Baldur's Gate III (2)

[Babale]

I saw a feedback thread suggesting allowing silence spell to prevent goblins from hearing you when you knock down some rubble in a certain part of the game. This sounded so cool to me. Offering this sort of feedback would mean I get to run through the game with my DM's eye open which sounds epic and sold me on Early Access. I've played a little but I'll come back when I have more thoughts.

[Starbuck_II]

I haven't bought the early release game, but I have been reading the reviews in order to decide about buying it or not.

About the character's appearance, I have read that, while there are many options for horns and tattoos and skin tones, the actual options for faces and bodies are pretty limited: A single height and body type for each race, and some very similar faces for each race.

I have been able to find the male half-elf faces only, and four of them are very similar, plus a fifth being uglier, and they seem to want to force you to have a fabulous hairdo rather than a practical one...

Is it really like that, or is my information incomplete?

Maybe people aren't building boring-looking characters like Larian claims, maybe they are just trying to build a normal-looking, non-ugly character and that's what they get...



But is it a good idea trying to push people to play their least favoured option? Not to mention forcing you to endure *******s who insult you and try to kill you... Larian is not my dad, he is a guy trying to sell me stuff; it's not his job to teach me to broaden my options and to be tolerant of unlikeable people's awful behaviours...

You know what a truly evil person would do? They would kill the nasty vampire who wants to drink their blood and the Gith who tries to kill them because they are nicer to Shadowheart...

But wouldn't that said evil person realize that they are a tool for power.
Not like everyone joins you (unless you have Mushroom man).

[Clertar]

But you are still paying for early access. You should enjoy what you are paying for...

But you are paying for the final game, only doing so now also gets you access to the early access version.

[Babale]

Here are my 2 cp on the whole controversial encounter situation from a few pages back:

Spoiler

Show

Your companions only do nothing if you choose to have them do nothing. When the narrator makes it clear the mind flayer is gonna eat your brain if you fail the next save, you can switch over to another character and kill it easily.

That's assuming you didn't just kill it instead of the villagers. It is pinner and helpless with 3 hp, anyone can finish it off.

[Psyren]

Are druids/monks/sorcerers playable yet?

[KillianHawkeye]

Are druids/monks/sorcerers playable yet?

No. The classes for now are Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, and Wizard. More to come later.

[Psyren]

No. The classes for now are Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, and Wizard. More to come later.

I'll hold off and watch the bf play until then

[Morty]

I might similarly consider getting into the EA when bards and paladins become playable. My hopes (faint to begin with) that fighters or rogues will be worth playing are fading fast, so I'll need to switch to plan B, which is bards, paladins, warlocks or rangers. The game seems to be heaping goodies on rangers, so might as well give them a shot.

[Keltest]

I might similarly consider getting into the EA when bards and paladins become playable. My hopes (faint to begin with) that fighters or rogues will be worth playing are fading fast, so I'll need to switch to plan B, which is bards, paladins, warlocks or rangers. The game seems to be heaping goodies on rangers, so might as well give them a shot.

What do you mean by "worth playing"? Especially compared to the tabletop, BG3 really does seem like it is worth trying to squeeze every ounce of daylight out between long rests, so having characters with unlimited resources besides HP (which can be healed with food) seems quite valuable.

[Babale]

What do you mean by "worth playing"? Especially compared to the tabletop, BG3 really does seem like it is worth trying to squeeze every ounce of daylight out between long rests, so having characters with unlimited resources besides HP (which can be healed with food) seems quite valuable.

I could see not wanting to play a mundane class because you are more limited in your options, but having one (or more) in the party is certainly valuable because their resources are less limited; mundane characters aren't less interesting out of combat; and since you control the builds of your companions you still get to build a spellcaster so it isn't the end of the world.

[Dienekes]

I could see not wanting to play a mundane class because you are more limited in your options, but having one (or more) in the party is certainly valuable because their resources are less limited; mundane characters aren't less interesting out of combat; and since you control the builds of your companions you still get to build a spellcaster so it isn't the end of the world.

Yeah, gotta say from my experience playing other tactical games and 5e in general. Playing one martial? Pretty boring. Managing an entire group? Actually pretty exciting.

Though I do suspect optimal play of the game will go more caster focused the higher levels we get.

[Keltest]

Yeah, gotta say from my experience playing other tactical games and 5e in general. Playing one martial? Pretty boring. Managing an entire group? Actually pretty exciting.

Though I do suspect optimal play of the game will go more caster focused the higher levels we get.

I do think thats going to depend on what limits or effects, if any, Long Resting has on your condition. Certainly spellcasters will remain important, but availability of rests has in my experience been the main determiner of power for spellcasters over martials.

