn based WEGO sort of games are at some level purely about readied actions. I also find them unplayable micro hell, and assuming I'm not alone in this may be why they never particularly seem to catch on outside of hardcore combat simulation.)

[Dragonus45]

Look, it's 2023, every bloody game is an RPG now. I am incapable of getting excited about planning a build anymore. Honestly, being able to press level up and just, like, getting some new cool abilities is a heavenly relief. I've had playthrough in WoTR stall out because leveling up is so complicated and unfun.

Not having a class overview so a person can plan out their character is a fundamentally broken oversight. I should not have to google a guide to what the class does in Larian 5e to check what I am going to get at later levels, just because you don't personally want to deal with it doesn't make it in general a huge draw of these kinds of games to plan characters out.




The flipside of having characters be able to be really good at stuff is that then you are very strongly encouraged to only do things you are good at. If I have +15 in one thing and +1 in another, anytime I have a choice between using one ability or the other, I'm gonna do the +15, which means I realistically don't actually have options. I have a single choice I made pretty much at the start of the game to dump everything into option A instead of option B. Because I'm here to play a game and do cool stuff in the game, I don't like this.

The liberating thing about 5E is that you can do what you want and not suffer huge opportunity costs for not choosing the strictly optimal thing. If your primary pleasure in an RPG is to have the biggest numbers, this is bad. If your pleasure is trying whatever looks interesting or fun or cool and rolling with the outcome, this is great.

Yea 5e achieves that by just not giving you any meaningful choices past choosing your race and your archetype. And then they made every race a copy paste with slight flavor differences so I won't knock this game specifically for the sins of the game it is adapting it's not like this isn't a strong ongoing issue with 5e itself that probably should have been massaged a bit more for adaptation to a new medium.



I can't actually think of any turn based cRPG or tactics game that gives you a freeform readied action system.

Doesn't need to be some totally freeform thing, Solasta managed just fine with "fire selected thing at first enemy in range."

[Jophiel]

It's a D&D game, generic fantasy, set in the Forgotten Realms, the generic-ist of settings, on the Sword Coast, the generic-ist of regions in the Realms. It's up to the player if that's what they want or not but it's definitely intended as Feature, not bug, and no one playing it with any RPG knowledge should be surprised or disappointed that it's exactly what it says on the tin. Honestly, even the TTRPG version of the Sword Coast in all its generic-ness is a Feature as it lets DMs and players get rolling with a typical basket of fantasy knowledge and without getting bogged into tons of exposition to explain how Our Elves Are Different. With most people it seems to be working.

But, hey, the game has sold a ton of copies. If it sold 2mil (to make up a number; it had over 700k players yesterday so it seems reasonable enough) and a 91% positive rating, that's still 180,000 people to legitimately not like stuff about this and that.

[Psyren]

I can live without Ready (though I agree with Dragonus that even just doing Solasta's scaled down version should have been both feasible and functional.) But the Dodge action is literally suggested as the default for players who don't know what else to do on their turn, and there's plenty of builds that make liberal use of it like Dodge Cleric. Its omission is all too noticeable.

I also agree with Dragonus that a preview of the subclasses available to each class would have been nice, but as long as the rebuild isn't too far into the game I don't think that's a big deal. Like if I didn't realize Valor Bard gives medium armor proficiency before giving myself 16 Dex for example.

[LaZodiac]

I can live without Ready (though I agree with Dragonus that even just doing Solasta's scaled down version should have been both feasible and functional.) But the Dodge action is literally suggested as the default for players who don't know what else to do on their turn, and there's plenty of builds that make liberal use of it like Dodge Cleric. Its omission is all too noticeable.

I also agree with Dragonus that a preview of the subclasses available to each class would have been nice, but as long as the rebuild isn't too far into the game I don't think that's a big deal. Like if I didn't realize Valor Bard gives medium armor proficiency before giving myself 16 Dex for example.

I can't say I miss dodge at all because it uses an action, and the prescence of quick weapon swapping, ranged moves, and elves just getting to shoot a firebolt for free, means there's always AN action to perform. I'm sure dodge is fine though- Monk's and Rogue's who can do it for bonus actions definitely would miss it I think.

That, I fully agree with. I'd love to see the full progression table of each class just so I can like, know in advance. In retrospect I probably could just look at my Player's handbook for most of them...

[Psyren]

I can't say I miss dodge at all because it uses an action, and the prescence of quick weapon swapping, ranged moves, and elves just getting to shoot a firebolt for free, means there's always AN action to perform. I'm sure dodge is fine though- Monk's and Rogue's who can do it for bonus actions definitely would miss it I think.

That, I fully agree with. I'd love to see the full progression table of each class just so I can like, know in advance. In retrospect I probably could just look at my Player's handbook for most of them...

I know there are other actions to perform, but sometimes Dodge is the right action, e.g. Doorway Dodging. What's worse is that they programmed it in for Monks (Patient Defense) so it's not like they couldn't do it for everyone. I'm hoping they patch it in later.

Another thing I went outside the game to look up was feats (I was really hoping BG3 included Skill Expert, but no dice.) 1st-level feats in backgrounds would have been really nice to have.

[Errorname]

I will never forgive Mass Effect the Codex.

You know if you don't like the codex, you don't have to read it and you can still follow what's going on. It's there for people who want to know more about an original setting.

[Psyren]

Idly poking through Nexus Mods (I was hoping to make a custom background or retrain my proficiencies , I dislike all the listed proficiency combinations for my character) and I found two interesting things:

1) Somebody already figured out how to add the Bladetrips to the game

2) Apparently wizard ritual casting in the base game requires the spells to be prepared rather than just in your book? Come on Larian!

[Dragonus45]

I can live without Ready (though I agree with Dragonus that even just doing Solasta's scaled down version should have been both feasible and functional.) But the Dodge action is literally suggested as the default for players who don't know what else to do on their turn, and there's plenty of builds that make liberal use of it like Dodge Cleric. Its omission is all too noticeable.

I find myself almost every combat wishing I could use a ready action.



That, I fully agree with. I'd love to see the full progression table of each class just so I can like, know in advance. In retrospect I probably could just look at my Player's handbook for most of them...

Sure but things are different some places from the PHB so it's not a replacement. I had to google the classes to find out what I get when I level and that's unacceptable game design.

[Zombimode]

@warty goblin
Thank you for taking the time to provide this perspective. I think I do understand things a bit better now.


I think the short version is that most of these don't matter to most people all that much.

Apparently. And that makes me sad.


For the game: I'm not ready to give up. I will play at least until I get to the city proper. Maybe things will get more interesting for me then. And Lae Zel has given me the hope that maybe I will find more companion characters that I actually like.

[Errorname]

For the game: I'm not ready to give up. I will play at least until I get to the city proper. Maybe things will get more interesting for me then. And Lae Zel has given me the hope that maybe I will find more companion characters that I actually like.

I think there's 6 origin companions, 4 potential companions and 12 hirelings? That was my understanding.

[Dragonus45]

Apparently. And that makes me sad.


I wonder how many people calling it a masterpiece have had a chance to play Larian's other games. Because honestly Divinity 2 is a real masterpiece and generally a lot better then this has been so it might just be a result of the 5e boom pulling in newer people who just happen to have this be the game that gets to blow their minds before they find the rest of the genre.

[Psyren]

I'm pretty impressed with it so far. My gripes are ultimately minor, and when I first started playing 5e I was convinced that converting it to a CRPG would be much messier than what they managed to do.

The LGBT-inclusivity in particular is a breath of fresh air.

[warty goblin]

Not having a class overview so a person can plan out their character is a fundamentally broken oversight. I should not have to google a guide to what the class does in Larian 5e to check what I am going to get at later levels, just because you don't personally want to deal with it doesn't make it in general a huge draw of these kinds of games to plan characters out.


Yeah, that probably is an oversight. But if you're interested in planning out a build, aren't you going to look up the class table online anyway? T


Yea 5e achieves that by just not giving you any meaningful choices past choosing your race and your archetype. And then they made every race a copy paste with slight flavor differences so I won't knock this game specifically for the sins of the game it is adapting it's not like this isn't a strong ongoing issue with 5e itself that probably should have been massaged a bit more for adaptation to a new medium.


Yeah, 5E isn't big on the chargen minigame, news at 11. The thing I think needs to be understood is that having strong chargen is not a neutral choice or cost-free add-on, it kinda warps the entire rest of the game to accommodate it - DCs and ACs and saves all have to go up so that the experts can be meaningfully challenged which locks everybody else out and now the chargen minigame isn't optional it's mandatory homework. So if you do not find great joy in making the numbers go up, it inflicts a substantial cost on the rest of the game.


Doesn't need to be some totally freeform thing, Solasta managed just fine with "fire selected thing at first enemy in range."
i.e. Overwatch, a mechanic that has a strong tendency to turn games into a lot of not actually doing things on your turn. Not having an equivalent to it is a pretty defensible design decision. I don't think it'd really hurt BG3 much to have an Overwatch equivalent, but I also am fine with it not having that, as it's mostly a buff to ranged characters and ranged combat is already quite strong in 5E.


You know if you don't like the codex, you don't have to read it and you can still follow what's going on. It's there for people who want to know more about an original setting.

Yes, in theory you don't. In practice, particularly in post Mass Effect 1 games, the Codex often becomes pretty non-optional, because in voice acted titles it's way cheaper to offload almost all the exposition into it. I shouldn't have to dig into the lore for the story to make sense, and all too often I have to do that.


@warty goblin
Thank you for taking the time to provide this perspective. I think I do understand things a bit better now.

Welcome, hope that was useful and not too contrarian.


Apparently. And that makes me sad.

Why? Different people have different tastes, and this is a good thing because it means we get a diversity of stuff. One of the great things about this is that nothing has to be for everyone, and the more likely it is that there's something that really works for you. The flipside is that there's also things that aren't, but that's the price you pay for things that are. After dozens of hours of trying, I've pretty much concluded that Wrath of the Righteous isn't for me because I find the chargen overdone and I really don't like its endless fights against trivial enemies and dear god one more pointless random encounter trying to get from A to B and I will actually chew my hands off at the wrists. But a lot of people really love it, and that's great, I'm glad it exists and works for them.

I find this sort of thinking is particularly necessary for things I'm moderately to actually pretty hardcore about. Most people by definition aren't hardcore, and that's fine. I don't begrudge the naval history world the 3,000 interchangeable histories of Bismarck, even though Bismarck: A Design and Operational History renders them all at some level utterly obsolete. Most folks with a passing interest in the subject, or who just want a readable history, are not going to spend $80 on a 9 pound slab of book that spends a couple hundred words talking about how the forward and aft 105mm AA guns had different stabilizers, which meant that the fire control directors were miscalibrated for half of them. I want to know that, because 20th century naval history is a thing I find interesting enough to be hardcore about, but it would be a dreadful mistake to try to force that on anybody with any interest in the subject at all. For one thing it's a self-defeating strategy, because a lot of people who might find the super hardcore stuff interesting eventually won't start there, as it's too dense and weird and alienating and assumes too much background knowledge.

I think this has kind of been true for cRPGs lately, that they've generally been designed for the hardcore. As I said above, I love fantasy, but I don't actually love RPGs on their own; I think they're a good way to experience fantasy, but there's a lot of mistaking the forest for the trees in the genre from that perspective. My sense of BG3 is that there's a lot more fantasy, and a lot less RPG, and to me that's a good thing.

[Errorname]

Yes, in theory you don't. In practice, particularly in post Mass Effect 1 games, the Codex often becomes pretty non-optional, because in voice acted titles it's way cheaper to offload almost all the exposition into it. I shouldn't have to dig into the lore for the story to make sense, and all too often I have to do that.

I can't recall a single moment where a thing didn't make sense in Mass Effect until I dug into the codex. Some stuff like Cerberus and the Collectors had stupid elements, but those are just badly written parts of the story which don't really make sense even after reading the codex.

I think having supplemental codex entries or something like Tyranny's mouseover text system are broadly positive features in the same way having a map is. They're useful tools, both for fleshing out a setting beyond the playable space and for helping a player orient themselves within it.

[Dragonus45]

I'm pretty impressed with it so far. My gripes are ultimately minor, and when I first started playing 5e I was convinced that converting it to a CRPG would be much messier than what they managed to do.

The LGBT-inclusivity in particular is a breath of fresh air.

I kind of prefer characters to have a defined sexuality rather then just be amorphous shape shifters happy to romance literally anyone. Which has kind of been the standard since Dragon Age 3 anyways so it's not really new.


Yeah, that probably is an oversight. But if you're interested in planning out a build, aren't you going to look up the class table online anyway?

Why would I if it was in the game and easy to look up.



Yeah, 5E isn't big on the chargen minigame, news at 11. The thing I think needs to be understood is that having strong chargen is not a neutral choice or cost-free add-on, it kinda warps the entire rest of the game to accommodate it - DCs and ACs and saves all have to go up so that the experts can be meaningfully challenged which locks everybody else out and now the chargen minigame isn't optional it's mandatory homework. So if you do not find great joy in making the numbers go up, it inflicts a substantial cost on the rest of the game.

I agree strong characters options isn't neutral, as long as the game itself is designed well it's inherently a positive at all times. 5e did everything it could to stamp down on it and you still have people who optimize breaking the system so none of what you describe was stopped the game was just made more dull in the long run once you have made a few characters.




i.e. Overwatch, a mechanic that has a strong tendency to turn games into a lot of not actually doing things on your turn. Not having an equivalent to it is a pretty defensible design decision. I don't think it'd really hurt BG3 much to have an Overwatch equivalent, but I also am fine with it not having that, as it's mostly a buff to ranged characters and ranged combat is already quite strong in 5E.

Overwatch, an important mechanic that in indefensible not to have in this game. Especially when a readied action is already something from the system it's porting over. It allows a person who wants to to play defensively and helps avoid situations where your whole turn is wasted because you went wrong in initiative order and had no targets you could safely reach. I don't understand how Larian got all the way through early access without this becoming an i




Yes, in theory you don't. In practice, particularly in post Mass Effect 1 games, the Codex often becomes pretty non-optional, because in voice acted titles it's way cheaper to offload almost all the exposition into it. I shouldn't have to dig into the lore for the story to make sense, and all too often I have to do that.

Mass Effect is a great example of how not to do a codex wrong.




Why? Different people have different tastes, and this is a good thing because it means we get a diversity of stuff. One of the great things about this is that nothing has to be for everyone, and the more likely it is that there's something that really works for you. The flipside is that there's also things that aren't, but that's the price you pay for things that are. After dozens of hours of trying, I've pretty much concluded that Wrath of the Righteous isn't for me because I find the chargen overdone and I really don't like its endless fights against trivial enemies and dear god one more pointless random encounter trying to get from A to B and I will actually chew my hands off at the wrists. But a lot of people really love it, and that's great, I'm glad it exists and works for them.

I at least think it's sad because of this. Mostly because a lot of what was done well in this game was just better elsewhere in Divinity mechanically and the companions are mid tier at best on the RP and the writing and setting building isn't totally great either. So when it gets such disproportionate praise it feels like it's both not living up to it's potential and bringing the bar down that low at the same time.

[Jophiel]

Apparently. And that makes me sad.
Counterpoint: Nine out of Ten of people are having a bunch of fun while not worrying about the sort of things that are preventing you from having fun. Feels like they're coming out ahead.

[Dienekes]

I kind of prefer characters to have a defined sexuality rather then just be amorphous shape shifters happy to romance literally anyone. Which has kind of been the standard since Dragon Age 3 anyways so it's not really new.

Dragon Age 2 had everyone is bi for Hawke. Except Aveline and Varric who were uninterested in your character in that way. Amusingly, both my favorite companions in that game. Oh, also I think the DLC companion wasn't. But I didn't play with him and I'm not going to bother looking that up.

Dragon Age 3 had specific romance options depending on sex and species.

Personally, I agree with that take. Giving companions distinct personalities and preferences make them seem more real, and does that great thing in games that should happen more: when they tell you "No."

But honestly, I don't do the romances in these games. Always feels weird to me. So, meh. Isn't precisely something I tend to get bent out of shape about.

[Dragonus45]

Dragon Age 2 had everyone is bi for Hawke. Except Aveline and Varric who were uninterested in your character in that way. Amusingly, both my favorite companions in that game. Oh, also I think the DLC companion wasn't. But I didn't play with him and I'm not going to bother looking that up.

Dragon Age 3 had specific romance options depending on sex and species.

Personally, I agree with that take. Giving companions distinct personalities and preferences make them seem more real, and does that great thing in games that should happen more: when they tell you "No."

But honestly, I don't do the romances in these games. Always feels weird to me. So, meh. Isn't precisely something I tend to get bent out of shape about.

I may have had them backwards then it has been a while since I played either.

[Zevox]

Dragon Age 2 had everyone is bi for Hawke. Except Aveline and Varric who were uninterested in your character in that way. Amusingly, both my favorite companions in that game. Oh, also I think the DLC companion wasn't. But I didn't play with him and I'm not going to bother looking that up.
Said DLC companion, Sebastian, is indeed the exception in Dragon Age 2, being romanceable only by female Hawke.

