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

[Silly Germans]

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about lore reasons explaining magic mechanics? It’s a game, it’s ok for some things to be game-y. Re-attempting dialogue checks is game-y, as are dialogue checks in the first place. It’s all game-y. AC and THACO are game-y.

I don't think it matters a great deal, I was just offering an explanation. The lore does however explain why magic works the way it does in D&D/Pathfinder for people who don't know a lot about the settings.

Does the lore explain why low level spells can't be learned in high level spell slots ? Or is this a restriction that the video games introduced ?

 

[Ninjerk]

Cooldowns encourage rotations which make for repetitive gameplay. The Vancian system only makes sense when resting is limited.

The Vancian system also encourages repetitive gameplay unless you can get intel on what you are facing. Otherwise, you end up always loading the same generic purpose spells.
That is why I think sorcerers work best, unless the game provides a better way to know what's ahead than reading an online guide or reloading your game.

I'm working my way through Durlag's Tower for the first time, and advance scouting by Imoen has proven invaluable (I think it may have even broken some of the fights, see: Davaeorn). Even though some of the spells I elected to use ended up not being quite as useful as they could be (I'm mainly thinking of Kirinhale, whose Magic Resistance I don't remember from my 2nd Ed.-playing days, who resisted my Invisibility Purge and just so happened to not teleport near my skull trap). I don't think I ended up going outside to rest for any specific encounters so far, but they have made me think about what to do with my sometimes-limited time in combat. The problem with Baldur's Gate is that resting never runs up against any resistance--but then do you want to "water chip" your player and have them whine about their perceived lack of time?

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You can also easily draw analogies to real life by likening it to exhaustion after an tiresome activity.

No you can't. Because the character is not exhausted, he can do a number of other exhausting things if he wants to, he just can't do this one specific thing. That's what's bonkers about the entire concept.

Also, are you aware that your posts look like this to other people?:
View attachment 13208

No, i was not aware that my posts look like this. They show up normal on my screen. I'll stop paragraphing them for my view, that should help.

The analogy doesn't work one to one, that's a given. The cheap way out is to say that each spell has its own unique magical exhaustion that is restored after waiting a bit. There you go. I am sure if someone spent a bit more effort on an explanation, you could come up with something that is more convincing. The Vancian system is not exactly intuitive either. I only know it from games but my shallow understanding is that it has something to do with memory and that you forget a spell once you casted it. If that is roughly correct how does it make sense to have the same spell prepared multiple times in your spell book ? How can you forget something more than once ? I guess my understanding/information about the Vancian system is incomplete since that doesn't make any sense. None of the infinity games explains exhaustively how magic works, so from a video gaming point of view it doesn't matter much anyways.

I am not arguing for cooldowns everywhere and i don't think they should be forced into games that use an existing system that does fine without them. But in general, i don't see how cooldowns are any worse than other mechanics that are readily accepted. They all have their place and can be used for good or worse. The cases where one is better than the other is mostly due to the surrounding design choices but not an inherent property.

With vancian casting the "magic words" disappear from the wizard's head after every spell cast. The spellbook itself is just all the spells they've encountered and copied during their adventures.

When a wizard rests, they don't just sleep they spend a few hours reading their spellbook memorising spells and making preparations for the next day. Fireball would only be recorded once in the spellbook itself.

Yes, but imagine have 2 slots for third level spells. You memorize fireball twice to later cast it twice. How do you memorize something twice, and later forget it once but still remember it.

The words are magic and finite, think of it as them physically taking up space in the wizards mind. They have space for two third level spells, every time they cast one of those words memorised words disappears from memory.

In some of the flavour texts it's said to require extreme mental endurance to hold onto the spells throughout the day. Hence why they get more spells as they become more experienced and presumably gain better willpower and mental control.

But how can one word of magic disappear from your mind but still be there. It makes sense for me to explain why different spells dissimilar. If I imagine a spell as a long string of letters I have trouble keeping in my mind, which disappears after I cast the spell it's clear. But how can one memorized word disappear from mu mind and still be there. I have 2 fireballs memorized, I cast one it disappears but I can still cast it once. It boggles my mind.

