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

[Larianshill]

Necromancy is underwhelming, because early in 5e's history, WotC did not want players to have any useful summons. This is why Beastmaster Ranger was so trash, and why Druid is the only class with decent summons - and even they're not that great. It's changing now.
After rereading the FAQs, I can't find the information about not all subclasses being confirmed. But then again, I can't find any information about not being able to change your party after act 1 either, and I distinctly remember it being there.

 

[Anonona]

Necromancy is underwhelming, because early in 5e's history, WotC did not want players to have any useful summons. This is why Beastmaster Ranger was so trash, and why Druid is the only class with decent summons - and even they're not that great. It's changing now.

How are they changing and what chances are that Larian will implement them in the game?

 

[Cryomancer]

Hell, if they had just called Necromancy "Witchcraft" as the first DOS you probably wouldn't be complaining about it or calling it boring.

Because the name generate a expectancy. For eg, "you can play as a pyromancer in game X", the average pyromaniac player would think "cool, I can conjure, throw and manipulate fire", if you allow the pyromancers in the game X to only manipulate smoke, it would generate disappointment. That said, Dark Souls 2 dark magic spells are called Hexes, not necromancy hence you don't see me saying "dark soul 2 is such a good game but has one of the worst necromancy ever. It is just dark sorcery and dark miracles", because the name "hex" doesn't generate the expectancy of being the master of life, death and unlife. The name "necromancer" in other hands, generate that expectancy.

Other classes are less defined. For example, I can see the Alchemist on Dragon's Dogma online and think "that is so cool, I wish that Crapcon had launched it on west, since DD is more popular on west" and see the alchemist on kingmaker and thinks "that is cool", despite one using bronze and the other, using bombs. Because both fits the class fantasy.

and simpler spaces, which makes having armies more reasonable and easier to control and is RTWP.

It can be played in TB. I only use RtWP VS trash mobs since they added TB as a option. As for MP, can be the "host" settings.

WotC did not want players to have any useful summons

Another bad thing imported from 4e...

IMO, conjuration, necromancy and etc should be included as an OPTIONAL rule depending on the DM approval. for eg, on my S&W game, there is 3 magic users, 1 druid and one cleric. Using summons to tank doesn't make anyone fells worthless. But on a balanced party, it justs makes martial players fells even more worthless. And even the thief. Why scout for traps when you can send your skeleton to trigger any possible trap?

 

[Larianshill]

There are two kinds of changes. Firstly, there's now Artificer. Artificer has four subclasses, and three of them are pet-focused and balanced around having a pet. Beastmaster Ranger also received multiple attempted fixes. The most recent one has Beastmaster Ranger use his Bonus Action to direct a pet to attack, as opposed to his Action as was the case before. Larian made beastmaster's pet a wholly separate creature, who doesn't need action or bonus action to attack at all.
The second change is the introduction of new spells, this being the most recent example.

 

[Larianshill]

By the way, I recall having a multiple pages long shitflinging about character levels and spell levels. Here's a good example of why different terms would be helpful to differentiate them.

Spoiler

 

[Anonona]

Because the name generate a expectancy. For eg, "you can play as a pyromancer in game X", the average pyromaniac player would think "cool, I can conjure, throw and manipulate fire", if you allow the pyromancers in the game X to only manipulate smoke, it would generate disappointment. That said, Dark Souls 2 dark magic spells are called Hexes, not necromancy hence you don't see me saying "dark soul 2 is such a good game but has one of the worst necromancy ever. It is just dark sorcery and dark miracles", because the name "hex" doesn't generate the expectancy of being the master of life, death and unlife. The name "necromancer" in other hands, generate that expectancy.

Other classes are less defined. For example, I can see the Alchemist on Dragon's Dogma online and think "that is so cool, I wish that Crapcon had launched it on west, since DD is more popular on west" and see the alchemist on kingmaker and thinks "that is cool", despite one using bronze and the other, using bombs. Because both fits the class fantasy.