[Psyren]

I have never heard the ME codex described as "non-optional" before. From the years and years of ME discussions and arguments I've had, I'm convinced that only a vanishing minority of players have ever read it.


I kind of prefer characters to have a defined sexuality rather then just be amorphous shape shifters happy to romance literally anyone. Which has kind of been the standard since Dragon Age 3 anyways so it's not really new.

Huh? I wasn't even talking about the romance options :smallconfused: I was talking about gender expression for your custom PC, which exists whether you choose to romance anyone or not. I have no idea which NPCs are romanceable in this game, as I'd rather find out through play.

[Dragonus45]

Huh? I wasn't even talking about the romance options :smallconfused: I was talking about gender expression for your custom PC, which exists whether you choose to romance anyone or not. I have no idea which NPCs are romanceable in this game, as I'd rather find out through play.

Ah, the buzz about the romance able companions and LGBT rep have been synonymous to the point where if I hear someone talking about it I just assume they are talking about companions.

[LaZodiac]

I had to google the classes to find out what I get when I level and that's unacceptable game design.

To each their own on this one- almost no RPG tells you what you're gonna get when you level up, it's far stranger to know every single thing you're gonna get and be able to plan in advance for massive meta-game building.


I wonder how many people calling it a masterpiece have had a chance to play Larian's other games. Because honestly Divinity 2 is a real masterpiece and generally a lot better then this has been so it might just be a result of the 5e boom pulling in newer people who just happen to have this be the game that gets to blow their minds before they find the rest of the genre.

Honestly, while I do love Divinity OS2, I do feel like the fights dragged on a fair bit. Almost every fight is An Event, which I really don't think it should be. Made the last two acts a slog, and early game kinda stressful.



Yeah, 5E isn't big on the chargen minigame, news at 11. The thing I think needs to be understood is that having strong chargen is not a neutral choice or cost-free add-on, it kinda warps the entire rest of the game to accommodate it - DCs and ACs and saves all have to go up so that the experts can be meaningfully challenged which locks everybody else out and now the chargen minigame isn't optional it's mandatory homework. So if you do not find great joy in making the numbers go up, it inflicts a substantial cost on the rest of the game.

i.e. Overwatch, a mechanic that has a strong tendency to turn games into a lot of not actually doing things on your turn. Not having an equivalent to it is a pretty defensible design decision. I don't think it'd really hurt BG3 much to have an Overwatch equivalent, but I also am fine with it not having that, as it's mostly a buff to ranged characters and ranged combat is already quite strong in 5E.


Yeah, that's one of the things that makes it difficult for me to revisit Dragon Age 1. You basically have to plan things out in advance if you want to like, do things with any degree of success- and you DO want to do that, the game can snowball pretty heavily if you don't do things "right".

God right yeah that's why readied actions aren't in this- they're basically like overwatch, and that kinda messes with the game flow a lot. I do agree that I don't think it'd be game breaking, but it'd definitely influence play in a way that wouldn't feel right.



Personally, I agree with that take. Giving companions distinct personalities and preferences make them seem more real, and does that great thing in games that should happen more: when they tell you "No."

But honestly, I don't do the romances in these games. Always feels weird to me. So, meh. Isn't precisely something I tend to get bent out of shape about.

I honestly agree with that take too... except in the case of every party member I've met so far, they do all seem like they'd reasonably be bi. Astarian's a decadent vampire, he'd have to like, actively TRY not to be bisexual. Wyll seems bi in the way a dashing hero who saves the day would be- he doesn't sleep with you because you're a man or a woman, he sleeps with you because he saved your life. Shadowheart meanwhile just... strikes me as bi. Something about her hair. Gale is the only one I can't quite put my finger on why I feel this way... just got the right vibe.

[warty goblin]

I can't recall a single moment where a thing didn't make sense in Mass Effect until I dug into the codex. Some stuff like Cerberus and the Collectors had stupid elements, but those are just badly written parts of the story which don't really make sense even after reading the codex.




Mass Effect is a great example of how not to do a codex wrong.



I have never heard the ME codex described as "non-optional" before. From the years and years of ME discussions and arguments I've had, I'm convinced that only a vanishing minority of players have ever read it.


Ya'll know what the word 'post' in 'post Mass Effect 1' means, right? Games that come after ME1, i.e. I'm specifically not talking about Mass Effect 1. I'm not talking about any of the other ME games either, I only played enough of 2 to get entirely turned off by turning my perfectly reasonable character becoming Space Assault Rifle Jesus, and never touched 3. I'm not particularly wild about the proliferation of codex type systems after Mass Effect, mostly because I think it's a sign of failed writing if you need to provide footnotes for the story to make much sense.



Why would I if it was in the game and easy to look up.

If I'm looking up a lot of information, like say multiple different class progressions for a multiclass, having those in multiple tabs is very handy.


I agree strong characters options isn't neutral, as long as the game itself is designed well it's inherently a positive at all times. 5e did everything it could to stamp down on it and you still have people who optimize breaking the system so none of what you describe was stopped the game was just made more dull in the long run once you have made a few characters.

Here I strongly disagree. Having more options is not inherently better; from my perspective it often makes a game worse and less interesting because it forces encounters to be designed around a sort of blank whatever character who has no particular strengths or weaknesses or specific abilities. It is true that having a lot of options can boost the replayability in the sense that you can do different stuff a second time through, but I've never found this sort of replayability remotely compelling. I'd far rather sacrifice that for more meaningful options within a single playthrough, and very often more player options comes at the expense of within-game options.

I don't think this is a universal value; it's a good thing that games with lots and lots of options exist for players who like those. It's just as good a thing that games with fewer options exist for players who don't like to spend hours leveling up their dudes though.


Overwatch, an important mechanic that in indefensible not to have in this game. Especially when a readied action is already something from the system it's porting over. It allows a person who wants to to play defensively and helps avoid situations where your whole turn is wasted because you went wrong in initiative order and had no targets you could safely reach. I don't understand how Larian got all the way through early access without this becoming an i

If no Overwatch is the hill you want to crucify your enjoyment of the game on, go ahead, I can't really say you're wrong. I can say I absolutely do not miss it, and I play a lot of tactics games, so I'm hardly against Overwatch in principle.


I at least think it's sad because of this. Mostly because a lot of what was done well in this game was just better elsewhere in Divinity mechanically and the companions are mid tier at best on the RP and the writing and setting building isn't totally great either. So when it gets such disproportionate praise it feels like it's both not living up to it's potential and bringing the bar down that low at the same time.

I have played the other Divinity games (except Beyond Divinity, but I will absolutely go to bat for Divinity 2) and they're certainly more hardcore feeling than BG3. If you like more detailed numbers and stuff, they're probably games you will prefer. That's not a universal and uncontested value though; I think preferring a simpler system is an entirely reasonable preference. I'm not saying I do prefer BG3 to DOS2, I haven't played enough of it yet, but I don't think it's a particularly invalid opinion.

I also suspect, given that DOS2 is one of the most highly rated cRPGs of all time, that a lot of people singing the praises of BG3 have played it. Not all of them obviously, but a good chunk.



Yeah, that's one of the things that makes it difficult for me to revisit Dragon Age 1. You basically have to plan things out in advance if you want to like, do things with any degree of success- and you DO want to do that, the game can snowball pretty heavily if you don't do things "right".

There really is a lot to be said for a game you can just, like, play.


God right yeah that's why readied actions aren't in this- they're basically like overwatch, and that kinda messes with the game flow a lot. I do agree that I don't think it'd be game breaking, but it'd definitely influence play in a way that wouldn't feel right.

Yeah, I could go either way, but I don't think it'd add much to the game, so I think there's some virtue to not having it. Less overhead, more focus on the action. Not having Overwatch or delayed actions isn't exactly weird in the cRPG space either, quite a few don't have it.

[Rakaydos]

Launching from steam, it brings up a launcher where I'm forced to click through like 5 things before I actually get to the game menu. Is there a way to make the launcher experience shorter? Or skip it entirely?

[Errorname]

Ya'll know what the word 'post' in 'post Mass Effect 1' means, right? Games that come after ME1, i.e. I'm specifically not talking about Mass Effect 1. I'm not talking about any of the other ME games either, I only played enough of 2 to get entirely turned off by turning my perfectly reasonable character becoming Space Assault Rifle Jesus, and never touched 3. I'm not particularly wild about the proliferation of codex type systems after Mass Effect, mostly because I think it's a sign of failed writing if you need to provide footnotes for the story to make much sense.

We're talking about Mass Effect because that is the example you gave. I personally have not noticed a significant upswing in RPGs that require you to read the codex to make things make sense. The closest thing I can think of is Destiny, which isn't an RPG to begin with and the Grimoire itself wasn't actually the problem there.

[Dragonus45]

Ya'll know what the word 'post' in 'post Mass Effect 1' means, right? Games that come after ME1, i.e. I'm specifically not talking about Mass Effect 1. I'm not talking about any of the other ME games either, I only played enough of 2 to get entirely turned off by turning my perfectly reasonable character becoming Space Assault Rifle Jesus, and never touched 3. I'm not particularly wild about the proliferation of codex type systems after Mass Effect, mostly because I think it's a sign of failed writing if you need to provide footnotes for the story to make much sense.

No when I hear "Post Mass Effect 1" I hear Mass Effect 2 and 3. I don't know what you have or have not played and a Codex can be fine when they are used right. Dragon Age 1 had a great codex.



If I'm looking up a lot of information, like say multiple different class progressions for a multiclass, having those in multiple tabs is very handy.

Having it effeciently and easily available in game when leveling makes even more sense and would be even more handy.




Here I strongly disagree. Having more options is not inherently better; from my perspective it often makes a game worse and less interesting because it forces encounters to be designed around a sort of blank whatever character who has no particular strengths or weaknesses or specific abilities. It is true that having a lot of options can boost the replayability in the sense that you can do different stuff a second time through, but I've never found this sort of replayability remotely compelling. I'd far rather sacrifice that for more meaningful options within a single playthrough, and very often more player options comes at the expense of within-game options.

I don't think this is a universal value; it's a good thing that games with lots and lots of options exist for players who like those. It's just as good a thing that games with fewer options exist for players who don't like to spend hours leveling up their dudes though.

Better options makes for better character expression, that makes for better gameplay and a better overall experience. It's inarguably a better design decision to have decisions you make have some kind of value instead of being bland. And I don't know of anyone who ever played just one game of D&D



If no Overwatch is the hill you want to crucify your enjoyment of the game on, go ahead, I can't really say you're wrong. I can say I absolutely do not miss it, and I play a lot of tactics games, so I'm hardly against Overwatch in principle.

How did a mild gripe about a missing feature that would have been easy to convert from 5e to Larian 5e turn into me crucifying me enjoyment of the game? Bit dramatic don't you think?





I have played the other Divinity games (except Beyond Divinity, but I will absolutely go to bat for Divinity 2) and they're certainly more hardcore feeling than BG3. If you like more detailed numbers and stuff, they're probably games you will prefer. That's not a universal and uncontested value though; I think preferring a simpler system is an entirely reasonable preference. I'm not saying I do prefer BG3 to DOS2, I haven't played enough of it yet, but I don't think it's a particularly invalid opinion.

DOS2 is specifically what I was thinking of, and not just in gameplay terms either. I feel like Larian felt limited playing in someone else's toy chest here and the writing just isn't on the same level as their other work.


I also suspect, given that DOS2 is one of the most highly rated cRPGs of all time, that a lot of people singing the praises of BG3 have played it. Not all of them obviously, but a good chunk.

I'm betting that a lot of the people that 5e brought into the sphere in the last few years may not have, and would bet that Baldur's Gate 3 is going to be a gateway into the genre for a lot of people which is why I'm sad to see it not really living up to what it's potential could have been.

[Psyren]

Launching from steam, it brings up a launcher where I'm forced to click through like 5 things before I actually get to the game menu. Is there a way to make the launcher experience shorter? Or skip it entirely?

My Steam brings up the Launcher and I press Play. Granted I'm always signed into my Larian account from my DOS2 days so that might be the issue.


Ya'll know what the word 'post' in 'post Mass Effect 1' means, right? Games that come after ME1, i.e. I'm specifically not talking about Mass Effect 1. I'm not talking about any of the other ME games either, I only played enough of 2 to get entirely turned off by turning my perfectly reasonable character becoming Space Assault Rifle Jesus, and never touched 3. I'm not particularly wild about the proliferation of codex type systems after Mass Effect, mostly because I think it's a sign of failed writing if you need to provide footnotes for the story to make much sense.

I never said "ME1" anywhere in my post :smallconfused: you know "Mass Effect" is the name of the franchise as a whole too, right?

Moreover, whatever writing issues are in 2 and 3's story had nothing to do with the codex.



Personally, I agree with that take. Giving companions distinct personalities and preferences make them seem more real, and does that great thing in games that should happen more: when they tell you "No."

But honestly, I don't do the romances in these games. Always feels weird to me. So, meh. Isn't precisely something I tend to get bent out of shape about.


Ah, the buzz about the romance able companions and LGBT rep have been synonymous to the point where if I hear someone talking about it I just assume they are talking about companions.

I'm all for the verisimilitude of NPCs who say yes to some custom PCs and no to others. But I can also see how having more than two flags that correspond to gender makes that more complicated (cf Cyberpunk again), and why the game design defaulting to "most of these NPCs are attracted to you regardless of expression" is just easier. Again, no idea if BG3 actually does this or not, but if it does I can see why.

[Errorname]

Moreover, whatever writing issues are in 2 and 3's story had nothing to do with the codex.

I don't think I've ever seen a game where problems with the writing were the fault of having a codex.


I'm all for the verisimilitude of NPCs who say yes to some custom PCs and no to others. But I can also see how having more than two flags that correspond to gender makes that more complicated (cf Cyberpunk again), and why the game design defaulting to "most of these NPCs are attracted to you regardless of expression" is just easier. Again, no idea if BG3 actually does this or not, but if it does I can see why.

It's easier to do and it's less frustrating for the player. Most games don't have that many romanceable characters to begin with, giving them strict preferences can really restrict the options available to any given character.

[Zevox]

Better options makes for better character expression, that makes for better gameplay and a better overall experience. It's inarguably a better design decision to have decisions you make have some kind of value instead of being bland. And I don't know of anyone who ever played just one game of D&D
The mere existence of people who would prefer less complicated character options, such as 5e offers, over the more complicated ones that you are arguing for should put to rest any notion that your argument there is anything but a matter of personal opinion. Since, inarguably, there are those, such as myself or warty, whose experience with a game is negatively impacted when it favors that great complexity.

There's nothing wrong with you preferring that, of course, but it's important to understand that it is a personal preference, not something is just objectively better to everyone all the time.

[Dragonus45]

The mere existence of people who would prefer less complicated character options, such as 5e offers, over the more complicated ones that you are arguing for should put to rest any notion that your argument there is anything but a matter of personal opinion. Since, inarguably, there are those, such as myself or warty, whose experience with a game is negatively impacted when it favors that great complexity.

There's nothing wrong with you preferring that, of course, but it's important to understand that it is a personal preference, not something is just objectively better to everyone all the time.

I'm curious now whar more complicated character options I'm supposedly arguing for? Please elaborate. I haven't said anything about "great complexity" just that 5e lacks meaningful character expression, and said it ultimately didn't even solve the issues Warty said a system like it should have solved. And no, ensuring that the tools are there for a player to make thier character and have them actually be good at the role or power fantasy you want them to fulfill is not subjectively good. It's basic game design 101. Hence this entire argument starting from Warty saying a character being good at something was bad and me disagreeing.

[Psyren]

One thing that really helped cement this game for me - my party was exploring a ruin early in the game, and we came across a door that had no keyhole or any other obvious opening mechanism. There was an oil barrel nearby. I idly thought "gee, I wonder what would happen if I just put this barrel next to that door and shot a firebolt at it." Presto, we got through the door. No idea if that was the intended or only way through, but the fact is that Larian really think like tabletop gamers when they develop challenges and I adore that.


I don't think I've ever seen a game where problems with the writing were the fault of having a codex.



It's easier to do and it's less frustrating for the player. Most games don't have that many romanceable characters to begin with, giving them strict preferences can really restrict the options available to any given character.

Indeed.


I really like the class based dialogue options. I'm sure they get old on a replay, but being able to just Monk at people in conversations feels like I'm playing a D&D Jedi, which is kinda great. I've heard Barbarian gets good dialogues too.

I love this as well, particularly since it will likely encourage more meatspace DMs to do the same. Not every bit of knowledge needs to be gated behind a check, sometimes the education and training from your class should open avenues too.



As for world building. The Sword Coast is generic fantasy line. You don't really need much apart from that and imo the game does plenty to provide you with the information you need when you need it.

I'd say Sword Coast gets a pass on being generic fantasy since it predates so, so many of the others.