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about lore reasons explaining magic mechanics? It’s a game, it’s ok for some things to be game-y. Re-attempting dialogue checks is game-y, as are dialogue checks in the first place. It’s all game-y. AC and THACO are game-y.

I don't think it matters a great deal, I was just offering an explanation. The lore does however explain why magic works the way it does in D&D/Pathfinder for people who don't know a lot about the settings.

Does the lore explain why low level spells can't be learned in high level spell slots ? Or is this a restriction that the video games introduced ?

I don't know how it works earlier, but in 5th edition you are explicitly allowed to memorize lower-level spells in higher level slots. In most cases it makes the spell stronger and is the only way to make low-level spells more powerful, since they often don't scale with wizard's level.

 

[Tacgnol]

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about lore reasons explaining magic mechanics? It’s a game, it’s ok for some things to be game-y. Re-attempting dialogue checks is game-y, as are dialogue checks in the first place. It’s all game-y. AC and THACO are game-y.

I don't think it matters a great deal, I was just offering an explanation. The lore does however explain why magic works the way it does in D&D/Pathfinder for people who don't know a lot about the settings.

Does the lore explain why low level spells can't be learned in high level spell slots ? Or is this a restriction that the video games introduced ?

You definitely can do this in Pathfinder (though not Kingmaker), pretty sure it was possible in 3e as well.

Obviously upcasting is slightly easier for Sorcerers as they don't have to prepare anything in advance.

 

[Anonona]

But how can one word of magic disappear from your mind but still be there. It makes sense for me to explain why different spells dissimilar. If I imagine a spell as a long string of letters I have trouble keeping in my mind, which disappears after I cast the spell it's clear. But how can one memorized word disappear from mu mind and still be there. I have 2 fireballs memorized, I cast one it disappears but I can still cast it once. It boggles my mind

There are no good in-universe explanation of how it works. As it is a consequence of a Goddess intervention to limit access to the Weave of the world and limit magic, is just some reality breaking fuckery that is beyond our comprehension. I haven't read the original Dying Earth novels, but perhaps the answer of how it supposedly works lies in there. i may end up reading them.

Why there is a 7 page discussion about sorcerervictor magical fetish?

Because there aren't no news about the game, and gotta say the thread has been quite effectively derailed multiple times.

Question for those that know more about 5e. How "fun" will martial classes be in a CRPG? WoTC seems to have a incredible hate for non-casters and doesn't provide them with mechanics to have fun. What I mean is, once I reach higher levels, does a fighter have something more interesting than full attacks or a single specialized maneuver (like trip, dirty fighting) to do in combat? I see that Larian has made some efforts adding actions like throwing, pushing, jumping, etc, but I worry it may not be enough, specially for solo runs or when playing multiplayer. D:OS 2 actually made martial fun, if too samey to casters.

 

[razvedchiki]

But how can one word of magic

dont quote me on this but in the fluff dnd spells can be pages long, especially the higher lvl ones.
guess once you have said it once you can remember some of it but not all? and since if you spell it wrong shit can happen you need to rest somewhere and recant it.

 

[Silly Germans]

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about lore reasons explaining magic mechanics? It’s a game, it’s ok for some things to be game-y. Re-attempting dialogue checks is game-y, as are dialogue checks in the first place. It’s all game-y. AC and THACO are game-y.

I don't think it matters a great deal, I was just offering an explanation. The lore does however explain why magic works the way it does in D&D/Pathfinder for people who don't know a lot about the settings.

Does the lore explain why low level spells can't be learned in high level spell slots ? Or is this a restriction that the video games introduced ?

You definitely can do this in Pathfinder (though not Kingmaker), pretty sure it was possible in 3e as well.

Obviously upcasting is slightly easier for Sorcerers as they don't have to prepare anything in advance.

I am aware of that, typically via feats that increase the spell level. But i am wondering if the limitation of the old infinity engine games is lore based or not ?

 

[Tacgnol]

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about lore reasons explaining magic mechanics? It’s a game, it’s ok for some things to be game-y. Re-attempting dialogue checks is game-y, as are dialogue checks in the first place. It’s all game-y. AC and THACO are game-y.

