Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[NJClaw]

Also, "get their armor to 0" can be translated only to "get their hp to 0" and that means the monster dies.

It absolutely cannot because it's not the same thing at all, wtf is this

I was just saying that "get their armor to 0" has no equivalent in D&D 5.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Is it the retarded "battle ridiculous sponges, get their armor to 0, then stunlock them until end of combat" like in D:OS2?

Tactician mode is nothing like this. Enemies regularly restore their allies shields(and use CC breaks on them), have points in the skill that gives shields back after CC ends, etc.,
D:OS2 combat is the opposite of spongey unless you're doing something stupid like attacking a shield-wearing heavy armor guy with physical damage.

 

[Harthwain]

I really hope they cut that party-wide initiative thing.

I doubt they will, but then again with Early Access feedback it's not impossible for them to change that if a lot of players tell them it isn't working out.

 

[Black]

Heh, they got plenty of feedback on how DOS 2 imitative and armor systems were.

 

[Riddler]

D:OS1 is per-unit, not team-based. It still has the same issue because you could stack it to effectively go first every fight.

Shit, I despised that game so much that I cant remember anything.

But if that's the case, why would they go for a "party initiative" in BG3?

They are after the "very young children" and "completely brain-dead" demographics.

 

[Roguey]

(I mean we've already had a real fallout successor in UnderRail from what I've seen of it)

Looks are deceiving. It's not Fallout. Atom is though.

 

[Decado]

Heh, they got plenty of feedback on how DOS 2 imitative and armor systems were.

No kidding. The armor system was the single worst part of the combat, more annoying even than the over-stuffed environmental interaction. I swear to god every fight was just targeting barrels. Fuck. Fuck!

 

[Riddler]

Heh, they got plenty of feedback on how DOS 2 imitative and armor systems were.

And then they turned around and made them even worse.

 

[Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal]

Is it shit?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Is it shit?

Even worse. It's D:OS.

 

[deuxhero]

No, it's D&D's miss 3 times in a row due to bad rolls and embrace inevitable death.

That's a relief.

We don't know how faithful to D&D 5 the game will be

It's gonna run on 5e? Pretty interesting. 5e doesn't have much of a loot treadmill going on, since AC is kept pretty conservative (heavily armoured lvl 1 character can easily have an AC of 18, while, say, Tarrasque, one of the most powerful monsters, has an AC of 25. That means shit like sword +1 to hit is actually a really powerful, high-level item, meaning you can't give such shit out like candy).

No, it means you HAVE to give out +1 swords because otherwise a mid level character is barely more competent than a starting one and the only difference for non-casters is more HP and some class features that don't swing combat too heavily. If you want proof, look at the official modules. They all, consistently, give magic items at the same pace. WBL isn't gone, it's just never mentioned to the GM.

Saga Edition was perfectly capable of axing the effect of money on ground fights almost entirely. More wealth just gave you more gadgets, the ability to take heavy weapons and options to upgrade starships, but there's few characters who can't do just fine with their only gear being stuff looted from an ordinary Stormtrooper. Why 5E couldn't, I have no idea.

 

[rhollis]

No, it's D&D's miss 3 times in a row due to bad rolls and embrace inevitable death.

That's a relief.

We don't know how faithful to D&D 5 the game will be

It's gonna run on 5e? Pretty interesting. 5e doesn't have much of a loot treadmill going on, since AC is kept pretty conservative (heavily armoured lvl 1 character can easily have an AC of 18, while, say, Tarrasque, one of the most powerful monsters, has an AC of 25. That means shit like sword +1 to hit is actually a really powerful, high-level item, meaning you can't give such shit out like candy).

No, it means you HAVE to give out +1 swords because otherwise a mid level character is barely more competent than a starting one and the only difference for non-casters is more HP and some class features that don't swing combat too heavily. If you want proof, look at the official modules. They all, consistently, give magic items at the same pace. WBL isn't gone, it's just never mentioned to the GM.