[Zevox]

I'm curious now whar more complicated character options I'm supposedly arguing for? Please elaborate. I haven't said anything about "great complexity" just that 5e lacks meaningful character expression, and said it ultimately didn't even solve the issues Warty said a system like it should have solved. And no, ensuring that the tools are there for a player to make thier character and have them actually be good at the role or power fantasy you want them to fulfill is not subjectively good. It's basic game design 101. Hence this entire argument starting from Warty saying a character being good at something was bad and me disagreeing.
The alternatives being offered by another poster, whom you appeared to agree with, were things like the Pathfinder games, were they not? Which are based in origin on 3.5e D&D? The big difference between 3.5e D&D and 5e is a matter of complexity versus simplicity in design. If you don't actually agree with that as an example alternative, and mean something else entirely, feel free to elaborate, but it appears pretty clear what is being argued otherwise.

And if you mean that latter about the player having tools to "make thier character and have them actually be good at the role or power fantasy" literally rather than as hyperbole, I'd have to say you're simply objectively wrong there. 5e very much does that. Its design ensures that isn't hard - the way it's designed (bounded accuracy, adding your proficiency bonus to anything you're supposed to be good at) means you'd have to design your character to be intentionally bad not reach that point.

[Rising Phoenix]

I have to say that I understand the concerns around lack of character building. I used to enjoy the customisation of 3.5 and PF quite a bit, but as the years have gone by I just don't have the time to worry about it as much. I have never played 5ed tabletop wise, but if the plays like it does in BG3 I am sold. Its so much easier to run and understand.

I really tried to like WotR which I believe scratches the itch for character customization very well. But that game just has so. much. bloat. that I cannot enjoy it.

[Spore]

I have to say that I understand the concerns around lack of character building. I used to enjoy the customisation of 3.5 and PF quite a bit, but as the years have gone by I just don't have the time to worry about it as much. I have never played 5ed tabletop wise, but if the plays like it does in BG3 I am sold. Its so much easier to run and understand.

I really tried to like WotR which I believe scratches the itch for character customization very well. But that game just has so. much. bloat. that I cannot enjoy it.

Cannot have 100 subclasses and like 18 races and expect the game to react to everything. But you also cannot have 9 classes and 5 races and expect build depth with only basics feats. Aside from a few runs with drastically other classes and origins, I expect BG 3 to actually lack the replayability of DDOS 2 or WotR.

And that is okay. Because I usually never do a game twice, and I sure as heck don't expect it from the games either.

[LCP]

I'm enjoying the game so far, but finding that characters' mouths don't move when they speak in cutscenes. Has anyone encountered a similar bug, or a fix?

[tonberrian]

Nomination for most improved feat from vanilla 5e to BG3: Tavern Brawler. Doubles your strength modifier for attack and damage on unarmed strikes, throwing attacks, and improvised weapons. Just beware that the tooltips are bugged for monk currently - the feat still works for flurry of blows and monk bonus attack, despite what the tooltip says.

[Rising Phoenix]

Cannot have 100 subclasses and like 18 races and expect the game to react to everything. But you also cannot have 9 classes and 5 races and expect build depth with only basics feats. Aside from a few runs with drastically other classes and origins, I expect BG 3 to actually lack the replayability of DDOS 2 or WotR.

And that is okay. Because I usually never do a game twice, and I sure as heck don't expect it from the games either.

I mean replayability for BG 3 won't be playstyle alone- it will be to see all the different outcomes you can get. Add modding to this and I think there's amazing potential for replayability. Also DLC, given how successful this game is, I would love it if Larian released DLC. I mean they've given us a finished product you can add to it if you want.

If they do add DLC I hope they add two more origins and these need to be of the shorter races.

Regarding the mouth bug, I have not experienced this at all.

[MinimanMidget]

And if you mean that latter about the player having tools to "make thier character and have them actually be good at the role or power fantasy" literally rather than as hyperbole, I'd have to say you're simply objectively wrong there. 5e very much does that. Its design ensures that isn't hard - the way it's designed (bounded accuracy, adding your proficiency bonus to anything you're supposed to be good at) means you'd have to design your character to be intentionally bad not reach that point.

I know 5e has tried to promote the idea that having a 40% chance to succeed on a task instead of a 30% chance somehow equates to competence, but being good at something means being at least vaguely reliable at it.

[Jophiel]

I'm playing a Thief Rogue with expertise in Sleight of Hand and Deception (well, at 5 I've multiclassed into Barbarian) and been using my skills a ton for lock picking, theft and talking my way out of stuff. Always felt competent and skilled in my core Rogue type stuff. Also the stabbing parts where I'm probably better than the true 5e version since BG3 gives me a full extra bonus action which I can use for a second off-hand attack each round (for three attacks total).

It's helpful that the game if far more liberal with the magic items that a typical 5e game would be, many of which give a bonus to skills.

[Rising Phoenix]

Thoughts on act 2:

The reactivity in this game is amazing. Everything I've done in act 1 has has had an impact in act 2. Who I've talked with, who I've saved, who I've killed. I am gobsmacked. This game is really something special. And the side quests are chef's kiss.

[LaZodiac]

I'm playing a Thief Rogue with expertise in Sleight of Hand and Deception (well, at 5 I've multiclassed into Barbarian) and been using my skills a ton for lock picking, theft and talking my way out of stuff. Always felt competent and skilled in my core Rogue type stuff. Also the stabbing parts where I'm probably better than the true 5e version since BG3 gives me a full extra bonus action which I can use for a second off-hand attack each round (for three attacks total).

It's helpful that the game if far more liberal with the magic items that a typical 5e game would be, many of which give a bonus to skills.

Actually regarding this, I was reminded of something.

The fact that this game uses "skill checks can be auto failed/auto succeeded" is it's way of... not punishing, so much as providing that little edge to people who specialize in Doing The Thing. Like yeah, Astarion is a better lock pick than I am (and it is so so satisfying to see the like, +11 he gets on Sleight of Hand) but that doesn't mean he's the be-all end-all of picking locks. I can do it as well, can get bonuses from other sources, and there's always the chance I just roll a 20.

This actually opens up party composition, since you don't HAVE to have a rogue in the party, whereas in games like Dragon Age or DOS2, you really have to- because leaving all that potential loot on the table is just, stressful. Of course part of this IS my being a Bard, I imagine if someone rolled a Barbarian they might feel more inclined to staple Astarion to the party, but that's how things go. Uniqueness of party composition is something these games always have to struggle with.

[Rising Phoenix]

Actually regarding this, I was reminded of something.

The fact that this game uses "skill checks can be auto failed/auto succeeded" is it's way of... not punishing, so much as providing that little edge to people who specialize in Doing The Thing. Like yeah, Astarion is a better lock pick than I am (and it is so so satisfying to see the like, +11 he gets on Sleight of Hand) but that doesn't mean he's the be-all end-all of picking locks. I can do it as well, can get bonuses from other sources, and there's always the chance I just roll a 20.

This actually opens up party composition, since you don't HAVE to have a rogue in the party, whereas in games like Dragon Age or DOS2, you really have to- because leaving all that potential loot on the table is just, stressful. Of course part of this IS my being a Bard, I imagine if someone rolled a Barbarian they might feel more inclined to staple Astarion to the party, but that's how things go. Uniqueness of party composition is something these games always have to struggle with.

I partly agree with this. But at least in act 2 some skill checks are becoming tougher to beat. I really wished they'd give us a second specialist champion outside of Astarion in case people get tired of him.

[Errorname]

I partly agree with this. But at least in act 2 some skill checks are becoming tougher to beat. I really wished they'd give us a second specialist champion outside of Astarion in case people get tired of him.

Isn't that what Hirelings are for?

NOTE: I have not actually used Hirelings yet.

[Keltest]

Alfira for party member 2023

[Varen_Tai]

OK, perhaps a silly question, but while I can appreciate the love of insta-kill by pushing foes off a tall cliff (Fallen Order, anyone?), doesn't that mean you can't loot them? Not a thing in Fallen Order, but here... MAN, I wouldn't want to insta-kill a boss or even a wizard this way if it meant that I couldn't get that sweet sweet loot afterwards because they were all the way down an impassable cliff...

[Keltest]

OK, perhaps a silly question, but while I can appreciate the love of insta-kill by pushing foes off a tall cliff (Fallen Order, anyone?), doesn't that mean you can't loot them? Not a thing in Fallen Order, but here... MAN, I wouldn't want to insta-kill a boss or even a wizard this way if it meant that I couldn't get that sweet sweet loot afterwards because they were all the way down an impassable cliff...

Yes, it does. I actually appreciate that, because it gives a tactical element to "finish the battle faster, conserve resources, maybe not die" versus "I want his sword."

[warty goblin]

OK, perhaps a silly question, but while I can appreciate the love of insta-kill by pushing foes off a tall cliff (Fallen Order, anyone?), doesn't that mean you can't loot them? Not a thing in Fallen Order, but here... MAN, I wouldn't want to insta-kill a boss or even a wizard this way if it meant that I couldn't get that sweet sweet loot afterwards because they were all the way down an impassable cliff...

Depends, the cliff I booted the wizard off of was not an infinite videogame cliff, just a 20 foot or so ledge. Probably wouldn't even have been fatal except the wizard was already down to 1 HP. Stabbing them would have worked, yes, but that's so pedestrian, and why walk when you can make others briefly fly?

[Varen_Tai]

Depends, the cliff I booted the wizard off of was not an infinite videogame cliff, just a 20 foot or so ledge. Probably wouldn't even have been fatal except the wizard was already down to 1 HP. Stabbing them would have worked, yes, but that's so pedestrian, and why walk when you can make others briefly fly?

I am SUPER on board with this philosophy. I mean, who hasn't wanted to fly? And if you can grant that as a last minute bucket list item to someone who is actually an enemy, you are a generous soul indeed.

Plus, a climbable cliff for post mortem looting is a great thing. I can totally back you on this.

[LaZodiac]

I still think my favorite "oh right fall damage exists" moment in this game is during a certain encounter with some skeleton surprise, where my character knocked out a massive riff on her violin (Thunderwave) and knocked the two encroaching bones flying down the stairs, damaging them enough that the fall damage took them out. It felt fantastic, and fit directly into the vibe of my character I was going for.

Relatedly, I saw people talking about how the Paladin's are like, actively required to attend to their oaths and how the game WILL smack them down for that, and I'm reminded of how in person DND can be a looot more leniant than a video game. A perfect example for myself is the Absolute cultists led by their (very dying) brother. I wanted to knock them out so they could like, move on maybe. Gale was there, and wanted to help the non-lethaling of them, but he can't really melee fight for ****. But hey, Fire Bolt is 1d10! The brother has 13 health. This'll be fine!

Gale proceeded to crit, and on his 2d10 rolled 10 and 3.

Pain.

[Terbovus]

Very excited to play this, particularly given the reports about how flexible it is (which will of course be enhanced when the modders get hold of it. :smallsmile: Having recently got back into 5E tabletop D&D after 30 years out even just a short playthrough on the early access helped my understanding of 5E rules.

Indeed, the only challenge is holding off on single player so I don't get too many spoilers for before my multiplayer group gets to it. It took us about three years to finish Divinity OS 2, but we did start sneaking in some single player runs after about 18 months. Fortunately I have Starfield coming to play single player - that should keep me going for... er... forever. (I am still replaying Skyrim VR for the umpteenth time. As a friend wisely says 'One does not finish Skyrim...')

[Terbovus]

Relatedly, I saw people talking about how the Paladin's are like, actively required to attend to their oaths and how the game WILL smack them down for that.

I rather liked getting rewarded in the Early Access for being a proper folk hero. RP pays off in this one. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

I'm enjoying the game so far, but finding that characters' mouths don't move when they speak in cutscenes. Has anyone encountered a similar bug, or a fix?

Cutscenes (and facial expressions/lipsynch) work fine for me.


I know 5e has tried to promote the idea that having a 40% chance to succeed on a task instead of a 30% chance somehow equates to competence, but being good at something means being at least vaguely reliable at it.

The thing is though, this game is a master class for exactly the sorts of things your 5e DM should be doing with regards to checks. Rogues are demonstrably good at roguish things not just due to their proficiencies/expertise, but also by having unique dialogue options that mean they either get Advantage, or don't even need to roll, purely because of their class.

An early example of this is the interaction with the con artist kid in the Tiefling camp towards the beginning of the game; my rogue has the ability to simply point out which con they're trying and failing to use on us, and I believe you also get access to at least some of these options with the Criminal background if you're not a rogue. You can even pocket the ring they were trying to fool you with as a "lesson," or return it, or go along with the con as much as you want. It's absolutely fantastic design, and is the sort of thing 5e does better than any edition of D&D before it.


I mean replayability for BG 3 won't be playstyle alone- it will be to see all the different outcomes you can get. Add modding to this and I think there's amazing potential for replayability. Also DLC, given how successful this game is, I would love it if Larian released DLC. I mean they've given us a finished product you can add to it if you want.

Yeah, the "autosuccess/unique options by class/background" I mentioned above adds a ton of replay value. I'm going with Arcane Trickster on my main for my first playthrough, which means Astarion is cooling his heels in my camp, but on my next one I'm probably going Sorcadin tank which means he'll probably get to come along and maybe Lae'vel or Wyll will get dumped next time.


OK, perhaps a silly question, but while I can appreciate the love of insta-kill by pushing foes off a tall cliff (Fallen Order, anyone?), doesn't that mean you can't loot them? Not a thing in Fallen Order, but here... MAN, I wouldn't want to insta-kill a boss or even a wizard this way if it meant that I couldn't get that sweet sweet loot afterwards because they were all the way down an impassable cliff...

I'm not too far in but I highly doubt loot will be an issue, I found an Uncommon or Rare magic item as early as level 3. Hell the first merchant in the game has magic armor. Magic items are much more plentiful in BG3 than they are in most 5e games, which tracks with how most D&D CRPGs have worked.

[Jophiel]

Plus, without attunement slots, magical items are an easy way to either build on your concept or shore up weak spots. Head, gloves, boots, two rings, back and necklace (plus armor & weapons) are all available without worry.

My Thief has gloves that enhance her Sleight of Hand. They make her feel more Thief-y which is a nice thing. She also has some boots that enhance her jump distance (plus some other effect I can't look up) -- she's not going to be an Olympic athlete with STR 8 but the distance boost is often helpful for her tiny gnome self.

I get that the system won't appease those into heavy theorycrafting or who have some esoteric concept but I wanted to play a lying little sneak who can seriously cut stuff up and that's coming along just swimmingly with plenty of fun reward.

[Rynjin]

Been surprised so far by how much I like this game. I'm pretty outspoken about the fact that I do no enjoy playing 5e but...Larian, man. They're damn good.

Like yeah, the game has all the issues I'd expect a game based on 5e to have. Character customization is ridiculously shallow, and I've gawked on multiple occasions when I get a level up, hit the button, and it just says "yeah you gained some HP, anyway complete?". Like why bother even asking me since I don't get the option to multiclass anyway apparently?

But aside from that? This is easily one of the best games I've played in a while. I haven't had this voracious interest to play more of a game since Elden Ring came out, and I find myself thinking about it when I'm doing other things.

Once you get past all the 5e-imposed flaws on the game, it's an exceptionally good RPG experience. I'm playing Dark Urge, and having a lot of fun with the "good person beset by ultraviolent intrusive thoughts that occasionally become reality" line. I've already lost out on two companions because of it, the second of which made me...surprisingly sad, but it's still very, very good. I like that you get rewarded both for giving in to your urges AND for fighting against them, making it feel like a legitimate roleplaying choice instead of one being painted as the "superior" option in terms of rewards. You are not "playing it wrong" if your Dark Urges are frequently passed over (though I do always save and view the option; there's some really ****ed up ones in there, the worst of which I've come across so far involving the arrangement of a "tragic accident" to befall a CHILD).


One thing that really helped cement this game for me - my party was exploring a ruin early in the game, and we came across a door that had no keyhole or any other obvious opening mechanism. There was an oil barrel nearby. I idly thought "gee, I wonder what would happen if I just put this barrel next to that door and shot a firebolt at it." Presto, we got through the door. No idea if that was the intended or only way through, but the fact is that Larian really think like tabletop gamers when they develop challenges and I adore that.


As far as I can tell there are three ways to enter that room (and multiple sub-ways).

1.) Destroy the door (fire barrel, just attacking, blasting it with spells; I just Eldritch Blasted it open once before reloading).
2.) Shoot the stone block in the courtyard out back, which breaks the ceiling (and likely also kills a couple of bandits) and lets you drop down through the hole (enemies inside instantly aggro of course).
3.) Go through the back door in the same courtyard mentioned above. You can lockpick it, destroy it, or bluff/persuade your way inside after the doorman answers you when you knock on the door.

If the rest of the game maintains this level of multiple tactical approaches to any scenario (which so far it has, though I'm only partway through act 1) I'll be happy all the way through.

I've been impressed by the level of RP related solutions to issues as well. I specced as a GOOlock and wasn't sure how useful the whole mind whammy enchanter schtick would be, but Friends is probably my most used spell after Eldritch Blast lol. I've been pleasantly surprised by how often you can just talk to people, even ones you might assume to be immediate hostiles (like a pack of goblins).