I don't think it matters a great deal, I was just offering an explanation. The lore does however explain why magic works the way it does in D&D/Pathfinder for people who don't know a lot about the settings.

Does the lore explain why low level spells can't be learned in high level spell slots ? Or is this a restriction that the video games introduced ?

You definitely can do this in Pathfinder (though not Kingmaker), pretty sure it was possible in 3e as well.

Obviously upcasting is slightly easier for Sorcerers as they don't have to prepare anything in advance.

I am aware of that, typically via feats that increase the spell level. But i am wondering if the limitation of the old infinity engine games is lore based or not ?

No idea about AD&D 2e. With Pathfinder (and 3e iirc) you don't need metamagic/feats:

"A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell."

It's just something ignored in CRPGs to avoid complexity I think.

 

[user]

It’s a game, it’s ok for some things to be game-y.

"It's just a [insert any work of art] dude, it's not real, chillax!"

What does that even mean. That game-y/artificial gimmicks shouldn't be avoided?
Not all of them can be avoided, but imagine every artist, writer, 3d modeler, designer etc, thinking like that. Many already do, one of the reasons why there are so many sub-par games out there. "What's wrong with a kid ghoul stuck in a fridge for 200 years dude, it's just a game, why would that even bother you".

 

[Elex]

In bg3 upcasting will be in, a lot of stuff that older edition required a feat in 5e already work upcasting make the spell more powerfull (like finesse now is on the weapon itself, if a weapon have finesse it can be used with dex or str)

 

[Cryomancer]

some lame jrpg where you gain Fire, Fire II and Fire III, and status effects are weak, that the Vanician would suddenly make the system better?

You are right. But powerful spells can only exist in a place where they are very limited. Having 1~4 casts of finger of death and it OhKilling enemies is one thing. Having a cast and then after few seconds in cooldown, another cast means that the spell needs to be nerfed.

WoTC seems to have a incredible hate for non-casters and doesn't provide them with mechanics to have fun. What I mean is, once I reach higher levels, does a fighter have something more interesting than full attacks or a single specialized maneuver

WoTC already tried to make casters and martial more equals. With D&D 4e. But they tried by the worst way possible, by making casters weaker and more boring to play. Instead of martial more interesting. A high level Barbarian playing like Guts with Berserk armor would be so amazing. But i have no idea about how to translate it mechanic wise to P&P. Give deadly things like allowing barbarians to decapitate enemies, on a critical hit could be also amazing. Allowing supernatural warcries that forces the enemy to save or flee in fear would also fit the barbarian and be amazing.

You got the idea. I an 100% in favor of making martial classes more interesting to play. But 100% against making casters more boring.

Why there is a 7 page discussion about sorcerervictor magical fetish?

I maxed my CHA. hu3hu3hu3. Just kidding, i also spended a lot of time discussing firearms on fallout new vegas. And one reason that i don't consider outer worlds extremely inferior to new vegas is not only because the story is just "corporations bad" instead a conflict among Mr House, Legion and NCR, each one with his own ideals but also because outer worlds weapons looks like toys. While new vegas has a lot of cool guns and cool ammo. You can have classy weapons like a 45-70 lever action brush gun, a fully auto 12 gauge shotgun with dragon breath rounds making it into a flamethrower, can use explosive ammo on anti materiel rifles...

 

[DraQ]

I find it working well within the system you're creating it for being far more important consideration.

The system you are creating actually consists of mechanics and fiction it accompanies. If your mechanics produces results that don't make sense in fiction you have effectively broken your game up into two completely disjoint segments and successfully prevented one from meaningfully affecting the other. That's where all sorts of shit videogame design (like "oh, you might have killed that character but I really need them for muh story so they will just appear for no reason, it's not that you will notice among all the other nonsense happening" or "what do you mean you wanted to approach that room carefully? cutscene ambush mode on") come from.
Good games try to integrate their mechanics and lore.
Bad games try to separate them.
Ugly games completely misunderstand the whole concept and serially murder and resurrect their goddess of magic.

Was lore ever important when it came to any Baldur's Gate game?

We've been over BG being pretty shit already. Other than pissing off fagopoly I see no reason to reiterate.

Question: Cooldowns and casting times don't have to be mutually exclusive, do they?