I'll say, this is more of your issue than anything else. Different things can share the same name. Necromancy in DOS still deals with manipulating death, absorbing life and even summoning undead. The execution is different, but even then you can probably find numerous different version of necromancy across media that differs with the "original" while still dealing with the same aspects. So DOS 2 being a different system and world, then is not that weird that their idea of necromancy is different, even if its inspired by D&D. I'll say though, I think is quite a lot more legitimate the criticism labeled to 5E necromancy. While is technically a different game, is in a way still D&D, with all the expectations that it entails.

It can be played in TB. I only use RtWP VS trash mobs since they added TB as a option. As for MP, can be the "host" settings.

I'm well aware you can (even if it is inferior by virtue of the AI not knowing how to deal with the TB system compared to RTwP). Still the problem of visual representation and it not meshing well with smaller more complicated battlefields. Also yeah, the host setting would be nice, that I'll agree.

 

[NJClaw]

It says "all classes". It doesn't say "all subclasses". I very much doubt that Champion Fighter, Divination Wizard, GOO Warlock are going to get even close to the release version.

Why wouldn't they implement the Champion Fighter? It's basically free, his only feature is the improved critical range.

This is D&D 5E flagship videogame, its purpose is to introduce the edition to a new audience and I don't think WotC settled for anything less than the full PHB at release.

 

[Larianshill]

For the same reason it's not implemented yet, despite the absolute ease of implementing it, it's boring as shit, and Larian likes having buttons to press at.

 

[Cryomancer]

I don't think WotC settled for anything less than the full PHB at release.

WoTC allow mobile cash-grabs. And certain things doesn't translate well. Eg - Most divination spells. Create thrall spell would would be amazing in a infiltration campaign, but is hard to translate into a video game.

DOS 2 being a different system and world, then is not that weird that their idea of necromancy is different, even if its

My problem is not that it is different. My problem is that doesn't have a single iconic spell which I like , is not like kingmaker when on lv 3 I get Boneshaker and almost every level keeps gaining new and iconic and cool necromantic spells and spells that "synergies" with my main necromancy. For eg, cloudkill to kill weaklings and lower CON of powerful enemies making then a easier target to my finger of death. The sense of progression is also amazing. When I first fought the wild hunt, I barely won. On end game, I an nuking then out of existence with wail of the banshee. On dos2, since they don't use tier based progression, you end up using the same stuff the entire game. And is not as if you have that much cool stuff to chose from...

Other problem is their armor system, but that is another discussion. Anyway, one of my favorite CRPG adaptations from D&D, is Dark Sun : Wake of the Ravager. It doesn't have necromancer specialization, nor undead creation spells per say and spell scrolls in that game are incredible expensive(which makes sense). The unique iconic necromantic spell is finger of death which you will only learn on end game since the lv cap is 15 in that game. A game doesn't necessarily needs to have good necromancy to be one of my favorites. In fact, buffing my half giant gladiator was far more useful than using magic to kill enemies on most of the time. The atmosphere, encounter design and other things are so great in that game. IMO the game is much better than the first one, but I an probably the unique guy in Codex with that opinion. Everyone prefer Shattered Lands. Alteration and Enchantment magic in that game was so cool and I enjoy using cool magic and cool weapons.

Honestly, Larian could take SSI games as inspiration instead of DOS games.

------------

I said that I din't liked almost all Larian alterations from 5e. But one thing which I liked is that martial classes has more Actions to take in combat, like "smash" with maces. In fact, Larian could have solved the "missing is not fun" with a passive bonus to hit from the tadpole or implementing more actions that makes you more likely to hit instead of "less ac more hp" in a ruleset where everything already has a lot of hp.

 

[Cael]

Honestly, Larian could take SSI games as inspiration instead of DOS games.

I doubt woketards of the cunts would allow them. Woketards of the cunts have been vehemently against all previous editions and are outright hostile to previous editions. It was one of the reasons why there was a massive backlash against the retarded successor of 3.5. I was there on the woketards of the cunts forums when they started removing the forum for 3.5. There was a lot of screaming, to which woketards of the cunts arrogantly told the players to adapt to the new edition or fuck off. A number of very active posters left to create their own forum.