I've even come across a non-combat, non-social challenge that took place in Initiative, involving saving people from a burning building. I found this to be AMAZING, and something games like this often shy away from including.

[Jophiel]

Like why bother even asking me since I don't get the option to multiclass anyway apparently?
As far as I know, you can multiclass from your second level onward. It's in the upper left corner. If your last level was in Fighter, it'll say something like "Level 2 Fighter" but can be changed to another class.

[Rynjin]

As far as I know, you can multiclass from your second level onward. It's in the upper left corner. If your last level was in Fighter, it'll say something like "Level 2 Fighter" but can be changed to another class.

Ahhh, is that how it works? Bit of an odd way to do it.

Thankfully I haven't wanted to multiclass in anything yet, though with the way 5e works I'll probably be doing so (another thing I'm not a fan of Pathfinder's approach of encouraging 1-20 leveling is my preference). Do you know if you can respec companions or just your main character?

[thethird]

The game wouldn't run well on my PC :( so I am dusting the divinity original sin 2 while I wait for the console version.


The thing is though, this game is a master class for exactly the sorts of things your 5e DM should be doing with regards to checks. Rogues are demonstrably good at roguish things not just due to their proficiencies/expertise, but also by having unique dialogue options that mean they either get Advantage, or don't even need to roll, purely because of their class.

An early example of this is the interaction with the con artist kid in the Tiefling camp towards the beginning of the game; my rogue has the ability to simply point out which con they're trying and failing to use on us, and I believe you also get access to at least some of these options with the Criminal background if you're not a rogue. You can even pocket the ring they were trying to fool you with as a "lesson," or return it, or go along with the con as much as you want. It's absolutely fantastic design, and is the sort of thing 5e does better than any edition of D&D before it.

Curious why do you believe that 5e does that better than any other edition. It seems based on not rolling or giving circumstantial options or bonus based on the character's background and how they relate to the situation. So this seems to fall under the things that not only a 5e DM should do, but everyone interested in DMing. Is it because by codifying character backgrounds it has forced people to acknowledge them?

[Zombimode]

Do you know if you can respec companions or just your main character?

I have not tried it but from what I've heard the camp follower Withers can respec any character.

[Rynjin]

I have not tried it but from what I've heard the camp follower Withers can respec any character.

Gotcha. When you talk to him it just says "Can you respec my character?" and I wasn't sure if it would open a character select menu first. The game doing things by dialogue trees which should be menu functions (like swapping party members) is odd to me.



Curious why do you believe that 5e does that better than any other edition. It seems based on not rolling or giving circumstantial options or bonus based on the character's background and how they relate to the situation. So this seems to fall under the things that not only a 5e DM should do, but everyone interested in DMing. Is it because by codifying character backgrounds it has forced people to acknowledge them?

Pretty much. Background elements being "tagged" explicitly makes people more aware of them. it's a very good feature for the tabletop, and dovetails nicely with the background tags that Larian used in D:OS 2 for the same effect; tagging your character with things like "Soldier" or "Arcanist" on charop would unlock new dialogue options.

Or, for a particular character, simply BEING Fane, and everything that comes with it, utterly recontextualizes the story. Fane knows things partway through act 1 that normal characters don't learn until the end of the game just because he's Fane.

[LaZodiac]

So, I do have a question for everyone.

I had Astarion steal an obnoxious ****er's pendant who hit a kid, but despite the Sleight of Hand being successful he noticed he was stolen from eventually, and narrowed in on Astarion as the one who did it. What's the deal there?

[Rynjin]

So, I do have a question for everyone.

I had Astarion steal an obnoxious ****er's pendant who hit a kid, but despite the Sleight of Hand being successful he noticed he was stolen from eventually, and narrowed in on Astarion as the one who did it. What's the deal there?

I talked that guy out of hitting the kid (and the kid into giving it back), so unsure.

The guy seemed really attached to that pendant for some reason, so it may be magical and he can track it? He homes in on the kid who steals it the same way.

[Psyren]

Curious why do you believe that 5e does that better than any other edition. It seems based on not rolling or giving circumstantial options or bonus based on the character's background and how they relate to the situation. So this seems to fall under the things that not only a 5e DM should do, but everyone interested in DMing. Is it because by codifying character backgrounds it has forced people to acknowledge them?

You can certainly do things like automatic success in other editions of D&D or other games, I'm not saying you can't. But 5e actively encourages that style of DMing by not having pages and pages of tables and circumstantial bonuses for each flag or hanging chad in a character's build.

In PF1 for example, rather than a Criminal Background, you might be encouraged to pick up, say, the Criminal and Fast-Talker Traits, and/or maybe Friends in Low Places. Those would each give you a +1 bonus to a couple of skills, which you can then boost further with feats, items, and racials. The assumption there is that you should always be rolling and applying those bonuses, with autosuccess only occurring if and when you have no mathematical chance of failing whatever DC is listed for the activity in the core rulebook.

In 3.5 it's even worse, because you have all that and synergy bonuses to track too (e.g. those 5 ranks in Bluff mean you get another +2 to Diplomacy), cross-class skill ranks and caps etc. And I'm not even going to bother touching anything prior to 3e with its nonweapon proficiencies, racial caps/progression and the like.



1.) Destroy the door (fire barrel, just attacking, blasting it with spells; I just Eldritch Blasted it open once before reloading).
2.) Shoot the stone block in the courtyard out back, which breaks the ceiling (and likely also kills a couple of bandits) and lets you drop down through the hole (enemies inside instantly aggro of course).
3.) Go through the back door in the same courtyard mentioned above. You can lockpick it, destroy it, or bluff/persuade your way inside after the doorman answers you when you knock on the door.

Oh I know about that door (the outside one leading into the ruin.) I was talking about the other door further inside (sarcophagus chamber), rather than the door leading into the complex proper. (For posterity, I used your option #3 to get past the outside door.) Though it may very well be possible to enter the complex entire from the direction closer to the door I was thinking of, however, once I detected my 5th trap in that room I stopped exploring and retreated.


If the rest of the game maintains this level of multiple tactical approaches to any scenario (which so far it has, though I'm only partway through act 1) I'll be happy all the way through.

I've been impressed by the level of RP related solutions to issues as well. I specced as a GOOlock and wasn't sure how useful the whole mind whammy enchanter schtick would be, but Friends is probably my most used spell after Eldritch Blast lol. I've been pleasantly surprised by how often you can just talk to people, even ones you might assume to be immediate hostiles (like a pack of goblins).

I've even come across a non-combat, non-social challenge that took place in Initiative, involving saving people from a burning building. I found this to be AMAZING, and something games like this often shy away from including.

I expect you will be impressed - Larian is really, really good at this sort of thing. Best of all, not only do lateral solutions still reward the same amount of XP as going in swords blazing, depending on who you have with you you have a good chance of scoring Inspiration as well. It's just a masterclass in DMing 5e all around, albeit one that is still necessarily limited by the medium in some ways.

[Jophiel]

Gotcha. When you talk to him it just says "Can you respec my character?" and I wasn't sure if it would open a character select menu first. The game doing things by dialogue trees which should be menu functions (like swapping party members) is odd to me.
There's no menu. You select a different character off the mini-portraits while you're in camp and jog them over to Withers for some respec'ing.

[Dienekes]

Been surprised so far by how much I like this game. I'm pretty outspoken about the fact that I do no enjoy playing 5e but...Larian, man. They're damn good.

5e does seem to work better as a streamlined tactical squad game than when I'm stuck with only a Fighter who doesn't even get Larian's cool weapon abilities.

Regardless, I'll just chime in I'm enjoying the game thus far. But I'm relatively early on. Still haven't found all the starter companions.

[Rynjin]

Oh I know about that door (the outside one leading into the ruin.) I was talking about the other door further inside (sarcophagus chamber), rather than the door leading into the complex proper. (For posterity, I used your option #3 to get past the outside door.) Though it may very well be possible to enter the complex entire from the direction closer to the door I was thinking of, however, once I detected my 5th trap in that room I stopped exploring and retreated.

We're talking about the same door; there are two entrances into the crypt in general. One is just right up the beach from where you crash land (I had Astarion pick the lock and proceeded from there) and a rear entrance with some bandits meandering about outside, which leads to some kind of living quarters area.

Between the two areas is a door that is locked, and "impossible" to pick. The bandits in the living quarters area can be heard form the sarcophagus chamber area arguing on how to pry it open. You can bust through the door with brute force (initiating a fight), drop through the hole after dropping the rock (ditto), or sneak in past the doorman (the quiet option).

Opening the door the "proper" way requires passing a Perception check to notice a small switch in the room with the statue over in the living quarters area.

[Psyren]

We're talking about the same door; there are two entrances into the crypt in general.

Got it - I think I was talking about the second entrance when I mentioned the barrel then. The first entrance is the one I persuaded the guy to open for me.

I'm away from the game due to being at work but I can load an earlier save and take a screenshot later.


There's no menu. You select a different character off the mini-portraits while you're in camp and jog them over to Withers for some respec'ing.

I just want to reiterate the importance of this - Larian is very context-sensitive in terms of actions being taken by whoever you have selected. So in camp you'll want to swap to the person whose spell loadout you want to change, whoever you might want to respec, making sure you have the right person selected before initiating a conversation or interacting with something in the environment etc.

[Eldonauran]

Oh I know about that door (the outside one leading into the ruin.) I was talking about the other door further inside (sarcophagus chamber), rather than the door leading into the complex proper. (For posterity, I used your option #3 to get past the outside door.) Though it may very well be possible to enter the complex entire from the direction closer to the door I was thinking of, however, once I detected my 5th trap in that room I stopped exploring and retreated.There is a way to get around that door, though you need to succeed at a locking picking challenge. Head east past the ruins and explore the cliffside after climbing down a little. You'll find a hatch that leads down. Its the other 'back exit' from the inner part of the tomb. ((EDIT: Dang it. Ninja'd))


I adore this game. I am biased though, since I have been supporting it since Early Access first went live and played the first chapter about a dozen times. 5e D&D is not my favorite system but it just works for the game. My only real nitpick is that the information tabs on many things are not as clear and concise as I would like, from the (lack of) in game class progression to the (lack of) displayed information on wildshape benefits/drawbacks that have to be observed in the combat log rather than upfront. Nothing I can't figure out though, so its only a mild issue.

The changes they've put into the first chapter from the early access version have me enjoying it like its my first time through. My last fight was with a Flind and really powerful Gnolls that I cheesed the hell out of by bottle-necking them on a broken bridge over a deep chasm, and chucking oil barrels at them. Had to retreat once all the minions were killed (and the boss 'healed' to full as I made my way back around to get high ground. I then proceeded to web him every turn (spider wildshape) and pepper him with ranged attack rolls from the high cliff. It took everything we had (already two short rests for the day), with someone going down twice before we got him down to 4 HP and then shoved him off the cliff to finish him off. Great loot. Word of advice... Do NOT open the flask.

[Jophiel]

So, I do have a question for everyone.

I had Astarion steal an obnoxious ****er's pendant who hit a kid, but despite the Sleight of Hand being successful he noticed he was stolen from eventually, and narrowed in on Astarion as the one who did it. What's the deal there?

The theft mechanics in this game are sort of obnoxious. You can successfully stealth and yoink stuff out of someone's pocket or off their table (Stealth & Sleight of Hand) but they'll still almost immediately notice that the item is missing and start looking for the thief. If you're in the area, they'll accuse you and you'll need to Social your way out via standard dialogue or possibly Persuasion/Deception. The most successful way is to go Turn-based, steal their stuff, move away then Dash away before turning off Turn-Based and continue to scoot out of the area. You'd think someone running away from you making Zoidburg "Whoop whoop" noises would look MORE suspicious :smallbiggrin:

It's annoying and doesn't feel very rogue-like that a "successful" theft still immediately pins suspicion on you if you're in the area but so it goes.

[Varen_Tai]

HA! Pro tip -

If you have the Mask of the Shapeshifter from the Digital Deluxe, it 1) doesn't just make you LOOK different, it actually transforms you, and 2) you can transform someone, pass it on to the next party member, have them transform and maintain your same shape, so the ENTIRE PARTY can transform.

Why is this important? Well, because there are places that only gnomes, halflings, and shapeshifted druids can get to. You know, unless you transform your entire Big Person party into halflings and gnomes and then you duck in.

I can only IMAGINE the fun this will be as time goes on...

[LCP]

Lip sync thing is fixed - not sure if it was the patch or verifying my game files that did it. The bug was really getting in the way before, but now I'm blown away by the quality of the dialogue. Having even minor NPCs visually emote at you with proper voice acting really makes me interact with them much more as people than as puzzles.

I may have shot myself in the foot a bit in that I staked Astarion and probably locked myself out of a lot of fun dialogue that way.

[Eldonauran]

Why is this important? Well, because there are places that only gnomes, halflings, and shapeshifted druids can get to. You know, unless you transform your entire Big Person party into halflings and gnomes and then you duck in.Yep. I have a gnome druid I am running around with and found a few burrows too small to fit into unless I was in cat shape.

Brings a new meaning to the phrase "cat burglar". I looted everything that wasn't nailed down. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

I may have shot myself in the foot a bit in that I _____ and probably locked myself out of a lot of fun dialogue that way.

Protip for CRPGs, if you want as much dialogue as possible, keep as many party members alive as you can :smalltongue:

[Jophiel]

Bright side: Now you have a reason to play again!

I skipped Astarion because I left'd where I should have right'd but decided not to head back since another rogue would be redundant and it gives me something fresh for next time.

Though maybe I should go back and stake him just to see what the downstream implications are!

[LCP]

Protip for CRPGs, if you want as much dialogue as possible, keep as many party members alive as you can :smalltongue:

Yeah, it was purely a roleplaying choice. Plus, it's a dice roll and my STR wasn't so high so I was curious what might happen if I failed!

He introduces himself by holding a knife to your throat, and then something like 2 days later I wake up to him trying to suck my blood, having already found a very dead pig that he sucked dry. I've been playing my character with the Criminal background and a very do-what-you-have-to-do-to-survive attitude - not making the obvious choice felt like breaking character.

[Spore]

I almost killed Laezeal or how she is called, because she is a huge [female dog]. But I attacked her captors instead. This is the first very wonky decision where you can just go "murder person I knew for 10 minutes but she saved my ass" or "murder some randos who are very hostile".

This feels like the choice in the Skyrim tutorial. Sure both factions have their reasons but who in their RIGHT mind goes with the choice that kills the person that either worked for their active death or the choice that did not just save you from a giant teleporting flying molusk?

[Dragonus45]

It doesn't help that they went full Larian on the origin characters, who mostly a pack of duplicitous *******s unpleasant to be around or talk too until you get deep enough into conversation to find the soft inner core. I read to many romance novels so I'm more susceptible to this approach than I want to admit but I wish that they had put in at least one straight forward good person in that group. I'm aware that the later companions are what I'm looking for but I'm not there yet for certain.

[LCP]

I don't mind that myself - I think they came up with a good contrivance to force the party together with 'we've all got squids in our brains and if we don't find a cure we're going to turn into bigger squids'. IMO that works better for why people would drop everything and follow you around on adventures than it just being the power of friendship, particularly when the main character they're trying to befriend has so much possible variation in background and personality.

I do wish Volo could stay as a companion though. His eye surgery scene was the first time I've laughed out loud at a video game for a while. I guess my ideal party isn't full of heroes or antiheroes, it's 100% clowns.

[Dragonus45]

I don't mind that myself - I think they came up with a good contrivance to force the party together with 'we've all got squids in our brains and if we don't find a cure we're going to turn into bigger squids'. IMO that works better for why people would drop everything and follow you around on adventures than it just being the power of friendship, particularly when the main character they're trying to befriend has so much possible variation in background and personality.

I do wish Volo could stay as a companion though. His eye surgery scene was the first time I've laughed out loud at a video game for a while. I guess my ideal party isn't full of heroes or antiheroes, it's 100% clowns.

Yea I don't think it feels forced to have to work with the party I just wish I didn't dislike so many people in the party as people.

And I was happy to see Volo leave but he is also my favorite NPC in every AL mod he gets randomly name dropped into to make serious fun of. I tend to run him like a more transparent Gilderoy Lockhart. Man is seriously overexposed, but I may have brain poisoning from running too many convention games and public AL games locally. I feel like very 5e party goes full clown and I just want an escape from that.

[LaZodiac]

It doesn't help that they went full Larian on the origin characters, who mostly a pack of duplicitous *******s unpleasant to be around or talk too until you get deep enough into conversation to find the soft inner core. I read to many romance novels so I'm more susceptible to this approach than I want to admit but I wish that they had put in at least one straight forward good person in that group. I'm aware that the later companions are what I'm looking for but I'm not there yet for certain.

... in what world is Wyll and Gale unpleasant to be around until you get to know them? Maybe we've just got different tolerances for some of this stuff.

