Results 91 to 120 of 327
Thread: Baldur's Gate III (2)
-
2020-10-07, 07:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
So read through the early access faq and they’re saying they expect this to be in early access for at least a year? That seems kinda ridiculous to me.
-
2020-10-07, 09:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
It's consistent with the time Original Sin 1 and 2 spent in early access.
Coach and Owner of Hellbug's Heroes, Sneak Kings, Sultans of Slaughter, and Commercial Cast-Offs. Season II and III runner-up. Season IV league champion. Season VII division champion.
-
2020-10-07, 10:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Ockham
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
Considering that This Land is My Land has been on early access for one year...
"Like the old proverb says, if one sees something not right, one must draw out his sword to intervene"
-
2020-10-07, 10:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
The way people are jumping on Early Access games, few games have any economical reason to not to do Early Access anyway. It's a studio's dream to get a percentage of their revenue one whopping year earlier.
Last edited by Cespenar; 2020-10-07 at 11:01 AM.
-
2020-10-07, 11:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Perth, West Australia
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
-
2020-10-07, 11:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
-
2020-10-07, 01:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
Noticed a reference in the prologue that I'm genuinely surprised the streamer I was watching didn't comment on.
Spoiler: Because spoiler tags are easyYeoman Chambers in the tank like in Mass Effect 2. Turned into an Illithid, or turned into organic goo for a Reaper, which is better?
-
2020-10-07, 01:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.
-
2020-10-07, 04:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
I will say, this is something I was concerned about as well. I enjoy the sense of humor in Divinity sometimes, but I was also hoping it didn't take over BG3. After playing the EA for a... concerning number of hours considering how long it's been out, I can happily report it hasn't. The game takes itself quite seriously, and when characters do make jokes it feels like the characters making the jokes, not the writers. The only mildly fourth wall breaking joke I can think of was an NPC I met and asked if they wanted to join my party and they responded with "What, just like, follow you around? No thanks."
On a more general note, this game is really fantastic. I can't say it's like any RPG I've ever played. The degree of responsiveness the world has to what you do, and the flexibility in ways to approach your problems is quite astounding. I managed to engage in psionic subterfuge, sell my left eye and start a war in a single run run and I'm sure I haven't seen a third of what's in just the early access yet.
-
2020-10-07, 08:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
I'm playing it now, enjoying it so far, although I've just started.
Spoiler: QuestionI don't suppose there's any way to help the injured mind-flayer by the wreck that's controlling the villagers? I mean, yeah, monster... but this is the poor person that I turned into a mind-flayer through unwise button pressing, so I kinda feel like I owe her one.Avatar by araveugnitsuga.
-
2020-10-08, 01:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Greece
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerI don't know if there's any way to help it, but if Larian followed the lore then that's not that poor person anymore. It's a newly-born Mind Flayer that ate her brain and hijacked her body. You SHOULD feel guilty for condemning someone to such a horrible fate, but two wrongs don't make a rightMany thanks to Assassin 89 for this avatar!
-
2020-10-08, 02:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
I've been hearing some good things, but also some not very encouraging ones. The game seems to cleave closer to 5E D&D than I hoped in some cases, so I likely won't be able to play a fighter or a rogue in a way that's satisfying. But I'll have to check some detailed accounts of those two.
The... not stellar 5E weapons list seems likewise unchanged, which is disappointing and also shoots down some of my favorite concepts. I didn't hold out much hope for that, but still.My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.
-
2020-10-08, 03:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerYes, there is. Pass the intelligence check to try and enter a battle of wills with it, then fail the subsequent wisdom check. It will be fine.
It will eat your brain and you will be dead.
But it will be fine.
(Coincidentally, this appears to be one of the instances where the optimum approach to the scenario is to be a murderhobo and walk up and stab things first, there's another later with some looters who will fight you after dialogue, you can murder two of them without the dialogue to make the fight a lot easier.)Last edited by GloatingSwine; 2020-10-08 at 03:43 AM.
-
2020-10-08, 03:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
Don't have it yet (got too many other games to finish first) but have been watching others play it.
I don't know if it is just me but the cutscenes seem kind of off. The PC seems to spend most of the time staring off into nothing with a blank expression.
-
2020-10-08, 06:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerI have come to appreciate games that include ways for a non-standard game over when you do something dumb like that. I saw a "review" article that was about a page length of some guy complaining about that specific scene, and the whole read im like "dude, you allowed a creature that telepathically dominates and eats people access to your mind. What did you think would be the outcome?"“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-10-08, 06:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerOn the other hand, it puts the instant death behind a success on a check, with a harder check on a different stat to avoid it after that. If you fail the first check you're fine. Which makes it feel like a "gotcha" from the developer.
I'm pretty sure that's the sort of thing that would pop up in a DM horror story over in the roleplaying forum, probably ending with "and then I threw all my D4s at his face".
-
2020-10-08, 07:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Greece
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerI really don't mind a game putting bad outcomes behind succesful rolls, especially if it comes early and often enough to not blindside you, as seems to be the case here. It makes it so you don't always click the Skill option without thinking. And I have no problem buying that characters with a higher mental score are in more danger against a Mind Flayer.
edit: What seems very goofy though is that the rest of the party doesn't even try and save you there. They just stand around watching you get nommed.Last edited by Narkis; 2020-10-08 at 07:17 AM.