[Dienekes]

I do think thats going to depend on what limits or effects, if any, Long Resting has on your condition. Certainly spellcasters will remain important, but availability of rests has in my experience been the main determiner of power for spellcasters over martials.

That’s a large part to be certain. But since I think this is going to be at least partially an exploration game that goes on your own pace there will be periods where resting is less restrictive. In those situations mages will shine.

And as a video game, there’s going to be a more consistent base to value things against. I can guarantee after a few months players will come up with some sort of optimized spell list and resting guide. And it’s just natural that the classes with more levers to pull for optimization the more chance someone will find a way to overpower the system with it. And mages just by nature have more levers to pull.

This can be mitigated around the tabletop with a good gm crafting encounters to reward all the players outputs. But a video game is crafted then released to the world for them to break.

[Morty]

There may indeed be a demand for someone mediocre but reliable in the party, but I'd rather it wasn't my own character. NPCs can handle that.

[Keltest]

There may indeed a demand for someone mediocre but reliable in the party, but I'd rather it wasn't my own character. NPCs can handle that.

You are doing very little to explain your hostility to non-spellcasters.

[Dienekes]

You are doing very little to explain your hostility to non-spellcasters.

He wants his main character to be the big flashy star that he focuses on in combat. It is after all the one character that will be present in (probably) every encounter. I can respect that. And let’s be honest apart from the really early levels where a martials damage and tankiness are just better at solving encounters than what most mages (that aren’t moon Druids) can do, in 5e that ability dwindles pretty quickly. Into becoming something a pike line of infantry that is vitally important to not losing. But the cavalry (or in D&D’s case casters) get to do all the actual winning and cool stuff.

While I care less about that in combat, I personally want my main character to be the big flashy star in dialogue and advancing the plot. Which is part of why I’m thinking of going Paladin so I have a reason to focused Charisma. Instead of my usual roleplaying favorite of well any of the non-magic classes. Can’t really be much a negotiator without Charisma.

[Keltest]

He wants his main character to be the big flashy star that he focuses on in combat. It is after all the one character that will be present in (probably) every encounter. I can respect that. And let’s be honest apart from the really early levels where a martials damage and tankiness are just better at solving encounters than what most mages (that aren’t moon Druids) can do, in 5e that ability dwindles pretty quickly. Into becoming something a pike line of infantry that is vitally important to not losing. But the cavalry (or in D&D’s case casters) get to do all the actual winning and cool stuff.

While I care less about that in combat, I personally want my main character to be the big flashy star in dialogue and advancing the plot. Which is part of why I’m thinking of going Paladin so I have a reason to focused Charisma. Instead of my usual roleplaying favorite of well any of the non-magic classes. Can’t really be much a negotiator without Charisma.

In my current 5e game, the martial characters are the ones who get to have all the flashy kills. The spellcasters mostly sit back and act as cheerleaders and enablers, making sure the fighters dont get bogged down and can go up and stab things appropriately. Sure, fireball is cool, but you probably arent going to be fighting exclusively groups of low HP enemies conveniently grouped together for your fireball to just kill them all.

[Morty]

He wants his main character to be the big flashy star that he focuses on in combat. It is after all the one character that will be present in (probably) every encounter. I can respect that. And let’s be honest apart from the really early levels where a martials damage and tankiness are just better at solving encounters than what most mages (that aren’t moon Druids) can do, in 5e that ability dwindles pretty quickly. Into becoming something a pike line of infantry that is vitally important to not losing. But the cavalry (or in D&D’s case casters) get to do all the actual winning and cool stuff.

I don't want to be "the big flashy star", I want a decent level of tactical depth and some cool options to utilize. Having played a fighter and a rogue on tabletop, I know they don't have either and it doesn't look like BG3 will improve that. I could, of course, be wrong. I'm willing to be surprised.

Also, though that is largely a pet peeve of mine, I don't like the 5E weapon list, which fighters and rogues interact with a lot.

[Babale]

I don't want to be "the big flashy star", I want a decent level of tactical depth and some cool options to utilize. Having played a fighter and a rogue on tabletop, I know they don't have either and it doesn't look like BG3 will improve that. I could, of course, be wrong. I'm willing to be surprised.

Also, though that is largely a pet peeve of mine, I don't like the 5E weapon list, which fighters and rogues interact with a lot.

There are a couple of really nice changes that make melee characters a bit more tactically interesting:

1) I've found that because the terrain is more vertical and varied than what you usually see in a dnd campaign (when I dm I love big setpiece battles with cool environments as much as anyone. But I generally don't have the time to craft EVERY fight to that level) and coupled with the facing rules you end up with much more maneuvering during combat than I've seen in any edition of DND

2) Weapons get special abilities that can be used once per short rest, which are fun and add some interest.

