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

[NJClaw]

If they're called wizards how come they don't use wisdom?

I'll give you an answer once you tell me why they are called fighters when they don't use figs.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

If they're called wizards how come they don't use wisdom?

I'll give you an answer once you tell me why they are called fighters when they don't use figs.

Every fighter eats a fig at least once in their lives.

Everything is just a simplification of God's creation.

Tieflings are a complication though

I gotta ask, are tieflings worse than wizards?

Dunno, are all tieflings casters?

 

[Grunker]

I think the biggest thing I hate about 3.xe is the initiative system. Ya got your base stat, modifiers, bonuses, then ya roll a d20 on top of it, then add it all up. If you roll low, you die. Roll or die kind gameplay. When it shouldn't be the case for just getting to decide who gets to act. Should be through actual playing rather than losing d20 die. I don't think encounters should be lost or won by basis of that alone.

You're mistaking the symptom for the cause. The actual issue is that in 3.5/PF offense is insanely, preposterously stronger than defenses, which means that the initiative roll you're talking about gets increasingly important - and at later levels, fights are often over in a single turn, meaning the initiative roll becomes the single decider of some fights. See KotC2 for extreme examples.

This is why Owlcat chose to pump up enemy defenses even on normal difficulty, which the PF-spergs who don't understand the system they're fans of criticized. But which was ultimately a sound decision, of course. It's kind of hilarious that even with Owlcat's megabuffs to defenses, they're still laughably weak compared to offense options.

The catch is that I don't think you can get the incredibly complex customization of these systems without them breaking down to some extend in actual play.

Codex will be Codex and argue everything in terms of "bad" vs "good", which isn't wrong per se, but it's often more fecund to look at these things in terms of scale. If you want tight, tactical combat that ebbs and flows and where different system assets play off of each other (giving time for your turn-to-turn decisions in the fights themselves to be just as important as the build situations you made), you probably can't implement a billion of those assets - the resource burden of making sure everything fits in the same framework becomes so big you can't even bugfix properly, let alone playtest. OTOH, if you want complex character customization where every character feels wholly unique as an output of player expression, don't expect the interactions of all those billion system assets to play well with each other.

5E for most people (including me) is a step too far towards making the combat work at the expense of customization, but I don't think it missed the mark by as much as Codexers generally claim. In fact, I think the removal of feats is the core issue. If they implemented "half-feats" (half-feats as opposed to the full 5E feats which are incredibly strong) that you gained every third level I think 5E would be pretty close to a sweet spot where customization feels less constrained but combat still functions. Bounded accuracy and removal of the modifier jungle isn't really a cost as it didn't impact the possibility space for customization, they just fixed issues with making the combat work. The reverse is true for the removal of feats, which vastly hurt customization. Indeed, this is exactly what many third-party character expansion modules do, e.g.: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/214641/Character-Options-Talents-5e while almost no one is trying to bring modifier creep back or find ways to dismiss bounded accuracy, even though those would be incredibly easy (since they're just soft limits you can totally ignore).

I'd also add some more choices within class and subclass frameworks, but my point is that the removal of feats is a huge component of why 5E can feel restrictive.

 

[aleph]

Dunno, are all tieflings casters?

Depends on the edition, in some they have access to cantrips.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Dunno, are all tieflings casters?

Depends on the edition, in some they have access to cantrips.

Well then, into the purge list they go.

 

[Fedora Master]

5e is 4e masquerading as a real ruleset and only dummies take it as such.

The similarities between 5e and 4e are astounding:
- both have classes;
- both have dragonborns;
- both have a number in their names.

Honestly, I can't even tell them apart most of the times.

5e is just as railroaded in its class advancement as 4e and even less deadly.

 

[Pink Eye]

I think the biggest thing I hate about 3.xe is the initiative system. Ya got your base stat, modifiers, bonuses, then ya roll a d20 on top of it, then add it all up. If you roll low, you die. Roll or die kind gameplay. When it shouldn't be the case for just getting to decide who gets to act. Should be through actual playing rather than losing d20 die. I don't think encounters should be lost or won by basis of that alone.