Saga Edition was perfectly capable of axing the effect of money on ground fights almost entirely. More wealth just gave you more gadgets, the ability to take heavy weapons and options to upgrade starships, but there's few characters who can't do just fine with their only gear being stuff looted from an ordinary Stormtrooper. Why 5E couldn't, I have no idea.

They won't give out powerful weapons in BG3. Larian house rules: if you combine a short stick, butter knife, and rope with pixie dust you'll make your own holy avenger.

 

[thesecret1]

No, it means you HAVE to give out +1 swords because otherwise a mid level character is barely more competent than a starting one and the only difference for non-casters is more HP and some class features that don't swing combat too heavily.

Even non-casters get plenty of skills each level that can and do swing the combat quite heavily. If you start giving out +1 swords, your party will get overpowered very quick, since, as I said, the toughest monsters have an AC of around 25. Sure, casters are still more powerful (like always), but even the other classes definitely have enough of a punch to starkly differentiate them from starting characters.

If you want proof, look at the official modules

Now why would I play that garbage?

 

[Fairfax]

But if that's the case, why would they go for a "party initiative" in BG3?

Side initiative has several issues:

- Combat becomes much more volatile and heavily influenced by a single roll. Alpha striking and burst damage become a huge deal, and both groups can get blown up in the first turn with no chance to react. This only gets worse at higher levels.
- The volatility is more "balanced" on tabletop because there's a DM controlling the enemies, so the extra lethality goes both ways. This can lead to cheap PC deaths or TPKs due to a single initiative roll, which is one of the reasons why almost nobody uses it. However, there's no DM in a CRPG, so in BG3 it's strictly a buff for players (especially savescummers), since the AI will never exploit it as much or as well as the players.
- Several 5E subclasses have initiative modifiers as one of their main benefits (and the Bard class has a bonus as well). I don't know how Larian is handling the initiative roll (How did the intellect devourers get 41 while the PCs got 18? And some previews say it has modifiers, others don't mention it), but such modifiers would have to be replaced, become irrelevant, or matter 10x more. Unless they don't implement these subclasses at all, of course. But that would be a shame, since they happen to be some of the more interesting archetypes for their respective classes.

The only benefit is that it's faster and easier for the DM to run. This doesn't apply to CRPGs, but it's still slightly faster there. As each side acts together, players don't get to think about or reconsider their decisions based on how each creature's turn went down. It could also counter/mitigate overpowered initiative modifiers and things like that, but that's not an issue in 5E.

So why did Larian go with side initiative? In addition to being slightly faster, my guess would be:

- Player party becomes more powerful, which seems to be a pattern across the changes they've made to the ruleset.
- It makes the Larian gimmicks with environmental effects and other abilities much more reliable to pull off. With standard initiative, such plans could be interrupted or ruined by enemy turns.
- Having all enemies act together while having to wait to react can make the encounter feel more dangerous, even though the system is better for the PCs. The psychological effect should be stronger on casual players, who are much more easily annoyed by things like missing or getting hit several times in a row.
- Players don't have to wait as long to see how their decisions play out, so they'll have to spend less time before deciding to reload.

(I'm not defending their decision, in case that wasn't clear. I think side initiative is terrible, but it seems Larian has a certain type of experience and challenge in mind, and that is a way to force/promote it.)

 

[Jimmious]

I think that when they talk about "big battles" etc it's because if they throw you 15 kobolds you can wipe half of them off in your first turn so things go faster.
Let's say that I get that but I still think it's not a good idea because it removes an aspect of characters - the super-fast elven ranger will take his turn simultaneously with the dwarven fighter with full plate armor and so on.
I will make it my goal to convince them to change their minds about this

 

[Decado]

Why couldn't they do both? Do party-based and individual-based initiative. Let the player choose, or make it part of the various difficulty levels. Scale combat encounters around individual initiative as the baseline, with party-based initiative being more forgiving and easier (because it is easier and more forgiving, for all the reasons Fairfax mentioned in his excellent post).