What's your rationale for piling completely redundant and shit mechanics over good one?

Ham sandwich is an improvement over shit sandwich.
Shit and ham sandwich is not an improvement over just ham sandwich.

I am pretty sure i addressed that point.

The analogy doesn't work

And I have now abridged yours to only the relevant part.

The Vancian system is not exactly intuitive either. I only know it from games but my shallow understanding is that it has something to do with memory and that you forget a spell once you casted it. If that is roughly correct how does it make sense to have the same spell prepared multiple times in your spell book ? How can you forget something more than once ? I guess my understanding/information about the Vancian system is incomplete since that doesn't make any sense.

With vancian casting the "magic words" disappear from the wizard's head after every spell cast. The spellbook itself is just all the spells they've encountered and copied during their adventures.

When a wizard rests, they don't just sleep they spend a few hours reading their spellbook memorising spells and making preparations for the next day. Fireball would only be recorded once in the spellbook itself.

It's actually a fair point that Vancian system is only marginally less shitty and nonsensical than cooldowns (because in a way it is cooldowns, except the cooldowns in it last until rest and are on individual slots rather than spells themselves).

That's probably why, AFAIK the games started to move away from deeply nonsensical memorization interpretation to "preparation" where the spell is actually mostly cast during rest and "suspended", while actual casting merely finalizes it. That makes more sense, but at this point it pretty much becomes a crafting system (especially with components) in which wizards crafts their "ammo" during the rest.

It's amazing how you keep making up arguments and then convince yourself that somebody other than you came up with that (somebody who apparently is a Larian shill even if, mind you, he doesn't fucking exist).

Then, since that's not enough, you also come up with clever answers to those same arguments you invented a few seconds before.

Yeah, those arguments are stupid. But that shouldn't be a big surprise, since they came directly from you.

Why? It sounds like something a perfectly sane and stable person would do.

Except it does. You have a separate metaphorical "muscle" for every single spell that is used exactly for this single spell and nothing else.

What if two spells are very similar? What if they are different? What if you'd rather overexercise your spell muscle and risk it cramping on you than die? What if you want to use one muscle to exercise the cramped one to help it recover? You know why your analogy doesn't work?

Spoiler

Because it's a shit analogy.

Spoiler

Because cooldowns are a shit system for which good analogies don't exist, apart from a handful of highly specific cases.

Wouldn't that explanation also work for cooldowns? Instead of 8 hours they can do it in a few seconds or minutes. The big issue to justifying cooldowns is when we speak about physical skills.

Of course physical skills that we know don't work that way are a problem, but the main problem with cooldowns is that they are completely passive. They just happen in background.
Compare and contrast casting times when wizard is completely dedicated to that single spell he's casting. Meanwhile cooldowns (you could just as well replace them with warmups to fully parallel casting times and better contrast the two) are just ticking down whether the wizard is casting something else, just standing there, swinging stick, has been just knocked unconscious by ogre's club or is quietly wanking in the corner. They don't particularly pertain to neither the wizard nor anything else and that makes them artificial. If you put cooldown on some actual entity like gadgeteer's raygun or weather system in the surrounding area, or summoned being that needs to expend some of its own effort to break the barrier between realities, it then starts to make sense, but otherwise it just doesn't.

Again, wizard is doing the casting (time). A machinegun might be cooling down. But who or what cools down wizard's (fire) balls? Because we have established that the wizard is not doing it himself.

 

[DraQ]

some lame jrpg where you gain Fire, Fire II and Fire III, and status effects are weak, that the Vanician would suddenly make the system better?

You are right. But powerful spells can only exist in a place where they are very limited. Having 1~4 casts of finger of death and it OhKilling enemies is one thing. Having a cast and then after few seconds in cooldown, another cast means that the spell needs to be nerfed.

If you added casting times even the first casting would no longer be OP without necessarily nerfing the spell itself or making it unreliable via save-or-die.

 

[Elex]

Someone mentioned “why on sigil spell work the same?”

because the lady of pain and vecna.

google “Die Vecna Die!”

 

[Swen]

Did they? Is it gonna be another of those "pure DnD" games, streamlining "unneeded", "time-wasting" mechanics?