You're mistaking the symptom for the cause. The actual issue is that in 3.5/PF offense is insanely, preposterously stronger than defenses, which means that the initiative roll you're talking about gets increasingly important - and at later levels, fights are often over in a single turn, meaning the initiative roll becomes the single decider of some fights. See KotC2 for extreme examples.

This is why Owlcat chose to pump up enemy defenses even on normal difficulty, which the PF-spergs who don't understand the system they're fans of criticized. But which was ultimately a sound decision, of course. It's kind of hilarious that even with Owlcat's megabuffs to defenses, they're still laughably weak compared to offense options.

The catch is that I don't think you can get the incredibly complex customization of these systems without them breaking down to some extend in actual play.

Codex will be Codex and argue everything in terms of "bad" vs "good", which isn't wrong per se, but it's often more fecund to look at these things in terms of scale. If you want tight, tactical combat that ebbs and flows and where different system assets play off of each other (giving time for your turn-to-turn decisions in the fights themselves to be just as important as the build situations you made), you probably can't implement a billion of those assets - the resource burden of making sure everything fits in the same framework becomes so big you can't even bugfix properly, let alone playtest. OTOH, if you want complex character customization where every character feels wholly unique as an output of player expression, don't expect the interactions of all those billion system assets to play well with each other.

5E for most people (including me) is a step too far towards making the combat work at the expense of customization, but I don't think it missed the mark by as much as Codexers generally claim. In fact, I think the removal of feats is the core issue. If they implemented "half-feats" (half-feats as opposed to the full 5E feats which are incredibly strong) that you gained every third level I think 5E would be pretty close to a sweet spot where customization feels less constrained but combat still functions. Bounded accuracy and removal of the modifier jungle isn't really a cost as it didn't impact the possibility space for customization, they just fixed issues with making the combat work. The reverse is true for the removal of feats, which vastly hurt customization. Indeed, this is exactly what many third-party character expansion modules do, e.g.: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/214641/Character-Options-Talents-5e while almost no one is trying to bring modifier creep back or find ways to dismiss bounded accuracy, even though those would be incredibly easy (since they're just soft limits you can totally ignore).

I'd also add some more choices within class and subclass frameworks, but my point is that the removal of feats is a huge component of why 5E can feel restrictive.

That was a very nice read. Thank you very much for it. Don't have much else to add other than the fact that you hit it on the head with how fights, due to the nature of offensive potential getting ridiculous on higher levels, can be finished within a short amount of rounds; thus initiative serves as a means to "delay', so to say, the encounter.

It just feels bad though when things go from one extreme to another. A high level enemy wizard acting first can pretty much end a party and vice versa for player wizard. I don't know if it's related but I liked how Dungeon of Naheulbeuk did things. Enemy wizard acting first didn't mean a complete game over, same applies to player as well. So this gives both parties time to actually play the game, make tactical decisions, formualte strategy on how to win, focus on minutia of the encounter - which is, ya know, the actual fun stuff.

 

[Cryomancer]

offense is insanely, preposterously stronger than defenses, which means that the initiative roll you're talking about gets increasingly important - and at later levels, fights are often over in a single turn, meaning the initiative roll becomes the single decider of some fights. See KotC2 for extreme examples.

This is absolutely not truth. Deathward, an 4th tier spell can make the PC immune to wail of the banshee, an 9th tier spell. Stoneskin, mirror image, displacement, energy immunity(...) There are LOTS of powerful defensive stuff in 3E. And not only spells, magical gear is also incredible powerful. Only because an lv 4 nobody can't survive being shot by a cannon, doesn't means that "who wins the initiative wins" in 3/2E.

As for KoTC2, KoTC2 removed the "pre buffing" and it made winning initiative extremely more important. However, you still can make powerful gear to protect yourself from nasty effects. I played many high level PvP tournaments in NWN1. Most mages VS mages fights could lasts more than a minute if both players are good.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Still no Duergar, still no play.