3) magic items tend to give you abilities rather than passive bonuses; for action economy reasons its smart to give these items to your mundane characters anyways, so that gives them even more to do

[Dienekes]

I don't want to be "the big flashy star", I want a decent level of tactical depth and some cool options to utilize. Having played a fighter and a rogue on tabletop, I know they don't have either and it doesn't look like BG3 will improve that. I could, of course, be wrong. I'm willing to be surprised.

Also, though that is largely a pet peeve of mine, I don't like the 5E weapon list, which fighters and rogues interact with a lot.

Hmm, fair enough. Though, I do believe once games become squad based the tactical depth of playing skyrockets regardless of how complex the base classes are. When you are in control of 4 characters there's pretty much always depth. Might not have "cool options" though, depending on the personal tastes of what is cool.

Though what's the issue with the 5e weapon list? I'm curious if yours align with mine.

[verbatim]

They have said they will, and they have already added one compared to earlier previews. They used to show only the Githyanki, the Cleric of Shar, the Vampire and the Wizard. They haven't revealed a number, but I expect about 10 in total.

There are 2-3 likely future ally NPC's you can find in the Early Access so far.

Spoiler

Show

• a female tiefling some paladins want you to assassinate
• another female tiefling hiding from a group of gith annihilating members of the Flaming Fist
• a moon druid that hangs around your camp and says he will follow you but can't be asked to join your party

[Narkis]

There are 2-3 likely future ally NPC's you can find in the Early Access so far.

Spoiler

Show

• a female tiefling some paladins want you to assassinate
• another female tiefling hiding from a group of gith annihilating members of the Flaming Fist
• a moon druid that hangs around your camp and says he will follow you but can't be asked to join your party

Spoiler

Show

Interesting. What's the class of those tieflings? Or is it not shown yet?

[Dragonus45]

There are 2-3 likely future ally NPC's you can find in the Early Access so far.

Spoiler

Show

• a female tiefling some paladins want you to assassinate
• another female tiefling hiding from a group of gith annihilating members of the Flaming Fist
• a moon druid that hangs around your camp and says he will follow you but can't be asked to join your party

Spoiler

Show

Hmmm, Those descriptions don't give me a lot of hope for getting some non ******* party members.

[Morty]

Though what's the issue with the 5e weapon list? I'm curious if yours align with mine.

It straddles the fence between being specific and generic, with some of D&D's trademark poorly-understood. It's a lot less varied than it pretends to be - though, being fair, the weapon-based abilities Babale mentions could at least make sure there's a practical difference between an axe and a sword.

Either way, there's technically a bunch of options, but ultimately a fighter either has a big weapon, a shield or a bow. Or two weapons, but that's not terribly effective. If I want a finesse weapon, I'm basically stuck with rapier + shield or two shortsword/scimitars. Or two rapiers, but that just looks really dumb.

[verbatim]

Spoiler

Show

Interesting. What's the class of those tieflings? Or is it not shown yet?

They were both martials with armor but it was unclear which class specifically. If we go under the assumption that classes aren't getting multiple unique npc's then they would be ranger and paladin most likely. When I play through the game a second time with multiplayer mode I'll write down what types of weapons and armor they have.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I don't want to be "the big flashy star", I want a decent level of tactical depth and some cool options to utilize. Having played a fighter and a rogue on tabletop, I know they don't have either and it doesn't look like BG3 will improve that. I could, of course, be wrong. I'm willing to be surprised.

Also, though that is largely a pet peeve of mine, I don't like the 5E weapon list, which fighters and rogues interact with a lot.

I would rather strongly disagree about Fighter in this context, at least in 5e. Battlemaster archetypes have quite a bit of tactical depth to them, being able to utilize several maneuvers to your advantage. Everything from giving allies advantage on attacks to things like Tripping Attack to knock enemies prone to Goading Attack to ensure that you are targeted instead of the wimpy wizard. Also, Fighters get more attacks than any other class, which gives them more consistent and reliable damage per round than you might think. Plus still be capable of wearing heavy armor and tanking hits reliably.

You seem to be afflicted with 3.5-itis, 5e is no longer 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard'. Melee actually got some really nice things, and casters got nerfed back to reasonable levels. Enforcing Concentration rules eliminates most of the shenanigans. Nerfing DC scaling and taking away several of the more broken 'save or lose' conditions from casters did the rest to balance things.

Monks and Fighters have the damage output of something like an Agonizing Blast Warlock, while Paladins will rival anyone other than maybe a specifically built Sorcerer for burst damage output through smiting.

Welcome to 5e. Batman Wizard and Clericzilla no longer exist. Melee can now have cookies too.