Many thanks to Assassin 89 for this avatar!
-
2020-10-08, 07:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
Spoiler
I very much mind that. The whole point of skills is to represent the expertise of a character that we do not ourselves posses. Giving detrimental effects to success on skill check breaks the whole point of the system.
The idea seems to be that only a character with a powerful intellect can manage to open a telepathic link to the mind flayer in the first place, and thus a failure suffers no consequences. But that ignores that a powerful intellect should also recognize some of the dangers inherent in that and thus be better able to shield itself from the consequences. After all, the mind flayer is on death's door, so it's hardly a given that it cannot be defeated in psychic combat.
To me, it really does feel precisely like a "gotcha" moment, where a malicious DM can provide a misleading choice then punish you for trying to use your skills appropriately.
-H
-
2020-10-08, 07:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerIts not success on a check, its success on a check, and then failure on a followup check. I dont actually know what happens if you pass the subsequent wisdom save, because i stepped on the sorry squid's head and put him out of his misery, but it isnt just "oh, haha, youre smart so you died."“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-10-08, 07:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Gender
-
2020-10-08, 08:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerI do. Because successful checks are the result of intentional player investment in stats. If you tie failure to investment you're telling the player their choice to invest in was bad and they shouldn't have done it.
It's contrary to good game design principles if you punish a player for doing something (putting points into Intelligence) you originally told them was good (mages use this stat).
Have bad options, but don't tie them to investment you told the player was good.
-
2020-10-08, 08:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
On checks and failures.
SpoilerI honestly think it is in how it is presented. I have not seen the scene, but if you have a character that goes: Only the most learned of minds even has a chance of creating such a link, and that is not all, after is a battle of wills!
Then I would be completely fine with it. The GM has given adequate warning that this is a two-part problem and that the first successful check is not enough for a win.
To me that is the same as making a stealth based encounter where the further you get in, the more dangerous it gets and failing at the end causes much more damage than failing at the beginning as it is now harder to run away. Perfectly reasonable way to handle the situation and flows directly from the situation at hand.
But if with no context the player is left thinking that the Intelligence check is the win condition, only to then lose a follow up check they had no way of knowing about? That is being a **** GM.
-
2020-10-08, 10:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
-
2020-10-08, 10:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerHowever, the wisdom check comes after the intelligence check. It's not that you make a wisdom check to see if you realise you're doing a dangerous thing, you don't, the wisdom check only happens if you succeed at the intelligence check to do the dangerous thing and acts as a willpower test to see if you survive the dangerous thing.
The fact that you survive if you fail the intelligence check and die if you succeed at the intelligence check but fail the wisdom check is the problem.
The potential for negative consequences shouldn't depend on a successful test. If your DM made a trap that only ever went off if you made a successful investigate roll to find it, and if you didn't find the trap it couldn't possibly go off, would you call that good adventure design?
-
2020-10-08, 10:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerLets use an analogy here. Lets say youre a rogue who wants to go into a room. First, you try and see if you can open the door. Its locked, so you pick the lock. Ok, successful check, the door is open, you can go in. But theres a trap just inside the door, where it couldnt be seen while picking the lock. Fail the perception check, trigger the trap, boom, bad things. They arent being punished for being a good lock picker, they just have access to additional situations with potential bad outcomes.“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-10-08, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
-
2020-10-08, 11:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
Last edited by Keltest; 2020-10-08 at 11:20 AM.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-10-08, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
SpoilerA skill check you haven't specced to attempt is a door that isn't there. It's an option you don't have.
Also, in your hypothetical you don't get to decide whether to step through the door after you've opened it, once you've opened the door the GM won't let you do anything else.
-
2020-10-08, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-10-08, 01:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Gender
Re: Baldur's Gate III (2)
Spoiler
Then either Find Traps is a separate skill and should show up from the start, or Disable Device covers both and a success should disarm the trap as easily as it opens the door.
I mean what is the point of a skill system if a "success" results in a worse state than failure?
You roll 18 on your survival check. You think you can safely identify which mushrooms are safe to eat, and you become overconfident. Make a save vs Poison!
You get a critical success on your swim check. You have so much fun splashing about that you lose track of time and swim so far out to sea that you exhaust yourself and drown before you get back. If only you stuck to a doggie paddle.
Time to negotiate a big contract. You start using all those jargony terms you learned in business school. But that just annoys the ice-cold merchant so he charges you triple the market price! Meanwhile the hopelessly crude antics of the odious comic relief amuse him, so Odie gets it for free.
How are any of those cases any different than the mind flayer? In each case the DM has arbitrarily decided that the tactic used by the expert has exactly the opposite result that was intended. The DM is describing an appropriate explanation for a FAILED skill check and insisting it can now only happen on a success because... reasons.
The whole point of having a random element in the skill system is to adjudicate when that sort of thing happens, yet here the DM is asserting it happens automatically AND penalyzes people for daring to avoid that fate.
It's completely backwards.
-H