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

[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 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. 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.

[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.