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

[Cael]

Reminds me of kids playing cops and robbers.
"I shot you, you're dead!"
"No I'm not, I'm wearing a bulletproof vest!"
"My gun fires special bullets your vest is useless!"
"Nuh-uh, my vest also has a force-field that deflects special bullets!"
And so on, and so on.

This is why rules are needed in any "lets pretend" games. For eg, would a 556 cal be effective against that vest? And a .30-06 armor piercing? 14.5x114mm? Some games adopt the DUMB rule "body armor reduce the damage by X%, doesn't matter if is a .22 LR or a .50 "Raufoss Mk 211" which is effective even against armored vehicles"...

And in therms of rule consistency, 5e is less consistent than 3.5e. That is the point.

Funny how a side comment about the absence of number bloat in BG3 has lead to a 3 page discussion of the various logistics of deicide. The charm of Pen&Paper I guess.

I don't think that 3.5e has number bloat problem.

Going from fireball(tier 3) to cone of cold(tier 5), the damage cap increase is 10d6 to 15d6. And even the deadliest spells like horrid wilting caps at 20d6.

Highest cap is actually Disintegrate at 40d6.

 

[Xamenos]

I don't think that 3.5e has number bloat problem.

Going from fireball(tier 3) to cone of cold(tier 5), the damage cap increase is 10d6 to 15d6. And even the deadliest spells like horrid wilting caps at 20d6.

This was genuinely funny. 3.5 has a HUGE problem with number bloat at high levels. It's just not in the damage spells, and this is one of the reasons they suck. It's in the main stats, which can trivially be >36 for any player character. This is why the game descents into rocket tag at high levels. How much damage can a Barbarian with base 36 strength do in a single round? How high is the DC for a wizard with 36 intelligence casting Wail of the Banshee? And how likely is anyone to survive a single round against either of those who was won initiative?

2e had the right idea, with abilities being extremely hard to raise, above 20 only for monsters and 25 reserved for divine beings. Even 5e is better than 3.5 in this, despite allowing players to raise their stats, as it copied 2e's cap of 20 for PCs and also had magic items SETTING the stat to a score instead of INCREASING it.

 

[Haplo]

Items that set the stat are cancer IMO. They devaluate the base stats.

 

[Cryomancer]

It's in the main stats, which can trivially be >36 for any player character

Sorry but my lv 20 sorcerer on pathfinder kingmaker had only 30 CHA with all enchantments from magic and items...

2e had the right idea, with abilities being extremely hard to raise, above 20 only for monsters and 25 reserved for divine beings. Even 5e is better than 3.5 in this, despite allowing players to raise their stats, as it copied 2e's cap of 20 for PCs and also had magic items SETTING the stat to a score instead of INCREASING it.

Anything above 20 is reserved for superhumans on 2e and 5e. However, i an not in favor of hard caps. Just like with point buy system, you need one point to go from 10 to 11 and 4 points to go from 17 to 18, why not make any stat above 20 subjected to diminishing returns too? Eg, to raise anything above 20, you need FOUR points of enhancement per point. So if your sorcerer with 20 CHA become a vampire, he would get +4 CHA, but he will end up with only 21 CHA. And anything above 25 would require 10 points.

And the DC for a wizard with great spell focus - necromancy + 30 INT will gonna be : 10+9 (spell level) + 2(great spell focus) + 10(int mod) = 31 DC. Nothing like DOS2 or Diablo 3 number inflation.

Items that set the stat are cancer IMO. They devaluate the base stats.

Strongly agree. I love many aspects of 2e, but having my sorcerer with 7 STR being better than a fighter with 18 STR because he is wearing belt of giant strength is silly. It kinda makes the base stats irrelevant.

2e had a lot of amazing rules not seem in moderns editions

• Plate armor has greater AC vs slashes than blunt weapons
• Best longbows require a insane amount of STR to be used
• After lv 10, your chars gain almost no HP
• Different classes require different XP to level up.
• (...)