 

[Cryomancer]

I doubt woketards of the cunts would allow them. Woketards of the cunts have been vehemently against all previous editions and are outright hostile to previous editions. It was one of the reasons why there was a massive backlash against the retarded successor of 3.5. I was there on the woketards of the cunts forums when they started removing the forum for 3.5. There was a lot of screaming, to which woketards of the cunts arrogantly told the players to adapt to the new edition or fuck off. A number of very active posters left to create their own forum.

Well said. Now look to Paizo. Pathfinder 1e still supported on their official forums and they allowed PF:WoTR to be PF1e while WoTC was the main reason which Throne of Bhaal is so rushed. Woketards of the cunts is the "Electronic Farts" of tabletop RPG's. Not only they made the awful D&D 4e but they also tried really hard to force everyone to play this awful ruleset. If I had to rate the D&D editions that I at least readed some books :

• 2e = 9.5/10 -> Perfect in almost every aspect. Martial could get more options, and saves could be better implemented.
• 3e/3.5e = 8/10 -> I don't like big numbers on RPG's. Play it is very fun, but DM it is a chore. I also prefer "kits" over prestige classes.
• 4e = 1/10 -> The unique """good""" thing to say about 4e. Is balanced. Is not 0/10 cuz is a amazing example of what happens when you take out all RPG from a TTRPG for the sake of gamey mechanics.
• 5e = 6/10 or 7/10 with a lot of homebrew stuff.
• PF1e = 8/10 -> Some good things, some bad things. Casters should have maintained d4 hit dice and any CON mod above +1 should have been exclusive to martial classes. Opposition school costing 2 slots instead of being prohibited is kinda silly.
• PF2e = 6.5/10 -> Better than 5e, worse than the rest.

I sadly never found a group to play 2e, only read some books and watched streams. But an playing a retroclone(S&W). 3E is my most played TT game. I just don't get why so many Paizo haters here in Codex. Paizo produced a massive incline on the TT market, by making D&D lose the spotlight as the most popular TT game ever and produced another massive incline by allowing OwlCat to make a masterpiece called Pathfinder Kingmaker.

 

[Cael]

I doubt woketards of the cunts would allow them. Woketards of the cunts have been vehemently against all previous editions and are outright hostile to previous editions. It was one of the reasons why there was a massive backlash against the retarded successor of 3.5. I was there on the woketards of the cunts forums when they started removing the forum for 3.5. There was a lot of screaming, to which woketards of the cunts arrogantly told the players to adapt to the new edition or fuck off. A number of very active posters left to create their own forum.

Well said. Now look to Paizo. Pathfinder 1e still supported on their official forums and they allowed PF:WoTR to be PF1e while WoTC was the main reason which Throne of Bhaal is so rushed. Woketards of the cunts is the "Electronic Farts" of tabletop RPG's. Not only they made the awful D&D 4e but they also tried really hard to force everyone to play this awful ruleset. If I had to rate the D&D editions that I at least readed some books :

• 2e = 9.5/10 -> Perfect in almost every aspect. Martial could get more options, and saves could be better implemented.
• 3e/3.5e = 8/10 -> I don't like big numbers on RPG's. Play it is very fun, but DM it is a chore. I also prefer "kits" over prestige classes.
• 4e = 1/10 -> The unique """good""" thing to say about 4e. Is balanced. Is not 0/10 cuz is a amazing example of what happens when you take out all RPG from a TTRPG for the sake of gamey mechanics.
• 5e = 6/10 or 7/10 with a lot of homebrew stuff.
• PF1e = 8/10 -> Some good things, some bad things. Casters should have maintained d4 hit dice and any CON mod above +1 should have been exclusive to martial classes. Opposition school costing 2 slots instead of being prohibited is kinda silly.
• PF2e = 6.5/10 -> Better than 5e, worse than the rest.

I sadly never found a group to play 2e, only read some books and watched streams. But an playing a retroclone(S&W). 3E is my most played TT game. I just don't get why so many Paizo haters here in Codex. Paizo produced a massive incline on the TT market, by making D&D lose the spotlight as the most popular TT game ever and produced another massive incline by allowing OwlCat to make a masterpiece called Pathfinder Kingmaker.

It is mainly because of the Paiturd fanbois being cunts and so people naturally shit on Paiturd for the sake of it.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Not truth. See fallout. Most normies associate it with BUGThesda's ones.

