The cinematics is also a bad economic decision because all the modern fans who liked ME, DA, romances and that stuff would complain. And I believe they play more for the story, the world and the companions and not for the gameplay. It's a good decision for them having cinematics, you can skip them if you dont like them.They are leaning into the cinematic crap because that's normie speak. Like the noises you make when you want to attract the attention of a cat. They also have to justify the budget somehow, but I can't shake off the feeling they could've made this game with a much lower budget if they didn't create all those cinematics (and voice acting) and it would've been a much better economic decision.
Good luck for them to beat witcher 3. And witcher done it right.What can you tell us about BG3, the successor to the legendary BG series?
Swen: you've never seen so much CINEMATICS in a game before!
Demo had skill system and skills can be leveled independently from what class you pick (athletics, locks, Persuasion etc).You have never played D&D 5, right? Each class can fill so many more roles. Druids, clerics and barbarians make excellent tanks, fighters and rogues are the best damage dealers (both ranged and melee). And there are many more examples. You can build very diverse party combinations even with 4 slots, but it would obviously be more fun with 5 or 6.
Right. Never tried 5e. Please enlighten me. Can these guys actually perform as well as a pure class or are they more like a watered down jack-of-all-trades. This is important given the supposedly "brutal encounters".
Do we still need rogue or bard for locks and arcane for control? Because then you have just two remaining party members to experiment with (tactically speaking--Larian of course guaranteed we will be able to experiment in other ways with all of them).
Take our ongoing Pathfinder game for instance, my Barbarian is the groups resident door/chest opener. He has an adamantine weapon that can easily deal with locks. So he just smashes things open.
You have never played D&D 5, right? Each class can fill so many more roles. Druids, clerics and barbarians make excellent tanks, fighters and rogues are the best damage dealers (both ranged and melee). And there are many more examples. You can build very diverse party combinations even with 4 slots, but it would obviously be more fun with 5 or 6.
Right. Never tried 5e. Please enlighten me. Can these guys actually perform as well as a pure class or are they more like a watered down jack-of-all-trades. This is important given the supposedly "brutal encounters".
Do we still need rogue or bard for locks and arcane for control? Because then you have just two remaining party members to experiment with (tactically speaking--Larian of course guaranteed we will be able to experiment in other ways with all of them).
It depends what sort of options Larian gives you.
Take our ongoing Pathfinder game for instance, my Barbarian is the groups resident door/chest opener. He has an adamantine weapon that can easily deal with locks. So he just smashes things open.
Or Moon druid to tank, warlock hexblade to tank, cleric to tank , sorcerer divine soul to heal, bard to heal, barbarian, fighter to dps and even paladin oath of conquest to CC with fears ,full charisma build, so many options....Sad to see even old timer like crispy saying d&d is going downhill while its complete opposite since 5E...People should really try playing it.
Druids, clerics, barbarians, fighters and paladins make perfectly fine tanks, absolutely not "watered down jack-of-all-trades". Each class has its own way to do it, but they all work.You have never played D&D 5, right? Each class can fill so many more roles. Druids, clerics and barbarians make excellent tanks, fighters and rogues are the best damage dealers (both ranged and melee). And there are many more examples. You can build very diverse party combinations even with 4 slots, but it would obviously be more fun with 5 or 6.
Right. Never tried 5e. Please enlighten me. Can these guys actually perform as well as a pure class or are they more like a watered down jack-of-all-trades. This is important given the supposedly "brutal encounters".
Do we still need rogue or bard for locks and arcane for control? Because then you have just two remaining party members to experiment with (tactically speaking--Larian of course guaranteed we will be able to experiment in other ways with all of them).
To disarm traps you need proficiency with a tool and you can get that through your background.Take our ongoing Pathfinder game for instance, my Barbarian is the groups resident door/chest opener. He has an adamantine weapon that can easily deal with locks. So he just smashes things open.You have never played D&D 5, right? Each class can fill so many more roles. Druids, clerics and barbarians make excellent tanks, fighters and rogues are the best damage dealers (both ranged and melee). And there are many more examples. You can build very diverse party combinations even with 4 slots, but it would obviously be more fun with 5 or 6.
Right. Never tried 5e. Please enlighten me. Can these guys actually perform as well as a pure class or are they more like a watered down jack-of-all-trades. This is important given the supposedly "brutal encounters".
Do we still need rogue or bard for locks and arcane for control? Because then you have just two remaining party members to experiment with (tactically speaking--Larian of course guaranteed we will be able to experiment in other ways with all of them).
It depends what sort of options Larian gives you.
Take our ongoing Pathfinder game for instance, my Barbarian is the groups resident door/chest opener. He has an adamantine weapon that can easily deal with locks. So he just smashes things open.
OK and everyone can trap spot but what about disarm? Who gets proficiency with thieves tools?
Or Moon druid to tank, warlock hexblade to tank, cleric to tank , sorcerer divine soul to heal, bard to heal, barbarian, fighter to dps and even paladin oath of conquest to CC with fears ,full charisma build, so many options....Sad to see even old timer like crispy saying d&d is going downhill while its complete opposite since 5E...People should really try playing it.