[Keltest]

... in what world is Wyll and Gale unpleasant to be around until you get to know them? Maybe we've just got different tolerances for some of this stuff.

I can understand Gale being annoying if you don't take his eloquence at more or less face value, since it kind of sounds like he's mocking you.

[Rising Phoenix]

It doesn't help that they went full Larian on the origin characters, who mostly a pack of duplicitous *******s unpleasant to be around or talk too until you get deep enough into conversation to find the soft inner core. I read to many romance novels so I'm more susceptible to this approach than I want to admit but I wish that they had put in at least one straight forward good person in that group. I'm aware that the later companions are what I'm looking for but I'm not there yet for certain.

I am guessing that you have missed Wyl, Gale and Karlach then? They are very nice to hang around.

[LaZodiac]

I can understand Gale being annoying if you don't take his eloquence at more or less face value, since it kind of sounds like he's mocking you.

Okay yeah that makes sense, but he's a wizard. That sort of eloquence isn't mockery they're just like this! It's difficult to be a wizard and not be like this.

[Jophiel]

The only Companions I took a dislike to was Vae'zel (who I still don't like much) and Astarion, who eff'd around and found out when we met. His shirt looks better on me anyway.

I could do without Gale's gimmick but I have enough junk that it's not onerous, just annoying. I don't need MORE resource management.

Gale: I could explode into a thermonuclear magical blast! But don't worry, if that's happening I'll go down into the Underdark first
My Deep Gnome: Uhh... thanks, dude

[Dragonus45]

... in what world is Wyll and Gale unpleasant to be around until you get to know them? Maybe we've just got different tolerances for some of this stuff.

Wyll is sort of the one breath of fresh air and I actually didn't find Gale until last night since I didn't do early access and am playing relatively blind I walked straight past him. I find him to be a bit wizard smug but that's not the worst.


I can understand Gale being annoying if you don't take his eloquence at more or less face value, since it kind of sounds like he's mocking you.

I get that he isn't trying to be smug but that sort of word a day calendar thing even it face value can be annoying. I still like him way more then just about anyone else so far though, sadly my party composition has no space for him since I'm already a wizard myself.


I am guessing that you have missed Wyl, Gale and Karlach then? They are very nice to hang around.

Didn't even know Karlach was gonna be choice for an ally? Saw gnolls that direction and wanted a couple more levels before I went that direction north.

[LaZodiac]

Wyll is sort of the one breath of fresh air and I actually didn't find Gale until last night since I didn't do early access and am playing relatively blind I walked straight past him. I find him to be a bit wizard smug but that's not the worst.


This is hilarious because I DID play EA... and completely missed him when I played. Funny how that works.

[Rynjin]

I almost killed Laezeal or how she is called, because she is a huge [female dog]. But I attacked her captors instead. This is the first very wonky decision where you can just go "murder person I knew for 10 minutes but she saved my ass" or "murder some randos who are very hostile".

This feels like the choice in the Skyrim tutorial. Sure both factions have their reasons but who in their RIGHT mind goes with the choice that kills the person that either worked for their active death or the choice that did not just save you from a giant teleporting flying molusk?

...Dunno? Why did you pick the choice to attack them instead of one of the 4 other options?

[Psyren]

Even if I didn't like Lae'zel - which to be clear, so far I do - I saved her on entirely pragmatic grounds; her people have a means of removing gestating tadpoles and she was willing to share it. Also the whole "helping me get out of a crashing nautiloid in one piece" thing.

The endless cattiness between her and Shadowheart is pretty entertaining too.

[LaZodiac]

Even if I didn't like Lae'zel - which to be clear, so far I do - I saved her on entirely pragmatic grounds; her people have a means of removing gestating tadpoles and she was willing to share it. Also the whole "helping me get out of a crashing nautiloid in one piece" thing.

The endless cattiness between her and Shadowheart is pretty entertaining too.

Same, though don't mind me when I shudder every time she says "purified" and "purification". I know those are valid words for ridding oneself of a parasite, but the Gith seem militaristic and incapable of bending in any capacity- I don't think her friends are going to be too gentle, in the nicest possible end point of this.

[Spore]

I can understand Gale being annoying if you don't take his eloquence at more or less face value, since it kind of sounds like he's mocking you.

My character is an idiot half-orc barbarian who solves problems with violence and hostility. I say any ridicule is well intended. And in a small amount of idiot player, I started roleplaying as my character not realizing a hat without armor value counts as "armor" for unarmored protection dumping my AC to 12 from 15.

[Arkhios]

I'd guess similar to fried octopus does. Nautiloid is technically a massive squid, after all. Maybe a hint of ozon might be involved in the flavor.

[Psyren]

I dealt with the first act and now that Gith wants to Yank Me. Help :smalleek:

[Errorname]

I really like how Gale has been written so far. Like he sucks, but he sucks in a pretty believable way. He's also a good counterpart to the more evil companions, cause Gale isn't like a monstrously bad dude or anything he's just self-absorbed and manipulative.

[Arkhios]

I really like how Gale has been written so far. Like he sucks, but he sucks in a pretty believable way. He's also a good counterpart to the more evil companions, cause Gale isn't like a monstrously bad dude or anything he's just self-absorbed and manipulative.

Uh, I don't follow? How Gale "sucks" any more than a wizard you could make yourself? His ability scores are quite standard for a wizard. If you're referring to that curse of his, just let him consume all items you don't wish to use (for example I gave him the obviously malevolent but incredibly powerful magic items, like the book found from the cellar, and the staff from the hag, for example).

[Zombimode]

I dealt with the first act and now that Gith wants to Yank Me. Help :smalleek:

That was a bit surprising to me as well. But she actually managed to seduce me. When all the companions started to get into my characters pants I was like "nah, we know each other for two days, I'm not that kind of elf".
But Laezel managed to find the perfect words. It was a perfect fit to what had happened and to the character that I've now decided to play.

[Rising Phoenix]

I just made it to act 3...

All I am going to say is that I did not see that coming...And suddenly I don't know were my morals are... daaaaamn.

[LCP]

Uh, I don't follow? How Gale "sucks" any more than a wizard you could make yourself? His ability scores are quite standard for a wizard. If you're referring to that curse of his, just let him consume all items you don't wish to use (for example I gave him the obviously malevolent but incredibly powerful magic items, like the book found from the cellar, and the staff from the hag, for example).

His personality. He's convinced he's god's gift to the world and doesn't have the remotest self-awareness about it. The last conversation I had with him, he thought I might be interested in a lengthy poetic description of how cool his cat was, then took offense when I asked if he was really talking about a cat.

When he told me his backstory all I could think of was
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuoMsubaIAAoc1z.jpg

[Dragonus45]

I have stumbled on the thing last night that is really going to drive me up the wall.WTF is Minthara as a paladin and how has she not fallen yet! Is she listed as vengeance only because they haven't instituted the evil oaths like Oath breaker or Conquest yet?

[Keltest]

I have stumbled on the thing last night that is really going to drive me up the wall.WTF is Minthara as a paladin and how has she not fallen yet! Is she listed as vengeance only because they haven't instituted the evil oaths like Oath breaker or Conquest yet?

Oathbreaker is actually in the game, just not as a choice on character creation. You have to actually break your oath to become an oathbreaker.

[LaZodiac]

I have stumbled on the thing last night that is really going to drive me up the wall.WTF is Minthara as a paladin and how has she not fallen yet! Is she listed as vengeance only because they haven't instituted the evil oaths like Oath breaker or Conquest yet?

Oath Breaker is in game, actually, and apparently it's different between each subclass!

Admittedly I haven't met the character yet but I'm aware she's an antagonist who can be a party member if you're evil? Her being an oath of vengeance paladin would probably explain that pretty neatly- and remember, paladins don't have to be GOOD anymore. Lolth can have paladins.

[Dragonus45]

Oathbreaker is actually in the game, just not as a choice on character creation. You have to actually break your oath to become an oathbreaker.

Oh nifty, that makes the thing I am complaining about make even less sense now.

[Dienekes]

Oh nifty, that makes the thing I am complaining about make even less sense now.

Don't know the character but what part of her oath has she broken?

[Dragonus45]

Don't know the character but what part of her oath has she broken?

That would be large spoilers.

She is the commander of the goblin forces attacking the peaceful druid grove and planning to slaughter a large number of fleeing innocent teifling refugees down to the children.

[Rynjin]

That would be large spoilers.

She is the commander of the goblin forces attacking the peaceful druid grove and planning to slaughter a large number of fleeing innocent teifling refugees down to the children.

What about those things is incompatible with worship of Lolth or the concept of Vengeance? No, the reason I think it's weird she's not an Oathbreaker is because she presumably abandoned Lolth for "The Absolute".

[Arkhios]

His personality. He's convinced he's god's gift to the world and doesn't have the remotest self-awareness about it. The last conversation I had with him, he thought I might be interested in a lengthy poetic description of how cool his cat was, then took offense when I asked if he was really talking about a cat.

When he told me his backstory all I could think of was
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuoMsubaIAAoc1z.jpg

Ah, right. Classic example of self-obsessed megalomaniac. So, a classic wizard, with a pinch of devotion to a god. Still wouldn't say he sucks. But I guess we can disagree on that account.

[LCP]

I wouldn't say 'megalomaniac' at all. He's not power-hungry or evil, he's just very convinced that he's a Cool Guy and can't imagine you wouldn't think he's cool too.

A megalomaniac wizard I would find more fun to have around as a companion. Or what I would think of as a classic wizard which would be an old man thoughtfully stroking his long beard, offering cryptic advice and selling illegal fireworks to hobbits. But I agree it's personal taste!

[Dragonus45]

What about those things is incompatible with worship of Lolth or the concept of Vengeance? No, the reason I think it's weird she's not an Oathbreaker is because she presumably abandoned Lolth for "The Absolute".

Vengeance has more wiggle room then the other oaths but it still frames itself as fighting evil just with permission to be edgy about it, Which I'm already not a fan of for paladins, but the idea it could cover for a paladin to just about anything she does in this story and not fall so hard she cracks the roof of the underdark is gross.

[Psyren]

Uh, I don't follow? How Gale "sucks" any more than a wizard you could make yourself? His ability scores are quite standard for a wizard. If you're referring to that curse of his, just let him consume all items you don't wish to use (for example I gave him the obviously malevolent but incredibly powerful magic items, like the book found from the cellar, and the staff from the hag, for example).

I was worried about Gale's curse due to my 5e mindset but I'm now drowning in useless magic items after the goblin fort so he should be fat and happy.

[Tyndmyr]

... in what world is Wyll and Gale unpleasant to be around until you get to know them? Maybe we've just got different tolerances for some of this stuff.

I've only just started, but Gale just will. not. shut. up. I can totally see hating him, as I sort of do as well.

The game overall is decent, at least thus far. I do prefer 3.5 over 5e generally, and would have preferred it especially for a computer game, as having all the situational modifiers kept track of for you is one of the best possible reasons to play a computerized version of 3.5. But, yknow, 5e ain't terrible either. Probably my second favorite choice.

[Errorname]

Uh, I don't follow? How Gale "sucks" any more than a wizard you could make yourself? His ability scores are quite standard for a wizard. If you're referring to that curse of his, just let him consume all items you don't wish to use (for example I gave him the obviously malevolent but incredibly powerful magic items, like the book found from the cellar, and the staff from the hag, for example).

He's a perfectly fine wizard he just kind of sucks as a person.

[Anonymouswizard]

My girlfriend's agreed to buy me a copy as a late birthday present, which means I won't be able to play it for a couple of days to a week or so but looking forward to it.

Already considering my PC for my first run, I'm wondering if I go for my Barbarian fantasy (naked, tattoos/body paint, massive sword...) or if I take a spellcaster like a Bard or Sorcerer. Looking through the Origin companions it seems like Bard/Sorcerer might go best with the ones I want to use.

Also a question, is this like previous Larian games where I'm only going to feel like it's reasonably balanced on easy?

[Dienekes]

My girlfriend's agreed to buy me a copy as a late birthday present, which means I won't be able to play it for a couple of days to a week or so but looking forward to it.

Already considering my PC for my first run, I'm wondering if I go for my Barbarian fantasy (naked, tattoos/body paint, massive sword...) or if I take a spellcaster like a Bard or Sorcerer. Looking through the Origin companions it seems like Bard/Sorcerer might go best with the ones I want to use.

Also a question, is this like previous Larian games where I'm only going to feel like it's reasonably balanced on easy?

I don't know how to answer what you feel is reasonably balanced. All I can say is I'm playing normal and haven't lost a fight yet. But I'm also not very far, and if I remember DOS2 at all, the level/difficulty balancing didn't really get weird until the last chapter.

I will say that since the leader in a conversation makes the rolls, I went Paladin so that I have a reason to put points in Charisma and I think that was a good choice for me. So Bard/Sorc is not a bad idea.

On the other hand, the weapon abilities, jump, and shove bonus actions make playing martials far more fun and dynamic than they are in the actual 5e game. So, Barbarian is not a bad choice.

[Kish]

I have stumbled on the thing last night that is really going to drive me up the wall.WTF is Minthara as a paladin and how has she not fallen yet! Is she listed as vengeance only because they haven't instituted the evil oaths like Oath breaker or Conquest yet?
What's this "fallen" business? She's your basic evil paladin, like a third of all paladins since 4ed came out.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't know how to answer what you feel is reasonably balanced. All I can say is I'm playing normal and haven't lost a fight yet. But I'm also not very far, and if I remember DOS2 at all, the level/difficulty balancing didn't really get weird until the last chapter.

I will say that since the leader in a conversation makes the rolls, I went Paladin so that I have a reason to put points in Charisma and I think that was a good choice for me. So Bard/Sorc is not a bad idea.

On the other hand, the weapon abilities, jump, and shove bonus actions make playing martials far more fun and dynamic than they are in the actual 5e game. So, Barbarian is not a bad choice.

Basically I remember D:OS 1 and 2 basically requiring you to complete all the sidequests to have a chance at the next act, as well as throwing some difficult encounters at you with little to no telegraphing.

As to classes, the reason I'm not immediately jumping on the Barbarian is because I know there's a recruitable Barbarian in the game (because I always look up the possible party members before starting an RPG). Paladin is another idea but I've looked over the companions and decided I'm not really interested in using Gale or Will, so I'd end up a bit short on arcane magic. So I'm planning on a Tiefling Lore Bard or Storm Sorcerer probably with the Dark Urge origin, although I might just go completely custom for my first run.

[Jophiel]

Playing on Normal, the typical fights are pretty smooth sailing but the "boss" fights sometimes take me a few attempts, often the learning curve is in the environment: setting up on the high ground, staying away from the ledge I got swept over, etc. I haven't felt any fights were excessively unfair though once or twice I came across something I was obviously underleveled for and had to come back later.

[MCerberus]

I have to ask, because there is a gnawing curiosity.

One of the devs posted, and i quote: "Bear's got nothing on what's to come"

Is... is that true?

[Rynjin]

I have to ask, because there is a gnawing curiosity.

One of the devs posted, and i quote: "Bear's got nothing on what's to come"

Is... is that true?

Druid on vampire hanky panky is indeed one of the least interesting things in the game. At least from my perspective.

[Anonymouswizard]

I have to ask, because there is a gnawing curiosity.

One of the devs posted, and i quote: "Bear's got nothing on what's to come"

Is... is that true?

Illithids are a pretty big part of the game right? Surely one of them must be a boinking option, I think that would be pretty hard to bear. Yes, I know the game basically opens with Illithid sex.

[MCerberus]

Illithids are a pretty big part of the game right? Surely one of them must be a boinking option, I think that would be pretty hard to bear. Yes, I know the game basically opens with Illithid sex.

I'm seen enough-

wait no I'm not letting you get away with that pun. Anyway, context of that is that the dev was testing romance plotlines

[Rakaydos]

I have to ask, because there is a gnawing curiosity.

One of the devs posted, and i quote: "Bear's got nothing on what's to come"

Is... is that true?

Ever since 3rd edition, it's been joked based on the half-templates that the only species more promiscuous than Dragons are Humans.

[Dragonus45]

What's this "fallen" business? She's your basic evil paladin, like a third of all paladins since 4ed came out.[/spoiler]

Also known as doing Paladins wrong.

[Rising Phoenix]

Also known as doing Paladins wrong.

They way I see it Paladins are people who really strive towards certain ideals. Some of these ideals are nefarious. Evil Paladins have always existed- they are called Blackguards.

[Anonymouswizard]

They way I see it Paladins are people who really strive towards certain ideals. Some of these ideals are nefarious. Evil Paladins have always existed- they are called Blackguards.

I think the Pathfinder 2e solution (rename the class, have Paladin as another term for Oath of Devotion and/or Good members of the class) could work. The idea of having evil oathbound magical warriors is a good one*, but the term Paladin has a few too many connotations in D&D.

Of course that's more up to WotC more than Larian.

* Hence Antipaladins appearing roughly two seconds after the original Paladin class.

[Errorname]

Also known as doing Paladins wrong.