 

[Grunker]

offense is insanely, preposterously stronger than defenses, which means that the initiative roll you're talking about gets increasingly important - and at later levels, fights are often over in a single turn, meaning the initiative roll becomes the single decider of some fights. See KotC2 for extreme examples.

Only because an lv 4 nobody can't survive being shot by a cannon

Lolno. Lethality gets higher as you level up, not lower. You can counteract this at a table where you can implement "fixes" like enemy precasts, positioning and straight up special abilities, but even omegabuffed Unfair dragons in Kingmaker are one-shot by a decently competent party.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

Only because an lv 4 nobody can't survive being shot by a cannon, doesn't means that "who wins the initiative wins" in 3/2E.

The same thing can be done in 4e/5e if an enemy's hp were simply reduced or the damage a canon does is increased to make more sense within the order of magnitude. BTW, people have survived hits from cannon balls IRL, they were usually maimed missing an arm or leg though (something most 3e/2e computer games have never accounted for either).

As for KoTC2, KoTC2 removed the "pre buffing" and it made winning initiative extremely more important.

There's still prebuffing in KoTC2. The buffs are more generous though as you no longer have to recast mage armor or bark-skin every few minutes and you can set up the buffs allowed outside of combat to be auto-casted after rests. The only big difference is that things like "shield" or similar effects that are supposed to be situational or have shorter durations can only be cast in combat. Even with prebuffs, initiative is always king. If you go first and get off a dispel before your enemies move, then you just beat the prebuffs on enemies before enemies could do anything. On top of that, "flatfooted" in 3.5 alone gives going first a huge advantage since a large amount of a character's armor class can be gone for the round and makes enemies susceptible to certain things like sneak attack regardless of an other factors.

 

[Cryomancer]

Lethality gets higher as you level up, not lower.

And that is an GOOD thing. Mainly in 2E. An magician who dedicated his entire live to magic having extremely devastating spells makes sense. The same magician having mildly more powerful spells and at the same time, be able to soak meteors failing from the sky makes no sense. And AD&D is not as high lethality as other CRPGs like GURPS. In GURPS, an sniper with an .338 lapua magnum rifle can kill the average PC at 1.5km away multiple times assuming average damage. In high magical/high tech settings, mages don't try to soak large caliber shots, they try to create mists, illusions and so on to defend themselves from long range weaponry. It forces PCs to be way more cautious and strategic.

but even omegabuffed Unfair dragons in Kingmaker are one-shot by a decently competent party.

Any video? Because here is one of the most OP min/max characters vs Lanthern king >



You could provide examples of this in BG1/2? I can't think in a way to reliable one shot Firkraag. The closest thing would be to cast an chain contingency of lower resist + lower resist + greater malison and then, finger of death him, so he would only have 5%MR and have to do the save at -8 or be instantly slain which is roughly 60% chances of two turn kill the dragon. But it requires an very high caster level.

 

[ItsChon]

There are too many fucking classes, hence the difficulty in balancing them all.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Druid
Bard
Rogue

This is all you need, every other class can be made to fit into these classes with the use of different feats/skills. Simplify everything to these classes and you will marvel at how much easier it will be to balance the combat.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

balance is fake and gay

 

[aleph]

There are too many fucking classes, hence the difficulty in balancing them all.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Druid
Bard
Rogue

This is all you need, every other class can be made to fit into these classes with the use of different feats/skills. Simplify everything to these classes and you will marvel at how much easier it will be to balance the combat.

If you are reductionist, let's go all the way. Every class can be mapped either to a non-caster ("fighter") or to a caster if there are enough skills/feats. /sarcasm

 

[ItsChon]

There are too many fucking classes, hence the difficulty in balancing them all.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Druid
Bard
Rogue

This is all you need, every other class can be made to fit into these classes with the use of different feats/skills. Simplify everything to these classes and you will marvel at how much easier it will be to balance the combat.

