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

[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]

Spoiler

Show

Also known as doing Paladins wrong.

[Rising Phoenix]

Spoiler

Show

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]

Spoiler

Show

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]

Spoiler

Show

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,

Spoiler

Show

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,

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler: Reply

Show

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]

Spoiler: Reply

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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]

Spoiler: Reply

Show

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).

Spoiler

Show

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]

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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]

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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".

Spoiler

Show

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".

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler

Show

becoming a cambion, I'm not sure what's changed for the ol' Blade of Frontiers.

Spoiler

Show

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.