But magical items on 2e aren't that great.

 

[Spectacle]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually used the "damage type vs armor AC" optional rule in 2e.

 

[Cryomancer]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually used the "damage type vs armor AC" optional rule in 2e.

Baldur's gate uses

https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Full_Plate_Armor

 

[Xamenos]

Sorry but my lv 20 sorcerer on pathfinder kingmaker had only 30 CHA with all enchantments from magic and items...

A sorcerer would've had the same CHA with the same items. Tabletop doesn't have the same items, but it can still be easily reached at L20 with the +5 books available in core.

Anything above 20 is reserved for superhumans on 2e and 5e. However, i an not in favor of hard caps. Just like with point buy system, you need one point to go from 10 to 11 and 4 points to go from 17 to 18, why not make any stat above 20 subjected to diminishing returns too? Eg, to raise anything above 20, you need FOUR points of enhancement per point. So if your sorcerer with 20 CHA become a vampire, he would get +4 CHA, but he will end up with only 21 CHA. And anything above 25 would require 10 points.

Too much complexity for too little gain when you don't have a computer doing the math for you. I agree it would have been better than how 3.5 and Pathfinder did it though.

And the DC for a wizard with great spell focus - necromancy + 30 INT will gonna be : 10+9 (spell level) + 2(great spell focus) + 10(int mod) = 31 DC.

34 DC then with a proper INT. And please tell me, how much Fort would that same wizard have? Cause then you'll know the chance he'll die immediately in the first round of combat when facing an equivalent opponent. And that's the true problem of 3.5 stat bloat. And we didn't even examine, say, a Red Wizard of Thay specialized in Necromancy, or an even more optimized stat distribution.

Nothing like DOS2 or Diablo 3 number inflation

We've already covered that, yes. But let's not excuse 3.5's shortcomings just because other systems are even worse.

Items that set the stat are cancer IMO. They devaluate the base stats.

Strongly agree. I love many aspects of 2e, but having my sorcerer with 7 STR being better than a fighter with 18 STR because he is wearing belt of giant strength is silly. It kinda makes the base stats irrelevant.

They devalue the base stat only if you:
A) Completely ignore low levels.
B) Give your only belt of giant strength to the wizard instead of the fighter.
If you aren't completely stupid about it, they do exactly what you wanted: Make it so characters with a high score get less of a boost from magic items compared to characters with a low score.

The true cancer is raising stats as you gain levels. 2e did it best, and 5e should've never included that rule.

But magical items on 2e aren't that great.

Magic items should be special. I hate the magic walmart approach of 3.5, and absolutely despise its item creation rules. I've banned that shit in my tabletop games. The lack of item crafting in Kingmaker was one of its major advantages.

 

[Cryomancer]

And please tell me, how much Fort would that same wizard have? Cause then you'll know the chance he'll die immediately in the first round of combat when facing an equivalent opponent.

You are ignoring that Wizards are all about planning and preparation. If a wizard decides to fight another high level wizard with wail of the banshee and no item spell or anything to protect him, sorry but the player controlling the wizard has bellow average INT despite his character having genius intelligence.

 

[Xamenos]

And please tell me, how much Fort would that same wizard have? Cause then you'll know the chance he'll die immediately in the first round of combat when facing an equivalent opponent.

You are ignoring that Wizards are all about planning and preparation. If a wizard decides to fight another high level wizard with wail of the banshee and no item spell or anything to protect him, sorry but the player controlling the wizard has bellow average INT despite his character having genius intelligence.

Alright then. How would you, a player with above average INT, prepare to take on such a foe? What strategy is possible other than "make sure you win initiative, OHK him before he OHKs you"? And think of it from the point of view of the DM as well. How can you create an epic wizard duel, or even an epic fight in general, that does not devolve into a cowboy duel where the faster man wins?

 

[Spectacle]

I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually used the "damage type vs armor AC" optional rule in 2e.