Nah Antipaladins are a useful archetype, although admittedly I much preferred when we called them Antipaladins and Blackguards. But there's no reason that evil orders can't have evil knights. The Black Knight is an archetype just as old as the Knight in Shining Armour, and frankly more representative of how actual knights tended to behave.

[Arkhios]

Also known as doing Paladins wrong.

Based on what, exactly?

Etymology: From French paladin, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin palātīnus (“palace officer”), derived from palātium (“palace”). Doublet of palatine.

paladin (plural paladins):

A heroic champion, especially a knight.
A defender or advocate of a noble cause.
Any of the twelve Companions of the court of Emperor Charlemagne.


"a heroic champion" is the only depiction that somewhat suggests a "good guy", the other's don't really point towards one way or another. Being nice or even good isn't necessarily noble, or vice versa (also, as one of my favorite class guides I've read -and that's saying a lot- points out: "Lawful Good is not Lawful Nice"). In fact, quite a lot of actual nobles were pretty much a-holes (including apparently my own ancestors in Frankia, who were Teutonic Knights, around 14th to 16th century AD, whose deeds I'd rather not recount here, as I'm definitely not proud of them after learning this detail). As is with most of the present day upper class people as well.

That the Paladin is "an individual knight-errant holy warrior or combat healer" is actually quite modern, influenced by D&D. In other words, you could say that D&D has been doing Paladins wrong for several editions prior to 4th and 5th editions.

In my opinion, 4th edition took a big step towards better depiction of how different all individual paladins can be from each other, and 5th edition perfected it further (sure, there's still room for improvement, but it's really good already). The term Paladin is more than what it's been portrayed before. To differentiate their Oaths and Convictions from the base chassis, is IMHO, a very good call from designers (despite the fact that it's obviously necessary to do so since the whole edition circles around all classes having subclasses and all that).

Just my 2 cp

[Dragonus45]

They way I see it Paladins are people who really strive towards certain ideals. Some of these ideals are nefarious. Evil Paladins have always existed- they are called Blackguards.

Which in general is why I wish they hadn't rolled blackguards into just being a paladin oath to be honest. But having the character in question not be Conquest (which I guess isn't implemented yet) or an Oathbreaker is what really annoys me here.


I think the Pathfinder 2e solution (rename the class, have Paladin as another term for Oath of Devotion and/or Good members of the class) could work. The idea of having evil oathbound magical warriors is a good one*, but the term Paladin has a few too many connotations in D&D.

Of course that's more up to WotC more than Larian.

* Hence Antipaladins appearing roughly two seconds after the original Paladin class.

Yes I agree doing like it was in older editions where being a Blackguard or Anti Paladin or whatever the in universe evil paladin version was called was a distinct thing from real paladins was ideal and helped avoid silly situations like this one.


Nah Antipaladins are a useful archetype, although admittedly I much preferred when we called them Antipaladins and Blackguards. But there's no reason that evil orders can't have evil knights. The Black Knight is an archetype just as old as the Knight in Shining Armour, and frankly more representative of how actual knights tended to behave.

I agree they are a useful archetype, but I absolutely despise this thing where you have a Paladin of one of the not evil oaths, if admittedly having taken the edgiest of the good options, and have them commit absolute atrocities and then say that's ok because paladins get to do murder innocent people at the behest because your personal morals says those tiefling children were just target for someone crusading against a great injustice. Combined with the stuff I've read about Larian and the way they handled paladin PCs Larian are coming across like that DM who "doesn't let players play paladinds" but makes an exception just to purposefully crafts a situation designed to force your paladin fall so they can give you a 15 minute speech about how the class is stupid and being a Blackguard will be way cooler anyways.

[Rynjin]

To be clear, I don't like Evil Paladins either (especially when the game seems to have ONLY Evil paladins, I've fought two already just in act 1), it was just weird to go "why hasn't [character] fallen for not being a good guy?" in a game using 5e's wonky ass interpretation of "Paladins".

[Keltest]

Honestly, I'm in the camp that says being a paladin should be hard, and sometimes should mean making things hard for yourself because it needs to be done. I don't know about paladin PCs in this game specifically, but in general as long as its possible to make the right decision, it being hard to do so is a feature rather than a bug.

[Dragonus45]

To be clear, I don't like Evil Paladins either (especially when the game seems to have ONLY Evil paladins, I've fought two already just in act 1), it was just weird to go "why hasn't [character] fallen for not being a good guy?" in a game using 5e's wonky ass interpretation of "Paladins".

Even 5e's wonky ass paladins have some level of standards to them and this feels like it managed to find itself stuck under that bar. Part of me hopes this must be an issue of them not having Conquest paladin enabled.


Honestly, I'm in the camp that says being a paladin should be hard, and sometimes should mean making things hard for yourself because it needs to be done. I don't know about paladin PCs in this game specifically, but in general as long as its possible to make the right decision, it being hard to do so is a feature rather than a bug.

The stand out issue I have heard about, if you fool Minthara into thinking you are her ally and lure her goblin army about to assault the druid grove into a trap you fall. Which seems... harsh by any standard.

[Keltest]

Even 5e's wonky ass paladins have some level of standards to them and this feels like it managed to find itself stuck under that bar. Part of me hopes this must be an issue of them not having Conquest paladin enabled.



The stand out issue I have heard about, if you fool Minthara into thinking you are her ally and lure her goblin army about to assault the druid grove into a trap you fall. Which seems... harsh by any standard.

Eh. If you wanted to be subtle about things, you should have played a ranger or rogue. You're supposed to challenge evil, not seduce it and then stab it in bed when it falls asleep.

[Dragonus45]

Eh. If you wanted to be subtle about things, you should have played a ranger or rogue. You're supposed to challenge evil, not seduce it and then stab it in bed when it falls asleep.

That mindset just encourages the idea that all paladins are allowed to be is stupid unsubtle idiots though. More power to someone who wants to play one that way I guess but the older stricter standards of Lawful Good at all times and no overt Evil Acts would have allowed for something like fooling her that way so how the way looser standards 5e paladins get tripping the player up here feels very strange. Then compare with the unfallen paladin on the opposite end of the equation marching her goblin horde out to slaughter innocent refugees and children and an unflattering picture starts to form.

[Dienekes]

Based on what, exactly?

Etymology: From French paladin, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin palātīnus (“palace officer”), derived from palātium (“palace”). Doublet of palatine.

paladin (plural paladins):

A heroic champion, especially a knight.
A defender or advocate of a noble cause.
Any of the twelve Companions of the court of Emperor Charlemagne.


"a heroic champion" is the only depiction that somewhat suggests a "good guy", the other's don't really point towards one way or another. Being nice or even good isn't necessarily noble, or vice versa (also, as one of my favorite class guides I've read -and that's saying a lot- points out: "Lawful Good is not Lawful Nice"). In fact, quite a lot of actual nobles were pretty much a-holes (including apparently my own ancestors in Frankia, who were Teutonic Knights, around 14th to 16th century AD, whose deeds I'd rather not recount here, as I'm definitely not proud of them after learning this detail). As is with most of the present day upper class people as well.

That the Paladin is "an individual knight-errant holy warrior or combat healer" is actually quite modern, influenced by D&D. In other words, you could say that D&D has been doing Paladins wrong for several editions prior to 4th and 5th editions.

In my opinion, 4th edition took a big step towards better depiction of how different all individual paladins can be from each other, and 5th edition perfected it further (sure, there's still room for improvement, but it's really good already). The term Paladin is more than what it's been portrayed before. To differentiate their Oaths and Convictions from the base chassis, is IMHO, a very good call from designers (despite the fact that it's obviously necessary to do so since the whole edition circles around all classes having subclasses and all that).

Just my 2 cp

Eh, if we start actually taking our real world as the basis for these classic archetypes as opposed to the legends surrounding them then Druids start needing to make a lot more human sacrifices.

I think it’s fair for a fantasy to base itself on the legends around a thing, like the Song of Roland and Arthur’s Knights rather than the Knights Templar and Teutons.

[Rynjin]

Eh. If you wanted to be subtle about things, you should have played a ranger or rogue. You're supposed to challenge evil, not seduce it and then stab it in bed when it falls asleep.

Again, 5e Paladins are not 3.5 Paladins. You don't have the clause against lying. And that was always the dumbest part of the code anyway (see: arguments about how a real Paladin would/should have sold out Anne Frank).

[Keltest]

Again, 5e Paladins are not 3.5 Paladins. You don't have the clause against lying. And that was always the dumbest part of the code anyway (see: arguments about how a real Paladin would/should have sold out Anne Frank).

Its not about lying, you're basically hiding behind the tieflings and forcing these innocent peoples to fight your battles for/with you. It would be one thing if you were standing with them against an inevitable fight, but you have to actually betray them and instigate the attack on the grove yourself first.

[Dragonus45]

Its not about lying, you're basically hiding behind the tieflings and forcing these innocent peoples to fight your battles for/with you. It would be one thing if you were standing with them against an inevitable fight, but you have to actually betray them and instigate the attack on the grove yourself first.

I went a different direction and didn't play that route myself but the way I heard it described the Tieflings were in on the deception.

[GloatingSwine]

That mindset just encourages the idea that all paladins are allowed to be is stupid unsubtle idiots though. More power to someone who wants to play one that way I guess but the older stricter standards of Lawful Good at all times and no overt Evil Acts would have allowed for something like fooling her that way so how the way looser standards 5e paladins get tripping the player up here feels very strange. Then compare with the unfallen paladin on the opposite end of the equation marching her goblin horde out to slaughter innocent refugees and children and an unflattering picture starts to form.

From what I've seen the theme of BG3 is "D&D with a jerk GM" and jerk GMs can only think of one thing to do with paladins.

[Psyren]

I for one am beyond happy that 5e redefined "paladin." 3.5 Paladins needed to die in all the fire.

You know what we pretty much never have on the 5e subforum? Idiotic "does my paladin fall" arguments consisting of 50 pages of circular flaming if the mods don't nuke them from orbit first.

5e gives us a much broader (and frankly, cooler) lens for what could be considered a "paladin." Shao Kahn is a Conquest Paladin. Captain America is either Devotion or Glory. Heimdall is Watchers. Darth Vader is an Oathbreaker. The Green Knight is Ancients. There are so many more concepts that can be represented by "paladin" in 5e than there ever were in prior editions.

[Rynjin]

I for one am beyond happy that 5e redefined "paladin." 3.5 Paladins needed to die in all the fire.

You know what we pretty much never have on the 5e subforum? Idiotic "does my paladin fall" arguments consisting of 50 pages of circular flaming if the mods don't nuke them from orbit first.

5e gives us a much broader (and frankly, cooler) lens for what could be considered a "paladin." Shao Kahn is a Conquest Paladin. Captain America is either Devotion or Glory. Heimdall is Watchers. Darth Vader is an Oathbreaker. The Green Knight is Ancients. There are so many more concepts that can be represented by "paladin" in 5e than there ever were in prior editions.

In other editions we had different classes for those concepts. There were some minor issues with the Paladin Code but it certainly presented a much, much more interesting chassis than the 5e Paladin which is basically just a Cleric with fewer spells. I'm not really interested in Cleric with fewer spells, I want a Paladin, dammit.

My biggest issue with 5e Paladins is the word "Paladin" has ceased to have meaning in-setting. Being a Paladin doesn't automatically imply the character is trustworthy and duty-bound. The last Paladin I fought in BG3 was just...some *******. he was a mercenary who could one-shot everybody in my party, and that's about it. Nothing about the story changes if he's a Paladin or a Fighter or anything else.

Paladins had a lot of narrative potential in previous editions that is simply lost in newer ones, because being a Paladin implies NOTHING narratively anymore.

I wouldn't have as much of an issue if they were called literally anything else. Call them Warpriests, Divine Champions, whatever. But Paladin implies a very specific flavor, and one of my favorite character archetypes (just a dude who is a very good guy).

The dilution of Paladins is just one of the other victims of 5e chasing mass appeal. Having a class you can only access if your character is a good guy and the player is willing to RP them that way "feels bad" for people who just want to be able to deal more damage in a round. That's right, I'm going full angry nerd on that one, one of my least favorite things about 5e is the overdone Paladin multiclass because it's just the most efficient thing to do damage-wise.

[LaZodiac]

I've only just started, but Gale just will. not. shut. up. I can totally see hating him, as I sort of do as well.

The game overall is decent, at least thus far. I do prefer 3.5 over 5e generally, and would have preferred it especially for a computer game, as having all the situational modifiers kept track of for you is one of the best possible reasons to play a computerized version of 3.5. But, yknow, 5e ain't terrible either. Probably my second favorite choice.

I'm more annoyed by his slurping magic items up like spaghetti, honestly.


I have to ask, because there is a gnawing curiosity.

One of the devs posted, and i quote: "Bear's got nothing on what's to come"

Is... is that true?

I'll admit I'm still early, by during the first scene with Lae'zel you have an option to try and dom her with an intimidate check, because her intent is to just absolutely destroy you. The ensuing scene made me worried I wouldn't get the result of a full long rest.


To be clear, I don't like Evil Paladins either (especially when the game seems to have ONLY Evil paladins, I've fought two already just in act 1), it was just weird to go "why hasn't [character] fallen for not being a good guy?" in a game using 5e's wonky ass interpretation of "Paladins".

To be fair one of those guys was a warrior with a paladin's sword, if we're thinking of the same guy.

[Eldonauran]

The satisfaction I got for taking out that drow with my Paladin cannot be measured.

"Those that stray from the straight and narrow, and dare still refer to themselves as a Paladin, stain the very thing that sets them apart. Pretenders, the lot of them. They may have found some way to mimic the abilities through empowerment from the deity they patron, but they are no better than the warlocks that make pacts with powerful creatures. Let them pretend for as long as they are able. The truth will inevitably catch up with them, and unlike myself, it will have no mercy when it does."

Pretty much my views on the whole Paladin issue. You can borrow a name but you cannot steal the soul of what it represents.


-------------------------------------------

Oh, a bit of advice for those who came to the full game release from the Early access. Absolutely follow the advice from the launcher and completely uninstall the game to do a full install. I missed out on a bunch of added scenes in the first act because I thought it would be fine.

[Rynjin]

To be fair one of those guys was a warrior with a paladin's sword, if we're thinking of the same guy.

He can Smite, so he's still a "Paladin".

He's just a Paladin of Zariel instead of Tyr..

[Dragonus45]

I for one am beyond happy that 5e redefined "paladin." 3.5 Paladins needed to die in all the fire.

You know what we pretty much never have on the 5e subforum? Idiotic "does my paladin fall" arguments consisting of 50 pages of circular flaming if the mods don't nuke them from orbit first.

So making paladins boring was the answer to them being divisive? I don't buy it.


5e gives us a much broader (and frankly, cooler) lens for what could be considered a "paladin." Shao Kahn is a Conquest Paladin. Captain America is either Devotion or Glory. Heimdall is Watchers. Darth Vader is an Oathbreaker. The Green Knight is Ancients. There are so many more concepts that can be represented by "paladin" in 5e than there ever were in prior editions.

Broadening the lens kind of exactly what of what you can call a paladin is exactly my complaint here Psyren, it
make it inherently less cool not more. This is not a situation where more meant better. Most of those characters have other things they can easily be without watering down Paladins to the point where the class has no meaning attached to it anymore.


In other editions we had different classes for those concepts. There were some minor issues with the Paladin Code but it certainly presented a much, much more interesting chassis than the 5e Paladin which is basically just a Cleric with fewer spells. I'm not really interested in Cleric with fewer spells, I want a Paladin, dammit.

My biggest issue with 5e Paladins is the word "Paladin" has ceased to have meaning in-setting. Being a Paladin doesn't automatically imply the character is trustworthy and duty-bound. The last Paladin I fought in BG3 was just...some *******. he was a mercenary who could one-shot everybody in my party, and that's about it. Nothing about the story changes if he's a Paladin or a Fighter or anything else.

Paladins had a lot of narrative potential in previous editions that is simply lost in newer ones, because being a Paladin implies NOTHING narratively anymore.

I wouldn't have as much of an issue if they were called literally anything else. Call them Warpriests, Divine Champions, whatever. But Paladin implies a very specific flavor, and one of my favorite character archetypes (just a dude who is a very good guy).

This sums it up neatly, Pathfinder struck gold with the Inquisitors, Hellknights, and Warpriest as great examples of how to create space for various potential martial champions of evil without mucking around with the Paladin as an archetypal character. 5e rolling all of that into one class was a mistake, except maybe specifically only oath of Ancients. That one actually felt like it could be a fresh take, even if it probably also could have just been a different class as well.

[LaZodiac]

He can Smite, so he's still a "Paladin".

He's just a Paladin of Zariel instead of Tyr..

Right, forgot he can smite- though I'll note paladins aren't the only ones that can smite.

Anyway that reminds me; what exact is the consequence of Wyll not killing Kar-lock (I don't remember how to spell her name, blegh). Cause I've had the scene in question happen, but uh... aside from becoming a cambion, I'm not sure what's changed for the ol' Blade of Frontiers.