Short rests are now per encounter. If I was actually going to ever play this game I would be pretty disappointed. Since I'm not, I'll just tack it on as another reason the game will be shit.

"But we never even like short rests anyways" - Larian shills

It's amazing how everything they totally never even liked perfectly matches up with everything Larian doesn't include or is shit at.

Imagine thinking that enjoying games makes you a shill.

Why even spend time in this thread if Larian triggers you so hard?

Ontopoly is a sadomasochist. He likes being butthurt, he likes to suffer and see Larian transform his precious franchise into whatever they want it to be. He enjoys the pain, he needs it because this butthurt is the only type of emotion he can get in his miserable existence. In his depraved mind it's better to feel something than nothing even if it's only pain...

 

[Cryomancer]

If you added casting times even the first casting would no longer be OP without necessarily nerfing the spell itself or making it unreliable via save-or-die.

Yep. But look to warlocks on 3.5e(not nwn2 which nerfed then to oblivion) and kineticists on pathfinder 1e/pathfinder kingmaker. A lot of DM's ban both classes because being able to permanently transform the enemy into a 1 HD toad(word of changing) with no limitation on spell slots is ludicrous OP. On 5e is different, DM's seems to be encouraging warlock play over wizard play...

"but 5e warlocks has at will invocations too" Yes, but they are not nowhere near powerful as the dead walk, unlimited undead creation, nor world of change, a unlimited save of else invocation, unlimited teleportation, unlimited tentacles, unlimited fly... Now, if you wanna do powerful stuff, you need to spend a spell slot like any other caster.

PS : Eldritch Glaive melee warlocks was amazing on 3.5e too. Not just traditional casters.

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

With short rest abilities being per encounter, all spell slots of warlock that was per short rest will be per encounter on BG3 considering the lv cap. Imagine a fiend warlock casting fireball as a tier 5 spell every encounter...

 

[Anonona]

Of course physical skills that we know don't work that way are a problem, but the main problem with cooldowns is that they are completely passive. They just happen in background.
Compare and contrast casting times when wizard is completely dedicated to that single spell he's casting. Meanwhile cooldowns (you could just as well replace them with warmups to fully parallel casting times and better contrast the two) are just ticking down whether the wizard is casting something else, just standing there, swinging stick, has been just knocked unconscious by ogre's club or is quietly wanking in the corner. They don't particularly pertain to neither the wizard nor anything else and that makes them artificial. If you put cooldown on some actual entity like gadgeteer's raygun or weather system in the surrounding area, or summoned being that needs to expend some of its own effort to break the barrier between realities, it then starts to make sense, but otherwise it just doesn't.

Again, wizard is doing the casting (time). A machinegun might be cooling down. But who or what cools down wizard's (fire) balls?

I think that you could come up with any excuse of why it works like that as long as its written well. I'm not writer, evidently, so anything I come up will be shit, but I guess you could say that spells exist in a plane of its own, as "origin concepts" or something, that are infinite and able to create powerful reality breaking effects, and mage link their mind/soul to this plane, so when they use a spell they are summoning this concepts and manifesting them on our plane. Because it stress their link to the other plane, and the energy that can go through it is limited, they require a momentary rest. The stronger the spell, the more energy you require, explaining why bigger spells require more time. It is a natural occurrence, just like breathing, but needs to be trained and developed through years of meditation, study and such.

In a way is similar like how mana usually works, as magic energies that the mage has to absorb and recover in different manners, but instead of recovering magic energy, you restore your link to the plane of magic. I know is not really a good explanation, but what I wanted to say, is that I think you could come up with a good in-lore reason as to why it works in such a way.

The real issue lies with developers just neglecting to integrate their world with the mechanics of the game. I would say it is probably an issue of developing the gameplay system first, and then ignoring details like these when writing the lore of the game. Is there actually any game with cooldowns that tries to justify why their spells work in such a manner?

 

[Lacrymas]

The spell relies on runes in the grimoire which disappear after usage.

 

[Harthwain]

What's your rationale for piling completely redundant and shit mechanics over good one?