Baldur's gate uses

https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Full_Plate_Armor

I thought it would be obvious I meant actual RPG players and not software.

 

[Cryomancer]

And please tell me, how much Fort would that same wizard have? Cause then you'll know the chance he'll die immediately in the first round of combat when facing an equivalent opponent.

You are ignoring that Wizards are all about planning and preparation. If a wizard decides to fight another high level wizard with wail of the banshee and no item spell or anything to protect him, sorry but the player controlling the wizard has bellow average INT despite his character having genius intelligence.

Alright then. How would you, a player with above average INT, prepare to take on such a foe? What strategy is possible other than "make sure you win initiative, OHK him before he OHKs you"? And think of it from the point of view of the DM as well. How can you create an epic wizard duel, or even an epic fight in general, that does not devolve into a cowboy duel where the faster man wins?

Have protection against OHK like deathwards, prepare traps, try to make him waste his better spell slots on weaklings, have a escape route, try lock his escape routes(...) if you have a ring with "deathblock", he will need to first cast disjunction before he could cast a OHK spell on you.

Sodalis - NWN1 - HOTU - chapter 2 is a epic vampire necromancer specialized wizard done right on a video game.

Since you mentioned cowboy, i IRL can rent a AR-50 IRL and fire in a firing range. Can practice with it but it doesn't means that i can sustain a shot of that caliber. The best strategy is avoid being shot. Same with high tier magic on D&D.

edit : note that on 2e, magicians has way less hp, a rogue can kill a high level wizard in a single round too.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually used the "damage type vs armor AC" optional rule in 2e.

Baldur's gate uses

https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Full_Plate_Armor

I thought it would be obvious I meant actual RPG players and not software.

But people who wanna warhammers being better than swords against plate armor can use that rule. Even if is rarely used by players.

 

[Elex]

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/dragon/32/dra32_itw_zaknafein.pdf

here the official statblock for Zaknafein, it's easy to see how the number are closer to 2E than 3.5E.

It's also clear that a lvl 20 character can easily defeat him, putting a character above 15+ on a tier SUPERIOR to legendary heroes from the lore.
I hope that is going to help in understand that lvl 10 is not that low for 5e power levels.

 

[Cryomancer]

ere the official statblock for Zaknafein, it's easy to see how the number are closer to 2E than 3.5E.

It's also clear that a lvl 20 character can easily defeat him, putting a character above 15+ on a tier SUPERIOR to legendary heroes from the lore.
I hope that is going to help in understand that lvl 10 is not that low for 5e power levels.

That depends a lot about "where" we are talking. On sword coast a lv 10 guy is very strong. In lower dark? Ludicrous weak. And most 5e modules end up before lv 10. My point is not that you should't do a low level game. Is just that a low level game who starts in Candlekeep is OK. A low level game who starts with mindflayers fighting a army of dragon riders and the PC probably will have to descend to Arvenus, fight a Elder Brain and etc is not OK.

 

[Ontopoly]

We aren't starved of true RPGs anymore. And when this game comes out that will be even more true because there are a bunch of RPGs on the way. There's no reason to put yourself through this game. There are alternatives. We all know the games that came out recently. We all know the games that are coming out. Don't lower yourself to this, because you no longer have to. Play solasta instead. Realms beyond. Wrath of the righteous. Black geyser (TBD). Spell force is close enough. Play some nwn modules. Replay all the classics which are plenty and still have so much to offer, even if you've played them before. This isn't 5 years ago anymore. You have choices. Don't let your ignorance lead you to harm the entire industry. Love the industry and it will treat you good. Play the originals if you need something to do, but at all costs, DO NOT GIVE IN. Passion can sustain you while you watch all the Larian cultists and fence sitters. Passion sustain us, for we are weak and the graphics are shiny. Passion help us through this because we want to be part of the discussion surrounding the game but not at this cost. Passion sustain us because we may always wonder if the game would have been worth it (spoiler, nothing is worth losing your passion and integrity over, and the game will suck for sure, it's Larian, enough said).