My input on the entire Paladin thing is "I think paladins of other gods should exist, and it's kinda silly that they need to make a special evil paladin for evil gods". It ties into DND being weirdly black and white about morality, and not something I'm super fond of.

That said I want 4e's "Holy Assassin" Avenger back please, I love them so much.

[Dragonus45]

Anyway that reminds me; what exact is the consequence of Wyll not killing Kar-lock (I don't remember how to spell her name, blegh). Cause I've had the scene in question happen, but uh... aside from becoming a cambion, I'm not sure what's changed for the ol' Blade of Frontiers.

I think that's just it. Might be a thing in the endgame?




My input on the entire Paladin thing is "I think paladins of other gods should exist, and it's kinda silly that they need to make a special evil paladin for evil gods". It ties into DND being weirdly black and white about morality, and not something I'm super fond of.

That said I want 4e's "Holy Assassin" Avenger back please, I love them so much.

The Good Vs Evil morality sounds like a feature not a bug on my end.

[Eldonauran]

The Good Vs Evil morality sounds like a feature not a bug on my end.Same. Good having objectively BETTER options than Evil, though they have to walk an exponentially harder path to get them ... I am okay with that. More than okay, actually.

[Psyren]

In other editions we had different classes for those concepts.

And in 5th edition they are paladins.


My biggest issue with 5e Paladins is the word "Paladin" has ceased to have meaning in-setting.

Sorry you feel that way but it does have meaning. A paladin is a warrior who supplements their martial prowess with divine power they gained from an oath, which may or may not be tied to a specific deity or faith. Clerics by contrast are defined by their relationship to a divine power/entity first and foremost, with varying degree of martial skill a distant second.

5e paladins CAN still fall, but because the range of oaths they can swear is as broad as... well, as broad as the concept of oaths themselves, you're not pigeonholed into this one tiny outdated box that we were stuck with in older editions.


The dilution of Paladins is just one of the other victims of 5e chasing mass appeal.

You say "dilution", I say "expansion."

If you want to retain the stereotypical Lawful Good 3.5 paladin in your 5e games, you can houserule that the only paladins allowed in your setting are Devotion, but WotC is right to move away from that for their own conception of the class. Paladins of a variety of alignments have been a thing for a long time now and this is the logical evolution of that.


So making paladins boring was the answer to them being divisive? I don't buy it.

You don't have to buy it, and I couldn't care less about your boredom. See my proposed solution above if you're playing 5e, and if you're not, the older editions haven't gone anywhere.



Broadening the lens kind of exactly what of what you can call a paladin is exactly my complaint here Psyren, it make it inherently less cool not more. This is not a situation where more meant better. Most of those characters have other things they can easily be without watering down Paladins to the point where the class has no meaning attached to it anymore.

I for one think its very cool that you can represent a character like Shao Kahn or the Green Knight as a Paladin.

[LaZodiac]

The Good Vs Evil morality sounds like a feature not a bug on my end.

Naw. To each their own, but DND's "always chaotic evil" stuff has always stricken me as stupid.

[Dragonus45]

And in 5th edition they are paladins.

Which is stupid, and devalues Paladins as a concept.




You don't have to buy it, and I couldn't care less about your boredom. See my proposed solution above if you're playing 5e, and if you're not, the older editions haven't gone anywhere.


Of course, just house rule it why didn't I think of that! As we all know the default setting and concepts set by the rules themselves have no value at all and no one ever cares about them.



I for one think its very cool that you can represent a character like Shao Kahn or the Green Knight as a Paladin.

You couldn't care less about my boredom and I couldn't care less about what you think is cool. Especially when it comes to violently breaking a core character concept into pieces to enable someone like Shao Kahn being a paladin when he doesn't fit in any what that character archetype. Neither does the Green Knight. But break the paladin enough that they do and suddenly it has value now?


Naw. To each their own, but DND's "always chaotic evil" stuff has always stricken me as stupid.

Why would it be stupid for outsiders or other inherently magical strange inhuman things things like devils or demons always be evil though?

[Anonymouswizard]

Side note: D&D Paladins technically have nothing to do with gods the same as Druids, Forgotten Realms is actually an exception to that rule and not the default. 3.5 also had Paladins for every corner alignment but I'm not 100% certain if Unearthed Arcana was first party. In general they seem to swear their oaths to cosmic principles or the universe itself, which handily justifies evil Oathbound.

It's also possible for Evil oaths to be just as restrictive as Good ones, you just have to frame it right. The code of an Oath of Slaughter would probably be very uncompromising.

[LaZodiac]

Why would it be stupid for outsiders or other inherently magical strange inhuman things things like devils or demons always be evil though?

I mean how the game's always treated goblins, orcs ad the like. Yes an elemental being of pure Devil energy is probably going to be Evil... even if I also think typecasting demons and the like as things that ARE always maliciously evil and cruel is personally boring, I get why DND does it though!

I'm just not as interested when it turns out the potentially good demon is in fact evil and must be killed at all costs and isn't trustworthy because "well yes of course, all demons is like this, they're never trustworthy ever ever". This is why I'm not too fond of Raphael- literally nothing he says is anything other than wind, and why I'm curious how certain aspects of Wyll's story will go (RE that spoiler I had earlier). If demons are forever Always Evil, then it doesn't matter how unique or varied or interesting you make the demon- a mindless screaming hellspawn may as well be treated exactly as one treats Raphael or one treats Zariel, and that's uninteresting to me.

[Dragonus45]

I mean how the game's always treated goblins, orcs ad the like. Yes an elemental being of pure Devil energy is probably going to be Evil... even if I also think typecasting demons and the like as things that ARE always maliciously evil and cruel is personally boring, I get why DND does it though!

No not always, 3.5 had actually put a ton of work in across the novels and in the Monster Manual by working on the whole "Always" "Usually" and so on which mostly was there to delineate between evil cultures versus being that were themselves to some degree inherently evil. It was actually quite good, but 5e had the whole "back to basics" thing going on and removed a lot of that language from it. I mostly don't remember 4e so I can't remember what they did for all of that and I could be blaming it for 4e here.



I'm just not as interested when it turns out the potentially good demon is in fact evil and must be killed at all costs and isn't trustworthy because "well yes of course, all demons is like this, they're never trustworthy ever ever". This is why I'm not too fond of Raphael- literally nothing he says is anything other than wind, and why I'm curious how certain aspects of Wyll's story will go (RE that spoiler I had earlier). If demons are forever Always Evil, then it doesn't matter how unique or varied or interesting you make the demon- a mindless screaming hellspawn may as well be treated exactly as one treats Raphael or one treats Zariel, and that's uninteresting to me.

I think that's a bit reductive myself, you can still have a character like Raphael be a tempting deal and potential ally because being evil doesn't make him incapable if making an honest deal or permanently untrustworthy. Cambion's specifically are Devils now apparently (which still throws me off) who especially tend to be locked pretty hard into having to follow their word when a real deal gets signed. This is the honestly what I think the real problem with the alignment system good versus evil stuff, it's all to easy to forget that even a Cambion is an individual with some goal or desire who quite possibly be dealing in good faith just because it's a good deal or they don't feel like being sneaky right now and just want to go home and people aren't the absolute representation of their alignment at all times. Even when they aren't people at all. (Cambions aside on that front, unless the lore has really gone sideways when I wasn't looking they are still half fiends right? They are actually people people not outsider elemental kind of fuzzy "where does the magic ends and a personality begin" people. They just also due to the circumstances of such a pairing tend to be stuck in the deep end of the hot places from birth which rarely ends well for anyone regardless of parentage.)

[Zevox]

I for one am beyond happy that 5e redefined "paladin." 3.5 Paladins needed to die in all the fire.

You know what we pretty much never have on the 5e subforum? Idiotic "does my paladin fall" arguments consisting of 50 pages of circular flaming if the mods don't nuke them from orbit first.

5e gives us a much broader (and frankly, cooler) lens for what could be considered a "paladin." Shao Kahn is a Conquest Paladin. Captain America is either Devotion or Glory. Heimdall is Watchers. Darth Vader is an Oathbreaker. The Green Knight is Ancients. There are so many more concepts that can be represented by "paladin" in 5e than there ever were in prior editions.
Agreed. The change to Paladins is among my favorite of 5e (alongside the introduction of subclasses in general). It was always silly to me that 3.5 had to introduce alternative classes to represent the same thing, but different alignment - Blackguard, Paladin of Freedom, etc. Rather than just let the Paladin be the crusader strongly devoted to a cause and/or belief system, and define what that cause or beliefs were. The introduction of different Oaths in 5e did that very well. Devotion for the classic LG type, Ancients for NG/CG types, Vengeance for more neutral or evil leaning types but with still enough wiggle room that a good one could work; later Conquest for overtly evil types, Redemption as another good flavor, Crown as a flexible option that can work for any alignment, etc. It's perfect, what the class should have been all along.

(The Oath of Glory is boring, though.)

[Psyren]

Of course, just house rule it why didn't I think of that! As we all know the default setting and concepts set by the rules themselves have no value at all and no one ever cares about them.

If you're stuck on/require something clearly outdated that has since been abandoned in order to be happy then yes, houserules (or mods in the case of BG) are the solution.



You couldn't care less about my boredom and I couldn't care less about what you think is cool.

I'm glad we understand each other.



Why would it be stupid for outsiders or other inherently magical strange inhuman things things like devils or demons always be evil though?

Fiends / Celestials etc are still always predominantly aligned one way. Paladins are not, because surprise, they are generally complex sapient humanoids like every other PC class and not one-dimensional outsiders.


Agreed. The change to Paladins is among my favorite of 5e (alongside the introduction of subclasses in general). It was always silly to me that 3.5 had to introduce alternative classes to represent the same thing, but different alignment - Blackguard, Paladin of Freedom, etc. Rather than just let the Paladin be the crusader strongly devoted to a cause and/or belief system, and define what that cause or beliefs were. The introduction of different Oaths in 5e did that very well. Devotion for the classic LG type, Ancients for NG/CG types, Vengeance for more neutral or evil leaning types but with still enough wiggle room that a good one could work; later Conquest for overtly evil types, Redemption as another good flavor, Crown as a flexible option that can work for any alignment, etc. It's perfect, what the class should have been all along.

Exactly.


(The Oath of Glory is boring, though.)

I honestly like the changes being proposed to it in One. It is the Divine Athlete paladin; Hercules (Disney version in particular) would be a great Glory Paladin.

[Rynjin]

And in 5th edition they are paladins.

Thanks, Paladin Obvious.




Sorry you feel that way but it does have meaning. A paladin is a warrior who supplements their martial prowess with divine power they gained from an oath, which may or may not be tied to a specific deity or faith. Clerics by contrast are defined by their relationship to a divine power/entity first and foremost, with varying degree of martial skill a distant second.

This is a meaningless distinction in a world where the majority of deities have some kind of martial inclination. The distinction between a Paladin sworn to Tyr and a Cleric of Tyr is largely academic in terms of flavor.


5e paladins CAN still fall, but because the range of oaths they can swear is as broad as... well, as broad as the concept of oaths themselves, you're not pigeonholed into this one tiny outdated box that we were stuck with in older editions.

Tiny? Yes. Outdated? How?


You say "dilution", I say "expansion."

These things are not contradictory terms. You dump a bunch of ink into water and it expands, thus diluting it. The narrowness of the concept was what made it interesting.

Sometimes less is more. It's like walking up to a talented portrait artist and saying their work is lesser because they aren't making 3D sculptures of their subject. It's inane, and misses the point of the portrait and the unique advantages said portrait has as a more 'limited" medium.


If you want to retain the stereotypical Lawful Good 3.5 paladin in your 5e games, you can houserule that the only paladins allowed in your setting are Devotion, but WotC is right to move away from that for their own conception of the class. Paladins of a variety of alignments have been a thing for a long time now and this is the logical evolution of that.

The difference, again, is "Paladins" of different alignments were always called something else. It's a huge setting change for Paladin to fundamentally change from "character with divine power drawn from their conviction to do Good and destroy Evil" to "some dude with magic powers who doesn't stand for anything in particular".

It's a setting change that has already in a small way diminished my experience with this game, because I find Paladin as nothing more than a mechanical splash used to give NPC villains more nova power exceedingly boring.

And hey, if you don't care about my boredom, don't ****ing comment on it because I don't particularly care whether you care or not. I'm allowed my own opinions, and dismissive comments like that are nothing but needlessly antagonistic. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, so keep it locked up in your own head where it belongs.

[Keltest]

Ok, speaking as a grognard whose first character was an AD&D paladin, I like the paladin change. I find the argument that paladins don't stand for anything now to be absurd. They still stand for things, its just you can have them stand for something besides the generic knight in shining armor lawful good now. They can stand for the sanctity of mortality against the interference of malicious outsider entities, or they can stand for proactively hunting down and stopping X thing that they find repulsive, or they can stand for and champion a strict hierarchal society with an absolute crushing emphasis on lessers serving their betters, or a few other things. These guys are all defined by standing for something, so its not like theyre radically different from older edition paladins, its just the specific thing they champion that has changed, not that they stand for something.

[Zevox]

I honestly like the changes being proposed to it in One. It is the Divine Athlete paladin; Hercules (Disney version in particular) would be a great Glory Paladin.
I barely even looked at the changes to them in that last playtest. The concept just doesn't work for me as a Paladin. I don't see Hercules or Achilles as Paladins, just Fighters. Hercules having superhuman strength because he's a demi-god or Achilles having near invulnerability because of his dip in the Styx don't equate to kind of divine magic that a Paladin gets to me. Trying to do Greek heroes as a Paladin subclass like that just feels off and dull to me as a result.

(I'd also disagree with your earlier interpretation of Shao Khan as a Conquest Paladin; again, I'd put him as a Fighter, with some supernatural abilities because he's from Outworld. But that's just that specific character, not the concept of the Conquest Paladin, which I quite like.)

[Psyren]

We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic; this is a discussion forum, not a blog.


These things are not contradictory terms. You dump a bunch of ink into water and it expands, thus diluting it. The narrowness of the concept was what made it interesting.
...
The difference, again, is "Paladins" of different alignments were always called something else.

No, they weren't. Non-LG Paladins have existed long, long before 5e was a twinkle in Mearls' eye.



This is a meaningless distinction in a world where the majority of deities have some kind of martial inclination. The distinction between a Paladin sworn to Tyr and a Cleric of Tyr is largely academic in terms of flavor.

For a deity like Tyr maybe (and even for his faith, War Clerics and Paladins approach battle in very different ways) but for ones like Lathander or Ilmater the cleric and paladin sides of their faiths are very different.


Sometimes less is more. It's like walking up to a talented portrait artist and saying their work is lesser because they aren't making 3D sculptures of their subject. It's inane, and misses the point of the portrait and the unique advantages said portrait has as a more 'limited" medium.

If they're trying to capture a 3-dimensional subject then yes, pointing out the limitations of their chosen medium or approach are valid. Similarly, the concept of "paladin" has more possible expressions than the bog-standard LG Devotion model. You can swear and champion all kinds of Oaths, including negative/self-serving/oppressive ones.


Ok, speaking as a grognard whose first character was an AD&D paladin, I like the paladin change. I find the argument that paladins don't stand for anything now to be absurd. They still stand for things, its just you can have them stand for something besides the generic knight in shining armor lawful good now. They can stand for the sanctity of mortality against the interference of malicious outsider entities, or they can stand for proactively hunting down and stopping X thing that they find repulsive, or they can stand for and champion a strict hierarchal society with an absolute crushing emphasis on lessers serving their betters, or a few other things. These guys are all defined by standing for something, so its not like theyre radically different from older edition paladins, its just the specific thing they champion that has changed, not that they stand for something.

Exactly this.


I barely even looked at the changes to them in that last playtest. The concept just doesn't work for me as a Paladin. I don't see Hercules or Achilles as Paladins, just Fighters. Hercules having superhuman strength because he's a demi-god or Achilles having near invulnerability because of his dip in the Styx don't equate to kind of divine magic that a Paladin gets to me. Trying to do Greek heroes as a Paladin subclass like that just feels off and dull to me as a result.

To be clear, I'm not saying Disney Hercules is a paladin because of his divine heritage. Rather, if you were representing a character like him in 5e, Glory would fit well; a kind of himbo Dudley Do-Right type whose prowess is reinforced by the heavens and seeks to good-naturedly get his party members to hit the gym with him would mesh with Glory pretty well.

[Dragonus45]

If you're stuck on/require something clearly outdated that has since been abandoned in order to be happy then yes, houserules (or mods in the case of BG) are the solution.

I see my sarcasm failed to penetrate.




Fiends / Celestials etc are still always predominantly aligned one way. Paladins are not, because surprise, they are generally complex sapient humanoids like every other PC class and not one-dimensional outsiders.

So, Paladins are a class and Fiends/Celestials are a race. One is a self selecting group, such as how you don't get very many wizards who just hate math and don't like to study. Saying paladins shouldn't have a predominant alignment because they aren't one dimensional outsiders is like saying that Fighters shouldn't all be using weapons because that forces them to all be stuck in a small box and not the complex sapient humanoids that all PCs should be.