It's not redundant. Casting time alone isn't sufficient limitator on its own. You need something else in combination with it. It does not have to be a cooldown mechanic, but something that does not allow you to throw spells out without due consideration.

I am thinking about slowly regenerating mana pool. You start with full mana and you can cast whatever you want, but each spell depletes your mana reserves (small spells deplete less mana, big spells deplete more). Each turn you get to roll a dice and add your INT to check out how much mana gets returned this turn. In addition, your mana pool dictates what is the strongest spell you can possibly cast. That's the rough idea.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Another problem with cooldowns, is that they provide incentive to use your spells/abilities with the longest cooldowns first. It's the most efficient output of power, since the sooner you use a spell, the sooner you can use it again. In a resource based system, the incentive is to use spells proportionate to the challenge.

 

[NJClaw]

Another problem with cooldowns, is that they provide incentive to use your spells/abilities with the longest cooldowns first. It's the most efficient output of power, since the sooner you use a spell, the sooner you can use it again. In a resource based system, the incentive is to use spells proportionate to the challenge.

You can have other resources to manage in addition to cooldowns, so that's not an unsolvable problem. You just have to make those resources matter.

 

[DraQ]

It's not redundant. Casting time alone isn't sufficient limitator on its own. You need something else in combination with it.

It is redundant because cooldowns don't give you anything casting times don't already provide. If you need further limitation use some sort of resource or specific circumstances needed for casting.

I am thinking about slowly regenerating mana pool. You start with full mana and you can cast whatever you want, but each spell depletes your mana reserves (small spells deplete less mana, big spells deplete more). Each turn you get to roll a dice and add your INT to check out how much mana gets returned this turn. In addition, your mana pool dictates what is the strongest spell you can possibly cast. That's the rough idea.

That's pretty much your standard mana pool with regen (say, TES>3).

 

[Lawntoilet]

Question for those that know more about 5e. How "fun" will martial classes be in a CRPG? WoTC seems to have a incredible hate for non-casters and doesn't provide them with mechanics to have fun. What I mean is, once I reach higher levels, does a fighter have something more interesting than full attacks or a single specialized maneuver (like trip, dirty fighting) to do in combat? I see that Larian has made some efforts adding actions like throwing, pushing, jumping, etc, but I worry it may not be enough, specially for solo runs or when playing multiplayer. D:OS 2 actually made martial fun, if too samey to casters.

As far as caster supremacy, 5e is a very big improvement over 3.5e, but it still creeps in at higher levels. As far as making martials fun, they generally have a lot more than "attack or one specialized maneuver" (except maybe for a Champion-archetype Fighter) but of course that will depend on what options Larian decide to implement and how they decide to implement them.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Another problem with cooldowns, is that they provide incentive to use your spells/abilities with the longest cooldowns first. It's the most efficient output of power, since the sooner you use a spell, the sooner you can use it again. In a resource based system, the incentive is to use spells proportionate to the challenge.

You can have other resources to manage in addition to cooldowns, so that's not an unsolvable problem. You just have to make those resources matter.

If you already have a resource mechanic, then a cooldown becomes unnecessary. Placing too many restrictions on ability use is bothersome and can become very arbitrary. If a bunch of "tax mechanics" are deemed necessary to restrain a class or spell, then the fundamental design of said class or spell(s) should be reconsidered.

 

[Anonona]

Question for those that know more about 5e. How "fun" will martial classes be in a CRPG? WoTC seems to have a incredible hate for non-casters and doesn't provide them with mechanics to have fun. What I mean is, once I reach higher levels, does a fighter have something more interesting than full attacks or a single specialized maneuver (like trip, dirty fighting) to do in combat? I see that Larian has made some efforts adding actions like throwing, pushing, jumping, etc, but I worry it may not be enough, specially for solo runs or when playing multiplayer. D:OS 2 actually made martial fun, if too samey to casters.

As far as caster supremacy, 5e is a very big improvement over 3.5e, but it still creeps in at higher levels. As far as making martials fun, they generally have a lot more than "attack or one specialized maneuver" (except maybe for a Champion-archetype Fighter) but of course that will depend on what options Larian decide to implement and how they decide to implement them.

Thanks for the answer. I hope then that Larian takes this issue into consideration when adapting classes.