Whatever one thinks of the gameplay merits of Oblivion with Guns, the fact remains that Fallout 3 was a considerable commercial success and was followed just two years later by Fallout: New Vegas which sold nearly as well, as a result of which normies associate the name "Fallout" with these newer games and not with the originals.

Similarly, whatever the gameplay merits or faults of BG3, if it is an immense commercial success, as seems likely, then normies will associate the name "Baldur's Gate" with first-person-perspective 3D graphics and turn-based combat, thinking of the earlier games as bizarre oddities for their third-person-perspective isometric graphics and even more so for their execrable RtwP combat system.

 

[Harthwain]

But on a balanced party, it justs makes martial players fells even more worthless. And even the thief. Why scout for traps when you can send your skeleton to trigger any possible trap?

This is part of a larger problem though. First - why would you expect a trap there? Second - you need to have a skeleton first, meaning you need something to animate first* and spend a spell slot for it. And you usually don't do that "just in case".

* Yes, I know you "summon" a skeleton, but I find it to be bullshit. Necromancy shouldn't be the same as summoning.

 

[Bara]

Necromancy is underwhelming, because early in 5e's history, WotC did not want players to have any useful summons. This is why Beastmaster Ranger was so trash, and why Druid is the only class with decent summons - and even they're not that great. It's changing now.

Wait okay so still haven't played 5e yet so I have no first hand experience but I could have sworn I remember people saying Necromancy was OP early 5e days and could break games. Was that from the play test version and I'm misremembering or something? Or just early day no one really knows whats good or bad on release stuff.

 

[Cael]

But on a balanced party, it justs makes martial players fells even more worthless. And even the thief. Why scout for traps when you can send your skeleton to trigger any possible trap?

This is part of a larger problem though. First - why would you expect a trap there? Second - you need to have a skeleton first, meaning you need something to animate first* and spend a spell slot for it. And you usually don't do that "just in case".

* Yes, I know you "summon" a skeleton, but I find it to be bullshit. Necromancy shouldn't be the same as summoning.

You don't. It is just good sense to send a disposable body into an unexplored tunnel first.

 

[Larianshill]

Wait okay so still haven't played 5e yet so I have no first hand experience but I could have sworn I remember people saying Necromancy was OP early 5e days and could break games. Was that from the play test version and I'm misremembering or something? Or just early day no one really knows whats good or bad on release stuff.

It's not OP, but it is broken. It bogs down games and slows them down to a halt. The solutions typically offered to it, are not solutions at all.

 

[Cryomancer]

n. It bogs down games and slows them down to a halt.

As i've said, if a army of 100 archers has 50% of hitting the enemy and each hit deals d8+2 damage, assume that the enemy will gonna be hit by 50 arrows dealing 6 damage each. And in a computer game, you don't even need to do that.

First - why would you expect a trap there? Second - you need to have a skeleton first, meaning you need something to animate first* and spend a spell slot for it. And you usually don't do that "just in case".

* Yes, I know you "summon" a skeleton, but I find it to be bullshit. Necromancy shouldn't be the same as summoning.

I know that you probably need a corpse to reanimate the dead. IT is a requirement often neglected on video game adaptations, but you got the idea. If you are in a unexplored area, throw a skeleton is a good idea. Is better to put a low level creature at risk. Also, for a mid level(lets say 12) character, sacrificing a low level spell to avoid trap can be a good idea. Mainly on 2e, where the average lv 12 caster would have like 25 hp(9d4+3). 3E had the CoDzilla. 2E had the Conjurer specialized wizard. In fact, his depending on his familiar, he can detect traps without needing to spend a low level spell slot.

 

[NJClaw]

I don't think WotC settled for anything less than the full PHB at release.

WoTC allow mobile cash-grabs. And certain things doesn't translate well. Eg - Most divination spells. Create thrall spell would would be amazing in a infiltration campaign, but is hard to translate into a video game.

But mobile cash grabs aren't D&D 5e flagship videogame, are they?

Of course the game won't have spells and features that are virtually impossible to implement in a videogame due to their open-ended nature, and Larian will probably have to modify or drop certain problematic subclasses, but the Champion doesn't fall in any of these categories.