If you are reductionist, let's go all the way. Every class can be mapped either to a non-caster ("fighter") or to a caster if there are enough skills/feats. /sarcasm

It's reduced as far as it needs to be.

Fighters are non casters.
Clerics are casters that you use religious based magic.
Wizards use Arcane magic.
Druids use nature magic.
Bards use magic/magic.
Rogues have their own non-combat skills that are worth differentiating from fighter.

Everything else can fit within these categories (barring stuff like psionics which are in Dark Sun/PF, which would be worthy of having their own class, though I dislike psionic powers in fantasy settings). If you can list an archetype that doesn't fit into these categories, I'd love to hear it.

balance is fake and gay

The purpose isn't solely for balance, but also because this special snowflake shit where there are 20 different classes and races is dogshit unless a combat system/setting is explicitly designed for it.

 

[aleph]

Fighters are non casters.
Clerics are casters that you use religious based magic.
Wizards use Arcane magic.
Druids use nature magic.
Bards use magic/magic.
Rogues have their own non-combat skills that are worth differentiating from fighter.

So what? Just use feats like arcane-magic, religious-magic, etc for the caster class and make them exclusive. And rogues can just be treated as fighters who picked up some non-combat skills over combat skills. Some PnP games, like modern editions of the The Dark Eye actually do something like this.

Also, how would Paladins and Rangers fit into your class list?

 

[Larianshill]

The game doesn't need less classes, it needs more classes. The problem with the wizard that it's the class that can do everything, since his spell list is so bloated, and in the minds of WotC every spell makes total sense as a wizard spell. 3.5 had the same problem, but it also offered a solution by introducing three classes - Warmage, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. Each of them excelled in their area of specialization, while also being bad outside of their area of specialziation.

Also, if any of you asks "But why is the class that can do everything in the game a problem?", don't ever talk to me again, you fucking retard

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The problem with the wizard that it's the class that can do everything, since his spell list is so bloated, and in the minds of WotC every spell makes total sense as a wizard spell.

Come to think of it, are there any creatures or other means of attacking a caster's spell slots? Other than the roundabout way of lowering int score?
Maybe throwing a couple of those against a wizard would keep things fresh, if they exist.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I liked the kits of 2E. If you wanted a gimmicky little spin on whatever class, you take a kit.

You're not just a thief, you're an assassin, which is also a thief. Or whatever. That was really more than enough.

 

[Larianshill]

Come to think of it, are there any creatures or other means of attacking a caster's spell slots?

Only in a roundabout way. And while it would keep things fresh, it's really a band aid solution to the caster problem.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

it's really a band aid solution to the caster problem

I've got a more complete solution.
You can even say it's the final solution.

 

[Larianshill]

I'm intrigued.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I'm intrigued.

Take your pick

 

[Cryomancer]

wizard that it's the class that can do everything, since his spell list is so bloated

Make the wizard have to specialize into a "research theme" and only able to learn spells relevant to the theme up to DM discretion and introduce prohibited schools and learning spells only from scrolls back. An wizard leveling up and learning spells from nothing is silly as an fighter leveling up and being able to chose any magical weapon that he wanna in a very long list... It also makes low magical settings impossible to play, as any wizard will have an endless supply of spells.

Come to think of it, are there any creatures or other means of attacking a caster's spell slots?

In 3E/5E? No.

In AD&D? Yes. Nishruu and Hakeashar. Not only are able to literally eat Wizards spells but also has 100% magical resistance. And contrary to 3.5E, there are way less spells which bypass magical resistance in 2E. Black Tentacles, incendiary cloud, acid fog, cloudkill(...) a lot of conjuration spells do ignore spell resistance in 3.5E and don't in 2E.

Baldur's Gate also has the Wizard slayer fighter kit. Which gains a lot of MR and can inflict miscast each hit. After 4 hits(and 4 hits/turn is not hard to archive in bg2), the caster will have 100% failure on casting if he can survive 4 hits which is very unlikely