Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[mediocrepoet]

Any chance that we will get a psionic class on BG3?

Not unless they do some sort of expansion. I believe they said they're doing all of the PHB classes and races. Also, I don't think there are any psionic rules released for 5E are there? They'd be limited by whatever official rules there are since it's an official licensed product.

 

[Efe]

all characters are psionic if you submit to tadpole

 

[NJClaw]

Any chance that we will get a psionic class on BG3?

Not unless they do some sort of expansion. I believe they said they're doing all of the PHB classes and races. Also, I don't think there are any psionic rules released for 5E are there? They'd be limited by whatever official rules there are since it's an official licensed product.

They tried to playtest a psionic class:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/mystic-class

but then quickly changed approach, and now it seems like they just plan to release psionic archetypes for the already existing classes. For example, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has three psionic archetypes for fighters, rogues, and sorcerers (respectively Psi Warrior, Soulknife, and Aberrant Mind).

 

[Hobo Elf]

So I got BG3 on GOG to give it a try and refund it if I don't like it. So far I'm pretty so-so on it. Technically it's very rough. I've had multiple crashes and had to tone down the graphics a lot to make it run at an acceptable framerate. Sucks, but that can be fixed later. One thing I couldn't understand though was why the Druid fight at the Druid Grove in the first settlement you enter was doing two standard actions per round. If this is Larian's idea of game balance, bending the rules so much, I don't know what to think. Unless there's something I missed and this should be OK by the rules? Seems like spells such as Hold Person also have a pitifully low chance of succeeding (40%).

 

[rusty_shackleford]

every post-2E attempt at psion has been trash because it always ends up being a wizard with differently named spells

 

[Gargaune]

If this is Larian's idea of game balance

Balance, heh... Mouse over the Shove button, the tooltip reads "I win."

 

[Nano]

No offense, but what's the point of a psionic class in D&D? What would they do that isn't covered by any of the spell schools? There's Divination spells for telepathy, Enchantment spells for controlling people's minds, Transmutation and Evocation for telekinesis, and so on.

 

[Yosharian]

Seems like spells such as Hold Person also have a pitifully low chance of succeeding (40%).

Hold Person has always been mostly shit as a player spell, outside of a few niche uses; if you're casting disables then you always go for the AOE spells like Hypnotic Pattern and so on

 

[rusty_shackleford]

No offense, but what's the point of a psionic class in D&D? What would they do that isn't covered by any of the spell schools? There's Divination spells for telepathy, Enchantment spells for controlling people's minds, Transmutation and Evocation for telekinesis, and so on.

(this post is a bit of a generalization of all pre-3E psionic powers, as they changed quite a bit depending on the era)

Well, for starters, it's not magic. Which is incredibly important in settings like Forgotten Realms.
In FR, mages are technically a kind of cleric really. They all get their power from some deity(most of them Mystra,) and Mystra(and her various incarnations) are the reason the weave exists and magic works at all.
Without the weave, magic that depends on it just stops working completely.
So, the Spellplague, Time of Troubles(dead-magic zones), etc?
Yeah, psionic powers kept working just fine because it turns out that psionics are vastly more powerful than silly not-sorta-clerics. Standard tactics to suppress or nullify frilly dress wearers didn't work on psions.

But to answer your question in proper, refer to the Complete Psionics Handbook. It actually covers this in one of the very first pages:

Additionally, psionic combat was its own separate thing back in AD&D. Your guy with psionic powers could be having his own separate mind duel with the Big Bad Guy while your regular dudes were having a physical battle with the Big Bad Guy.
How did it work? Here's an explanatory video that walks you through it:


Psions also used a different resource mechanic than standard spell slots -- it was more akin to mana that slowly recovered. You could also burn HP for extra psi points depending on the exact edition/supplement you were using.

 

[NJClaw]

No offense, but what's the point of a psionic class in D&D? What would they do that isn't covered by any of the spell schools? There's Divination spells for telepathy, Enchantment spells for controlling people's minds, Transmutation and Evocation for telekinesis, and so on.

I guess people just want new official material to play with, and psionics is just as good as any other excuse to get that. 5E is already 7 years old, and even if it's easy to homebrew decent stuff for it you still need official releases to keep people interested.