Mortmal, you seem to have a lot of experience with these 5e class variants, are you telling me those variants you mention would be just as good in those roles or are you handicapping yourself by choosing them?
Mortmal, you seem to have a lot of experience with these 5e class variants, are you telling me those variants you mention would be just as good in those roles or are you handicapping yourself by choosing them?
Mortmal, you seem to have a lot of experience with these 5e class variants, are you telling me those variants you mention would be just as good in those roles or are you handicapping yourself by choosing them?
Many of these variants will have advantages over traditional classes. Besides, people normally play for class fantasy, not being 10% more efficient. That's mega munchkin territory.
To disarm traps you need proficiency with a tool and you can get that through your background.
As for the second point, you are absolutely not handicapping yourself. Every class shines at different levels. For the first levels and the last ones, a druid is unmatched as a tank, far better than a fighter.
In 5E fighters, paladins and barbarians have the best defenses and the best melee damage. On the other hand it's very hard to actually "tank", since there is little mechanical support to encourage enemies to attack you instead of the squishies. You basically have to stand in the front and hope the DM takes the bait."Tank" and "damage dealer" are two of the roles that recent editions of D&D are designed around (I can for sure say this for D&D 3.x, 4 and 5).I get triggered every time I hear someone say "tank/dps" in the context of tabletop and normal crpgs.
It's the first turn-based D&D game in what, 15+ years? Yea, that's objectively enough to get excited about.So that's a no then. I thought this was a site full of monocled patricians with scrutinizing tastes. Not a bunch of hype machine retards who get super excited just because something is turn based. Even if I was super into turn based games everything else about this seems like shit.
Well, there was less of it than usual in the preview. My guess is they'll try to keep the main story fairly straight-faced but go all out in the party banter etc.It was Ok. We shall see how epic larian "writings" style shows itself trough the game. Maybe they managed to keep it minimal.
Was gonna comment but then noticed you seriously put fire emblem and DOS in the same category. That's just retarded.That's because traditional PC gaming was neutered by "accessible" game design.
What styles of RPG are most popular?
1. Action "RPG" (skyrim, zelda)
2. JRPG (dragon quest, final fantasy)
3. Overhead TB (fire emblem, battle brothers, D:OS, banner saga, etc.)
4. Phase Based (wizardry clones) / RTwP (PoE/PF:KM), I don't know which is less popular
There's a small gap between 2 and 3 and a large gap between 1 and 2 and between 3 and 4.
Popularity is inversely correlated to tactical complexity (assuming similar quality of encounter design, character customization, etc.). Not surprising that Larian went with overhead TB + 3D graphics + rotatable camera + MMO GFX, but it's like saying you're making Wizardry 10 and spitting out a Skyrim clone.
But it never made sense to me how you can even have a "tank" in a system when your tank can become useless after just one save-or-suck spell."Tank" and "damage dealer" are two of the roles that recent editions of D&D are designed around (I can for sure say this for D&D 3.x, 4 and 5).I get triggered every time I hear someone say "tank/dps" in the context of tabletop and normal crpgs.
Tank, by tanking the suck spell.But it never made sense to me how you can even have a "tank" in a system when your tank can become useless after just one save-or-suck spell."Tank" and "damage dealer" are two of the roles that recent editions of D&D are designed around (I can for sure say this for D&D 3.x, 4 and 5).I get triggered every time I hear someone say "tank/dps" in the context of tabletop and normal crpgs.
Tank, by tanking the suck spell.But it never made sense to me how you can even have a "tank" in a system when your tank can become useless after just one save-or-suck spell."Tank" and "damage dealer" are two of the roles that recent editions of D&D are designed around (I can for sure say this for D&D 3.x, 4 and 5).I get triggered every time I hear someone say "tank/dps" in the context of tabletop and normal crpgs.
I get that from a PnP purity perspective, but I’m more concerned about gameplay here. I’m hoping someone can offer reassurance that we won’t need to pick tank, thief, healer and spellslinger to be effective in combat. For me, a huge part of any good CRPG is experimenting with team composition and cool class combos.
But it never made sense to me how you can even have a "tank" in a system when your tank can become useless after just one save-or-suck spell."Tank" and "damage dealer" are two of the roles that recent editions of D&D are designed around (I can for sure say this for D&D 3.x, 4 and 5).I get triggered every time I hear someone say "tank/dps" in the context of tabletop and normal crpgs.
Bard is the best as face.
TL; DR in 5e you can play with a mono class group or mix with no real limit or problem.
4 bards? Can do all
4 paladins? They suck at ranged but no problem.
4 clerics? A-men Easy mode.
4 wizards? If you win initiative there is no hope for the enemy.
4 warlocks? I guess you really like eldritch blast.
Etc
"Tanking" also does make sense if you can plonk your martial in a physically disruptive area that enemies want to get past.
fuck this big parties are fun. not only in terms of char building, and dressing up, but their personalities and banter and stuff.
Shame about the locked in class selection for origin characters, amongst other things
Half? Surely you meant 33%.fuck this big parties are fun. not only in terms of char building, and dressing up, but their personalities and banter and stuff.
only 4 chars already killing half of my fun.