 

[rhollis]

So why did Larian go with side initiative? In addition to being slightly faster, my guess would be:

- Player party becomes more powerful, which seems to be a pattern across the changes they've made to the ruleset.
- It makes the Larian gimmicks with environmental effects and other abilities much more reliable to pull off. With standard initiative, such plans could be interrupted or ruined by enemy turns.
- Having all enemies act together while having to wait to react can make the encounter feel more dangerous, even though the system is better for the PCs. The psychological effect should be stronger on casual players, who are much more easily annoyed by things like missing or getting hit several times in a row.
- Players don't have to wait as long to see how their decisions play out, so they'll have to spend less time before deciding to reload.

I'd add that they want to encourage the player to use stealth and positioning systems in TB mode prior to the encounter to skip the initiative check and gain the advantage from the start. A few press videos indicate that was a more significant part of the gameplay demo that Larian showed them as compared to the live show.

 

[Elex]

No, it's D&D's miss 3 times in a row due to bad rolls and embrace inevitable death.

That's a relief.

We don't know how faithful to D&D 5 the game will be

It's gonna run on 5e? Pretty interesting. 5e doesn't have much of a loot treadmill going on, since AC is kept pretty conservative (heavily armoured lvl 1 character can easily have an AC of 18, while, say, Tarrasque, one of the most powerful monsters, has an AC of 25. That means shit like sword +1 to hit is actually a really powerful, high-level item, meaning you can't give such shit out like candy).

No, it means you HAVE to give out +1 swords because otherwise a mid level character is barely more competent than a starting one and the only difference for non-casters is more HP and some class features that don't swing combat too heavily. If you want proof, look at the official modules. They all, consistently, give magic items at the same pace. WBL isn't gone, it's just never mentioned to the GM.

Saga Edition was perfectly capable of axing the effect of money on ground fights almost entirely. More wealth just gave you more gadgets, the ability to take heavy weapons and options to upgrade starships, but there's few characters who can't do just fine with their only gear being stuff looted from an ordinary Stormtrooper. Why 5E couldn't, I have no idea.

nope.

A Character reach +11 to hit with no items more than adeguate for hit enemies with 21-22 AC and only extremely tanky monsters have similar AC.

+1 or better items are not needed at all in 5e it’s not pathfinder/3.5

 

[Monkeysattva]

Am I wrong or do people think that the shitty dialogue and those two utterly brain-dead party members are liable to change? Because I highly doubt it.

 

[Jedi Exile]

Interview with Adam Smith, senior writer and former RPS guy. Larian's love for Disco Elysium:

Adam Smith sounds like a bro.

 

[rhollis]

Am I wrong or do people think that the shitty dialogue and those two utterly brain-dead party members are liable to change? Because I highly doubt it.

They will change out of their clothes only. *I gently caressed the Githyanki woman's erect penis.*

 

[FranticDistortion]

Am I wrong or do people think that the shitty dialogue and those two utterly brain-dead party members are liable to change? Because I highly doubt it.

Mage dude (Gale) seemed fine, but I am slaughtering the vampire filth at the first opportunity.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The initiative system could just be unfinished, it is pre-alpha after all. Doubt it, but meh.
IIRC, the SRD states that enemies of the same type are supposed to have their initiative rolled only once. So, it's sorta correct.

Not happy with it, swen's biggest fan will complain.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I think the change to initiative is definitely to facilitate environmental combos. Swen admitted that D:OS 2 initiative was a bad call and I'm almost certain that was because of the complaint that any preparation you do for environmental stuff can be undone by the next acting enemy every single time. Larian reeeally loves this stuff.
If it's going to screw over whole subclasses I agree it's a bad change.

 

[Reinhardt]

Btw iirc there are mods to remove party limit for DOS games, so i bet it will be done for BG3 too.