I honestly like the changes being proposed to it in One. It is the Divine Athlete paladin; Hercules (Disney version in particular) would be a great Glory Paladin.

Hercules a Paladin? Hercules... Paladin..... Hercules? Even the super straightforward Disney guy is a terrible Paladin of any variety. Expanding out the class to fit a glory hound like him is exactly why this idea of watering down Paladins to fit anyone is so out of place.




If you want to retain the stereotypical Lawful Good 3.5 paladin in your 5e games, you can houserule that the only paladins allowed in your setting are Devotion, but WotC is right to move away from that for their own conception of the class. Paladins of a variety of alignments have been a thing for a long time now and this is the logical evolution of that.

Outdated, logical? None of those words apply here and WotC being "right" is a pretty bold claim to just lay out like it's a fact.






This is a meaningless distinction in a world where the majority of deities have some kind of martial inclination. The distinction between a Paladin sworn to Tyr and a Cleric of Tyr is largely academic in terms of flavor.

Yea, there are already so many different ways for that idea to be managed across classes and editions that I don't understand where this passion for making Paladins suck more to be option number 37 on that list comes from.




Tiny? Yes. Outdated? How?

In the larger context it probably goes in the pool with anything elto do with alignment and racial stats. You know, things that make plenty of sense as game mechanics but are old thus no longer have any value.



These things are not contradictory terms. You dump a bunch of ink into water and it expands, thus diluting it. The narrowness of the concept was what made it interesting.

Sometimes less is more. It's like walking up to a talented portrait artist and saying their work is lesser because they aren't making 3D sculptures of their subject. It's inane, and misses the point of the portrait and the unique advantages said portrait has as a more 'limited" medium.

Well yea this sums the whole thing up. Paladins are inherently a bit niche, by trying to forcibly broaden them to include a dozen character archetypes most of which already have classes that handled them all it does is make the whole concept less interesting and take it away from the people who did like that niche thing. And it's not even adding anything, because clerics already exist.




The difference, again, is "Paladins" of different alignments were always called something else. It's a huge setting change for Paladin to fundamentally change from "character with divine power drawn from their conviction to do Good and destroy Evil" to "some dude with magic powers who doesn't stand for anything in particular".

It's a setting change that has already in a small way diminished my experience with this game, because I find Paladin as nothing more than a mechanical splash used to give NPC villains more nova power exceedingly boring.

Agreed, it's kind of sad to realize that as far as I have seen Larian isn't even really making any out loud statement with the Paladin character that got me nettled and started all this. She hasn't had any dialogue that really calls to it or tries to justify her actions. She's just there in a boring yet annoying way.

[Psyren]

So, Paladins are a class and Fiends/Celestials are a race. One is a self selecting group, such as how you don't get very many wizards who just hate math and don't like to study. Saying paladins shouldn't have a predominant alignment because they aren't one dimensional outsiders is like saying that Fighters shouldn't all be using weapons because that forces them to all be stuck in a small box and not the complex sapient humanoids that all PCs should be.

It's more like saying Fighters shouldn't be forced into a specific weapon. (Which they aren't.)



Outdated, logical? None of those words apply here and WotC being "right" is a pretty bold claim to just lay out like it's a fact.

2014 Paladin in WotC's PHB survey was one of, if not the highest-rated classes in the game. Objectively, the removal of alignment restrictions has been a success, and well-received.

[Dragonus45]

It's more like saying Fighters shouldn't be forced into a specific weapon. (Which they aren't.)

No, and if they aren't interested in any weapon at all they would probably Wizards. Or Warlocks if they also hate math. Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?



2014 Paladin in WotC's PHB survey was one of, if not the highest-rated classes in the game. Objectively, the removal of alignment restrictions has been a success, and well-received.

Ah yes one of the most mechanically busted classes in the game has access made easier for people not interested in engaging with the RP and now it's at the top of almost every optimization guide for a long while and about half of all the characters I saw at conventions for about 2 years straight were Sorcadins. I wonder how it got so popular. All it took was not really being Paladins anymore.

[Keltest]

No, and if they aren't interested in any weapon at all they would probably Wizards. Or Warlocks if they also hate math. Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?



Ah yes one of the most mechanically busted classes in the game has access made easier for people not interested in engaging with the RP and now it's at the top of almost every optimization guide for a long while and about half of all the characters I saw at conventions for about 2 years straight were Sorcadins. I wonder how it got so popular. All it took was not really being Paladins anymore.

Your mistake is thinking that LG values are the only value system that people can believe in. It worked well enough when "Lawful" was generally considered to be better than "chaotic", but that went by the wayside a long time ago.

[Dragonus45]

Your mistake is thinking that LG values are the only value system that people can believe in.

Your mistake is thinking I believe that.

Also I should go dig up some stuff I remember from PF about Paladin also being one of the most popular classes there as well and they do have an LG requirement. And are also fairly busted mechanically.

[Keltest]

Your mistake is thinking I believe that.

Well you sure seem to be starting from the assumption that paladins have to be LG and working backwards. Heck, your question of why be a paladin if you don't want to be LG is pretty telling all on its own.

[Psyren]

No, and if they aren't interested in any weapon at all they would probably Wizards. Or Warlocks if they also hate math. Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?

Because other kinds of paladin exist, and have for decades now. All 5e did was enshrine that idea in core.



Ah yes one of the most mechanically busted classes in the game has access made easier for people not interested in engaging with the RP and now it's at the top of almost every optimization guide for a long while and about half of all the characters I saw at conventions for about 2 years straight were Sorcadins. I wonder how it got so popular. All it took was not really being Paladins anymore.

Alignment being completely optional scored well too.

[Batcathat]

While both sides have some points, I'm leaning mostly towards paladins being "supernaturally empowered warrior devoted to an ideal" (or something along those limes) regardless of what that ideal is, since that's typically how it works with other classes. A fighter is a fighter whether they are fighting to save the orphanage or to burn it down.

[Dragonus45]

Well you sure seem to be starting from the assumption that paladins have to be LG and working backwards. Heck, your question of why be a paladin if you don't want to be LG is pretty telling all on its own.

My question for why a class that has a requirement for being LG would have characters who are LG is telling?


Because other kinds of paladin exist, and have for decades now. All 5e did was enshrine that idea in core.


Paladin of Freedom was dumb, not terribly well thought out, and had a silly name. Paladin of Tyranny and the other one I can't remember the name of right now were just Blackguard the base class and had too much thematic overlap with the same. Just calling them Blackguard was easy, or Antipaladin like PF did also worked well.



Alignment being completely optional scored well too.

No accounting for good taste.

[Errorname]

Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

[Rynjin]

Ok, speaking as a grognard whose first character was an AD&D paladin, I like the paladin change. I find the argument that paladins don't stand for anything now to be absurd. They still stand for things, its just you can have them stand for something besides the generic knight in shining armor lawful good now. They can stand for the sanctity of mortality against the interference of malicious outsider entities, or they can stand for proactively hunting down and stopping X thing that they find repulsive, or they can stand for and champion a strict hierarchal society with an absolute crushing emphasis on lessers serving their betters, or a few other things. These guys are all defined by standing for something, so its not like theyre radically different from older edition paladins, its just the specific thing they champion that has changed, not that they stand for something.

And all of those character concepts work just as well as a Fighter, is my issue. "Paladin" means nothing, that's my point. It used to have a very distinct meaning.

Paladin as "guy who believes in...something and champions...a cause?" is meaningless. Every character should believe in something and champion some kind of cause. Those are character traits inherent to any fully fleshed out character.


We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic; this is a discussion forum, not a blog.


It's a forum with rules on discussion, and sharing the opinion of "I don't care about your opinion" skirts pretty close to breaking them IMO.

[Batcathat]

Paladin as "guy who believes in...something and champions...a cause?" is meaningless. Every character should believe in something and champion some kind of cause. Those are character traits inherent to any fully fleshed out character.

If that's the case, why have paladins at all? Just have the knights in shining armor be Lawful Good fighters.

[Dragonus45]

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

Well depending on edition, or system, you could just play a Knight then or a Hellknight if you are in pathfinder land. A Fighter with the Noble background also works just fine.


If that's the case, why have paladins at all? Just have the knights in shining armor be Lawful Good fighters.

Because that is exactly what I don't want to happen by diluting the paladin down to just anyone who swears a vow to anything so now it's just some random Knight and not a paladin. But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

[Rynjin]

If that's the case, why have paladins at all? Just have the knights in shining armor be Lawful Good fighters.

That's pretty much what I'd lean toward with the way 5e does them. In terms of flavor and mechanics there's not a ton different between a "Paladin" and an Eldritch Knight except the former has bigger numbers.

[Keltest]

Because that is exactly what I don't want to happen by diluting the paladin down to just anyone who swears a vow to anything so now it's just some random Knight and not a paladin. But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

And the current paladin doesnt do that because... why?

[Psyren]

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

Right.


My question for why a class that has a requirement for being LG would have characters who are LG is telling?

It's telling that you're starting from the premise that that should be a requirement to begin with, rather than questioning it. At best it's Appeal From Tradition.



Paladin of Freedom was dumb, not terribly well thought out, and had a silly name. Paladin of Tyranny and the other one I can't remember the name of right now were just Blackguard the base class and had too much thematic overlap with the same. Just calling them Blackguard was easy, or Antipaladin like PF did also worked well.

Paladin of Freedom was pretty popular even on this board IIRC. Probably even moreso than Tyranny if I were inclined to count up the threads/builds about it.

But my point stands - the concept did not originate with 5e.

[Batcathat]

But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

Right, but why can all of that only apply to Lawful Good paladins? Just like a classic paladin is held to a higher standard of Lawful Good than some random Lawful Good fighter, a Lawful Neutral paladin can be held to a higher standard of Lawful Neutral than some random Lawful Neutral fighter.

[Dragonus45]

And the current paladin doesnt do that because... why?

Because by being able to swear to an ever increasing litany of random oaths to random ideas it's utterly meaningless to have the class and you would never be in danger of falling, and to add insult to injury on that front it entirely has devalued the idea of the paladin to begin with. If you meet one now they are likely to kill you for looking at them funny as to be that knight in shinning armor they were before. More likely even.



It's telling that you're starting from the premise that that should be a requirement to begin with, rather than questioning it. At best it's Appeal From Tradition.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I am responding to your premise about paladins being multifacated PCs because they aren't outsiders by saying that as a self selecting group it would make sense for Paladins to all be LG just like it would make sense for all fighters to swing weapons around. Kindly keep the context in mind when responding to me please.




Paladin of Freedom was pretty popular even on this board IIRC. Probably even moreso than Tyranny if I were inclined to count up the threads/builds about it.

I remember it having some cool mechanics but it's oaths felt poorly thought out and I remember having to workshop them a bit. Mostly I just find the name remarkably silly and think it should have been called something else.


But my point stands - the concept did not originate with 5e.
And? 5e codified it and did so in the worst of possible ways. I never said it originated it.

[MCerberus]

Oh man we have a version argument about purity and restriction measured against player choice and convenience that seems to be going in a circle.

This game really IS the dnd experience.

[Batcathat]

Because by being able to swear to an ever increasing litany of random oaths to random ideas it's utterly meaningless to have the class and you would never be in danger of falling

Why? The paladin is still at risk of falling by breaking their own specific oath. If Bob the Lawful Good Paladin breaks his oath he falls, even if his behavior lines up perfectly with Brenda the Lawful Evil Paladin's oath.

[Rynjin]

Oh man we have a version argument about purity and restriction measured against player choice and convenience that seems to be going in a circle.

This game really IS the dnd experience.

All they needed to do was call it "Divine Champion" or something and I'd have no complaint, just sayin'.

[Keltest]

Because by being able to swear to an ever increasing litany of random oaths to random ideas it's utterly meaningless to have the class and you would never be in danger of falling, and to add insult to injury on that front it entirely has devalued the idea of the paladin to begin with. If you meet one now they are likely to kill you for looking at them funny as to be that knight in shinning armor they were before. More likely even.

What? Dude, the oaths arent simultaneous, theyre mutually exclusive. You can't be oath of Devotion and Oath of Vengeance, once you swear an oath youre stuck with it, and you are plenty at risk of falling as a Vengeance paladin if you decide to, for example, stay and knit blankets for orphans rather than chase down the guy who burned down their orphanage.

[Zevox]

To be clear, I'm not saying Disney Hercules is a paladin because of his divine heritage. Rather, if you were representing a character like him in 5e, Glory would fit well; a kind of himbo Dudley Do-Right type whose prowess is reinforced by the heavens and seeks to good-naturedly get his party members to hit the gym with him would mesh with Glory pretty well.
Right, but that's because the subclass was specifically designed around the Greek Hero archetype. I just think that archetype doesn't belong in the Paladin class. It doesn't mesh with the divine crusader motif - ancient Greek heroes didn't believe in a higher cause, they were, as the subclass name itself implies, glory-seekers. Which was viewed more favorably to the ancient Greeks than it is now, but was still a very different thing from what the Paladin class represents. And as a result, it leads to the subclass being boring, because there's not really much of an oath to devote yourself to - all of the "tenents" listed for it just revolve around striving to be strong and courageous, not what they're actually trying to accomplish with that strength and courage. It feels hollow as an oath.


Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.
Or someone who isn't lawful, but does have other strong beliefs they are driven to uphold and spread. My current Paladin in my D&D game would not be possible in prior editions because he is Neutral Good, for instance, but he's no less idealistic and devoted to making the world around him a better place just because he's occasionally willing to deceive his enemies when necessary, or because he's willing to work outside the law when it will lead to better results than working within it. It's allowed him to act as a bit of a bridge between well-meaning people on both sides of the Law and Chaos divide at times, in fact, which is quite refreshing.

[Errorname]

Because that is exactly what I don't want to happen by diluting the paladin down to just anyone who swears a vow to anything so now it's just some random Knight and not a paladin. But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

See I think that's needlessly restrictive for a core class. Knightly Oaths and Vows are fascinating things to build characters around, the Lawful part of a Paladin is way more important than the good bit.

[Dragonus45]

Why? The paladin is still at risk of falling by breaking their own specific oath. If Bob the Lawful Good Paladin breaks his oath he falls, even if his behavior lines up perfectly with Brenda the Lawful Evil Paladin's oath.

Because Bob the Lawful Good paladin doesn't get played a table where he could possible fall anymore. He is now Bob the whatever oath is convenient to the game being played paladin because the "correct" oath to play is always out there so he Bob that whatever is convenient alignment wise right now, but this is also a bit beside the point. Which is that having all of these different parallel versions of Bob out there devalues the basic idea of the Paladin as Bob the good guy you know will help you out when you are in trouble. Now we have in BG3 a paladin who slaughters children and innocents and doesn't fall and I get multiple threads full of people defending that because that is what a paladin is now. That is the issue plain and simple. When I say it's wrong for her not to have fallen 5e says that's just a valid life for a paladin to lead. Slaughtering innocent refugees. It disgusts me.

As for Brenda the LE? I already said upthread Conquest and Oathbreaker were manageable solutions for replacing Blackguard under a class system as restrictive and limiting as 5e but still wish they weren't called paladins.

[Psyren]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I am responding to your premise about paladins being multifacated PCs because they aren't outsiders by saying that as a self selecting group it would make sense for Paladins to all be LG just like it would make sense for all fighters to swing weapons around. Kindly keep the context in mind when responding to me please.

Every class is a self-selecting group except maybe Sorcerer. None of them need alignment at all, let alone alignment restrictions :smallconfused:



And? 5e codified it and did so in the worst of possible ways. I never said it originated it.

You said that thinking they were right to do so was a bold claim. I provided support for that claim. 5e Paladin is well-loved despite ditching the alignment piece, therefore I feel justified in saying that it was an unnecessary hanging chad/vestigial limb that has finally been snapped off.

[Keltest]

Because Bob the Lawful Good paladin doesn't get played a table where he could possible fall anymore. He is now Bob the whatever oath is convenient to the game being played paladin because the "correct" oath to play is always out there so he Bob that whatever is convenient alignment wise right now, but this is also a bit beside the point. Which is that having all of these different parallel versions of Bob out there devalues the basic idea of the Paladin as Bob the good guy you know will help you out when you are in trouble. Now we have in BG3 a paladin who slaughters children and innocents and doesn't fall and I get multiple threads full of people defending that because that is what a paladin is now. That is the issue plain and simple. When I say it's wrong for her not to have fallen 5e says that's just a valid life for a paladin to lead. Slaughtering innocent refugees. It disgusts me.

As for Brenda the LE? I already said upthread Conquest and Oathbreaker were manageable solutions for replacing Blackguard under a class system as restrictive and limiting as 5e but still wish they weren't called paladins.

So the problem is that Bob can play the character he wants to play instead of the one you want him to play? Really? Thats what youre going with?

Maybe more to the point, do you not think "kill the heretics!" is a legitimate part of paladining? Because its been in there since 1e.