For the same reason it's not implemented yet, despite the absolute ease of implementing it, it's boring as shit, and Larian likes having buttons to press at.

The Thief Rogue has barely any button to press and yet it's in the game.

 

[Shrimp]

Necromancy is underwhelming, because early in 5e's history, WotC did not want players to have any useful summons. This is why Beastmaster Ranger was so trash, and why Druid is the only class with decent summons - and even they're not that great. It's changing now.
After rereading the FAQs, I can't find the information about not all subclasses being confirmed. But then again, I can't find any information about not being able to change your party after act 1 either, and I distinctly remember it being there.

It wasn't mentioned in any of the FAQs or AMAs but rather as a throwaway comment in one of the community update posts on Steam.

Will companions be interchangeable during long rest?
Yes, at the start of your adventure your recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. Just like friends in real life! After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

With that being said it's been a while since they wrote that so I don't know if they've reconsidered this approach since the initial post. I do remember it being received generally negative on most of the community platforms.

 

[Cael]

I don't know why people don't have x number of companions and all x will be in the party at all times. You'd think that it would be easier to have a lesser number of possible companions than a massive number that only a few of which will be in the starring role at any one time.

Since you know which companions the player will get at any point in the game, it would be far easier to write for that than for the huge number of possible permutations out there, especially when you know you will have psycho players who will try for the most impossible party combination possible (e.g., Evil members in a party with a Paladin like in BG or worse, a misandrist like Shar-Teel in a party with a misogynist like Eldoth). This is where JRPGs kicks WRPGs' asses every time. Their storylines are far tighter than Western soi shit.

Fuck the cunts who want to play an Evil bastard in a heroic fantasy. Stop catering for LGBTSJFNVIWORITKFIWTFWTFWTF sub-interests. Just tell the story that YOU want!

 

[Harthwain]

If you are in a unexplored area, throw a skeleton is a good idea.

My point is, it shouldn't be. But cRPGs are mostly combat-oriented. Closer to dungeon cralwers, rather than to simulations, so it's natural for players to expect enemies and traps in unexplored areas. In my opinion cRPGs would benefit a lot if they were treated a lot more like survival games. With combat being a dangerous affair, rather than the main course. Empty ruins (without traps or enemies, but with environmental/structural hazards) could be a thing for exploration. And the cost of casting magic - in general - should be higher, so you would weight your options before using a spell beforehand. The rest-spamming simply throws the whole supposed spell-management aspect out of the window too.

With that being said it's been a while since they wrote that so I don't know if they've reconsidered this approach since the initial post. I do remember it being received generally negative on most of the community platforms.

Nihil novi. This was the same in D:OS2, so they are likely following the same formula.

 

[Gargaune]

In my opinion cRPGs would benefit a lot if they were treated a lot more like survival games. With combat being a dangerous affair, rather than the main course. Empty ruins (without traps or enemies, but with environmental/structural hazards) could be a thing for exploration.

Yeah, I'm surprised cRPGs don't skin their traps as incidental hazards more often, you'd think crumbling ceilings and broken steps would be a more natural occurrence than landmines in long-forgotten ruins.

 

[NJClaw]

Nihil novi. This was the same in D:OS2, so they are likely following the same formula.

Much to the dismay of their fans, they implemented the targeting of spells through clicking on portraits. Who knows what amazing technological advancement they will announce next!

Maybe they will figure out how to keep more than three companions in the game after the first chapter! Or, and I know I'm talking science-fiction here, they will discover some alien technology that allows the player to control two characters at once! Maybe even select a second character while the first one is casting a spell!

One thing is certain: Larian is clearly pushing the envelope of cutting-edge technology in videogames, and we're lucky to be alive while this giant leap is taking place. The future is now.

 

[vortex]

One thing is certain: Larian is clearly pushing the envelope of cutting-edge technology in videogames, and we're lucky to be alive while this giant leap is taking place. The future is now.

Let me speak about the FUTURE. The day Swen realizes he can just DELETE THE TURN, GLORIOUS RTWP shall be born. RTWP is the impending fate of mankind. Repeat this sermon with me brotha.