[Dienekes]

I would rather strongly disagree about Fighter in this context, at least in 5e. Battlemaster archetypes have quite a bit of tactical depth to them, being able to utilize several maneuvers to your advantage. Everything from giving allies advantage on attacks to things like Tripping Attack to knock enemies prone to Goading Attack to ensure that you are targeted instead of the wimpy wizard. Also, Fighters get more attacks than any other class, which gives them more consistent and reliable damage per round than you might think. Plus still be capable of wearing heavy armor and tanking hits reliably.

You seem to be afflicted with 3.5-itis, 5e is no longer 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard'. Melee actually got some really nice things, and casters got nerfed back to reasonable levels. Enforcing Concentration rules eliminates most of the shenanigans. Nerfing DC scaling and taking away several of the more broken 'save or lose' conditions from casters did the rest to balance things.

Monks and Fighters have the damage output of something like an Agonizing Blast Warlock, while Paladins will rival anyone other than maybe a specifically built Sorcerer for burst damage output through smiting.

Welcome to 5e. Batman Wizard and Clericzilla no longer exist. Melee can now have cookies too.

I think that's overselling it quite a bit. Battlemaster fighters are definitely the most interesting of the martials on a round for round basis, but they are still fairly dull compared to say a Warblade or even a 4e Fighter in terms of levers and tactical decisions to make (and don't even get me started at later levels where you get the choice of 2 more of the maneuvers you didn't think were good enough 5 levels ago). Melee has gotten some nice things, mostly because the amount of damage dealt by everyone per round was standardized so if you're just looking at damage output the martials hang in throughout.

But in terms of providing answers to questions other than tank it or kill it they still very much lag behind their full caster brethren, and no martial class has any ability approaching the power of an 8th or 9th level spell.

The problems of 3.5 were lessened, but they're not gone.

[Eurus]

I think that's overselling it quite a bit. Battlemaster fighters are definitely the most interesting of the martials on a round for round basis, but they are still fairly dull compared to say a Warblade or even a 4e Fighter in terms of levers and tactical decisions to make (and don't even get me started at later levels where you get the choice of 2 more of the maneuvers you didn't think were good enough 5 levels ago). Melee has gotten some nice things, mostly because the amount of damage dealt by everyone per round was standardized so if you're just looking at damage output the martials hang in throughout.

But in terms of providing answers to questions other than tank it or kill it they still very much lag behind their full caster brethren, and no martial class has any ability approaching the power of an 8th or 9th level spell.

The problems of 3.5 were lessened, but they're not gone.

Personally, I think that the ability of martial classes to do things other than "kill it or tank it" has arguably gotten worse in 5e, since you can't broaden your capabilities with magic items as much. But they are a lot better at the killing-and-tanking part.

[Morty]

I would rather strongly disagree about Fighter in this context, at least in 5e. Battlemaster archetypes have quite a bit of tactical depth to them, being able to utilize several maneuvers to your advantage. Everything from giving allies advantage on attacks to things like Tripping Attack to knock enemies prone to Goading Attack to ensure that you are targeted instead of the wimpy wizard. Also, Fighters get more attacks than any other class, which gives them more consistent and reliable damage per round than you might think. Plus still be capable of wearing heavy armor and tanking hits reliably.

You seem to be afflicted with 3.5-itis, 5e is no longer 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard'. Melee actually got some really nice things, and casters got nerfed back to reasonable levels. Enforcing Concentration rules eliminates most of the shenanigans. Nerfing DC scaling and taking away several of the more broken 'save or lose' conditions from casters did the rest to balance things.

Monks and Fighters have the damage output of something like an Agonizing Blast Warlock, while Paladins will rival anyone other than maybe a specifically built Sorcerer for burst damage output through smiting.

Welcome to 5e. Batman Wizard and Clericzilla no longer exist. Melee can now have cookies too.

I'm not "afflicted" with anything and I'm basing my judgment on actual play experience. Battlemasters have some barebones tactical depth to them, but I'd still rather play a caster, since their abilities actually get better with levels, for one thing.

[Anonymouswizard]

It straddles the fence between being specific and generic,

You've described almost all of 5e that isn't spells in all honesty though 5e could do with some more combat options presented as standard.

Lurking here mainly because I'm not buying EA until I get a computer that can actually run it (maybe around March), but it sounds a bit more interesting than I thought at first reveal. Still don't think it should be called BG3, but I'm willing to give Mask of the Tadpole a chance.

Also hoping they don't go too high in the levels. If properly paced ten is plenty for a full RPG, although if sticking to 5e as close as possible I can see going to 15 because you might want players to get to 3rd level quickly to give characters a tad more hp.