 

[Varnaan]

It's funny how playing both BG2 and BG3 makes me want to play BG the first more than anything.
I can't really pinpoint why, maybe it's because in the end BG has no real urgency at the start, you're just dropped on a road with a vague pointer to the friendly arms inn but you can head over to nashkel and whatnot, without a sort of greater purpose (muh Imoen, tadpole "timebomb") giving it a better "you're an adventurer, now get lost" feeling.
Structural and narrative linearity me no like, unless it's an extremely focused experience like Icewind Dale, although I guess linearity may not be the right word for BG3 considering the amount of branching paths available, maybe it's down to level (or world?) deisgn ?
And it's ironic because I also prefer the waterchip urgency in the first Fallout game to the les defined quest for the GECK of Fallout 2.

I don't know what the fuck I'm writing but I guess all that to say something irks me about the structure of the first arc of BG3 that also irked me in the first arc (or act ?) of BG2 (Irenicus' tutorial asside).

 

[Storyfag]

BG has no real urgency at the start, you're just dropped on a road with a vague pointer to the friendly arms inn but you can head over to nashkel and whatnot, without a sort of greater purpose (muh Imoen, tadpole "timebomb") giving it a better "you're an adventurer, now get lost" feeling.

Yeah, the fake urgency produces a nasty cognitive dissonance.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

 

[Storyfag]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

Not really. At least not to the same degree.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

Not really. At least not to the same degree.

How is it functionally any different than threat of death by getting your brain eaten?

 

[Varnaan]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

It's not really the same thing, at least to me, especially in presentation, and it doesn't translate into the narrative the same way as looking for Imoen or a cure for the tadpole does.
You learn that someone is after you but it's more of a looming threat than actual urgency, if that makes sense.

Edit: just rewatched the chapter one introduction to remind myself of the exact wording and even that makes it clear that it's not presented as urgency, the introduction basically tells you "you're alone, ill equiped, and there is a looming threat, find better equipment and allies, maybe at the friendly arms inn".

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

It's not really the same thing, at least to me, especially in presentation, and it doesn't translate into the narrative the same way as looking for Imoen or a cure for the tadpole does.
You learn that someone is after you but it's more of a looming threat than actual urgency, if that makes sense.

You guys are high on nostalgia. Tarnesh at the Friendly Arms Inn has a letter on his corpse after you kill him detailing that there's a price on your head.

 

[copebot]

The fake urgency is what they call a 'hook' and it is supposed to make the player more engaged in the plot. For me, it's more like I'm being dragged into reading a novel that I didn't sign up for, especially because the whole point of Dungeons and Dragons is that you get to define your own character. Then, immediately after you define your character, some shithead writer is instead insisting that they redefine your character for you. Oh, you thought you were going to play a thief with a heart of gold? No, sorry, you have to save the world and your whole existence is now defined by a parasite in your head. You wanted to play an ambitious and callous wizard driven to master the magic of time at all costs? Doesn't matter, your whole character is defined by a parasitical infection that involves tons of overwritten nonsense. You wanted to play a paladin driven to redeem the honor of his family after a terrible crime? Doesn't matter, the parasite is your character now or you have to save your stepsister Imoen and your whole backstory has been written by the writers and not by you.

In P&P 'hooks' are supposed to be written by the players and then used by the DM, and people tend to have mixed feelings about it. But in the case of games like BG2 and BG3 the only things you get to define are your player character's abilities and the game just sort of ignores anything else you do because of the limitations of the design. What's even the point of allowing a player defined character if the game is going to define your character's priorities anyway?

 

[Varnaan]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

It's not really the same thing, at least to me, especially in presentation, and it doesn't translate into the narrative the same way as looking for Imoen or a cure for the tadpole does.
You learn that someone is after you but it's more of a looming threat than actual urgency, if that makes sense.

You guys are high on nostalgia. Tarnesh at the Friendly Arms Inn has a letter on his corpse after you kill him detailing that there's a price on your head.

But going to the friendly arms inn is an option, not a goal per say.
You can meet Montaron and Xzar and head over to Beregost and Nashkell.
You can also go get Kivan in High Hedge(?).

 

[Storyfag]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

Not really. At least not to the same degree.

How is it functionally any different than threat of death by getting your brain eaten?

In the same way the opening of BG 1 is less epic than that of BG 3.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

It's not really the same thing, at least to me, especially in presentation, and it doesn't translate into the narrative the same way as looking for Imoen or a cure for the tadpole does.
You learn that someone is after you but it's more of a looming threat than actual urgency, if that makes sense.

You guys are high on nostalgia. Tarnesh at the Friendly Arms Inn has a letter on his corpse after you kill him detailing that there's a price on your head.

But going to the friendly arms inn is an option, not a goal per say.
You can meet Montaron and Xzar and head over to Beregost and Nashkell.
You can also go get Kivan in High Hedge(?).

Neira is in Nashkell, Karlat is in Beregost.
Just further proves my point that this is nostalgia talking.

 

[Varnaan]

Assassins chasing you isn't urgency?

Not really. At least not to the same degree.

How is it functionally any different than threat of death by getting your brain eaten?

In the same way the opening of BG 1 is less epic than that of BG 3.

Now that I think about it my issue may stem from the fact that BG3 is a low level adventure but from the start it feels like a high level narrative.
I guess it's a sort of dissonnance that can't really be avoided when the plot centers about Illithids and starting a new adventure at level 10 or somethign would feel weird and cumbersome as the game has different systems from BG1 & 2 but it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

Neira is in Nashkell, Karlat is in Beregost.
Just further proves my point that this is nostalgia talking.

I thin you are misrepesenting my point.
Wether you go to Nashkell or the Friendly Arms Inn the threat is concretized when you dispose of the first assassin, BUT, going to the Friendly Arms Inn or Nashkell are not objectives, or purposes in themselves.

Going to Nashkell is suggested by Xzar and Montaron, going to the FAI is suggested by the narrative, HOWEVER, those are just suggestions and you have a "vast" area to explore before concretizing this threat, you can head over to the area where Viconia is, you can go to High Hedge, you can go to Beregost and spend time there (and meet several potential companions) you can head east to the Ulcaster area (although you'll probably get destroyed), etc...

What I'm trying to say is that the game only establishes a looming threat that can be concretized after several hours of play; when you meet the first assassin but the game doesn't tell you go to A then go to B then go to C until much later.

 

[NJClaw]

The fake urgency is what they call a 'hook' and it is supposed to make the player more engaged in the plot. For me, it's more like I'm being dragged into reading a novel that I didn't sign up for, especially because the whole point of Dungeons and Dragons is that you get to define your own character. Then, immediately after you define your character, some shithead writer is instead insisting that they redefine your character for you. Oh, you thought you were going to play a thief with a heart of gold? No, sorry, you have to save the world and your whole existence is now defined by a parasite in your head. You wanted to play an ambitious and callous wizard driven to master the magic of time at all costs? Doesn't matter, your whole character is defined by a parasitical infection that involves tons of overwritten nonsense. You wanted to play a paladin driven to redeem the honor of his family after a terrible crime? Doesn't matter, the parasite is your character now or you have to save your stepsister Imoen and your whole backstory has been written by the writers and not by you.

In P&P 'hooks' are supposed to be written by the players and then used by the DM, and people tend to have mixed feelings about it. But in the case of games like BG2 and BG3 the only things you get to define are your player character's abilities and the game just sort of ignores anything else you do because of the limitations of the design. What's even the point of allowing a player defined character if the game is going to define your character's priorities anyway?

Well, it's not like in BG1 you're free to decide your character's backstory. Sure, you can decide where to go first and what to do, but so do you in BG2 and 3.

Now that I think about it my issue may stem from the fact that BG3 is a low level adventure but from the start it feels like a high level narrative.
I guess it's a sort of dissonnance that can't really be avoided when the plot centers about Illithids and starting a news adventure at level 10 or somethign would feel weird and cumbersome as the game has different systems from BG1 & 2 but it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

Now wait for rusty to explain to you that the beginning of BG1 isn't any less epic than that of BG3.

 

[Nano]

You guys are high on nostalgia. Tarnesh at the Friendly Arms Inn has a letter on his corpse after you kill him detailing that there's a price on your head.

Dude, watching out for the occasional assassin is nothing compared to having a ball in the Athkatla-side-quest-carnival while your foster sister is busy being kidnapped.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You guys are high on nostalgia. Tarnesh at the Friendly Arms Inn has a letter on his corpse after you kill him detailing that there's a price on your head.

Dude, watching out for the occasional assassin is nothing compared to having a ball in the Athkatla-side-quest-carnival while your foster sister is busy being kidnapped.

Pretty good point that it's not even your life in danger in BG2, a lot of people found imoen to be annoying.