I just want you all to remember that we have choices and we have options and we shouldn't support this game. The world is good and the games we have are better. Playing bg3 will only taint you, your passion for gaming, and your view of the BG series. I haven't played the beam dog dlc because I know it will be bad and will harm me. I won't play bg3 because I know it will be bad and will harm me. Don't be one of those people that talks bad about a game but buys it anyways. That's what swen-led Larian wants us to do. He knows he can butcher the series and make bad games but we will buy them anyways. I want him to be wrong. You should want him to be wrong. When I see his smug face it makes me sick because he knows he's getting away with it. Let's not let him get away with it. Every sale counts. The game will be a financial success but at the end of the day, if we can make even a small impact, we should be proud of our efforts.

At every moment and situation, if there is a design philosophy difference between BG series and dos series, swen will go with what dos did. Turn based, 4 man party, barrels, 3d over isometric, over world map style and layout, origin characters, animations, character styles, character recruitment layout, exploration style. There will be many more that we haven't been able to see because the game isn't out yet, but rest assured, there will be more.

Swen stole a name and Mike mearls helped him. Swen desecrated the codex's third top game. Swen the thief, and his Larian cultists, his fence sitters (who lean a little too close to his side, despite what they say), Mike mearls and the wotc crew, and potentially you have all contributed to the desecration to that which I love. They're all Larian cultists. There's nothing I can do against them but I will do what I can. And all I can do is not buy the game, and ask that you do the same. Whether you do it for me, for passion, for the one and true BG series, to spite swen and his cultist, or just because it doesn't seem appealing to you, please do it.

 

[Lacrymas]

How did you get out of your cage?

 

[Ontopoly]

How did you get out of your cage?

Passion

 

[Lilliput McHammersmith]

I miss when he had the "Possibly Retarded" tag, it was so fitting.

 

[Cryomancer]

Turn based, 4 man party, barrels, 3d over isometric, over world map style and layout, origin characters, animations, character styles, character recruitment layout, exploration style.

No cooldown, no Zimbabwe number inflation and no stat stickie gear. I could't care less for 4 man party and barrels. I don't like DOS2, but DOS2 is critically aclaimed everywhere, including on codex where it appears on top 101 best CRPGs(i an not saying that game jounralists praising it is a signal of quality because anything praised by then is TRASH), but if BG3 becomes DOS2 with a superior ruleset, it will be worth each cent.

As for origins characters, many modules had the option of pre made characters.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

We aren't starved of true RPGs anymore. And when this game comes out that will be even more true because there are a bunch of RPGs on the way. There's no reason to put yourself through this game. There are alternatives. We all know the games that came out recently. We all know the games that are coming out. Don't lower yourself to this, because you no longer have to. Play solasta instead. Realms beyond. Wrath of the righteous. Black geyser (TBD). Spell force is close enough. Play some nwn modules. Replay all the classics which are plenty and still have so much to offer, even if you've played them before. This isn't 5 years ago anymore. You have choices. Don't let your ignorance lead you to harm the entire industry. Love the industry and it will treat you good. Play the originals if you need something to do, but at all costs, DO NOT GIVE IN. Passion can sustain you while you watch all the Larian cultists and fence sitters. Passion sustain us, for we are weak and the graphics are shiny. Passion help us through this because we want to be part of the discussion surrounding the game but not at this cost. Passion sustain us because we may always wonder if the game would have been worth it (spoiler, nothing is worth losing your passion and integrity over, and the game will suck for sure, it's Larian, enough said).

I just want you all to remember that we have choices and we have options and we shouldn't support this game. The world is good and the games we have are better. Playing bg3 will only taint you, your passion for gaming, and your view of the BG series. I haven't played the beam dog dlc because I know it will be bad and will harm me. I won't play bg3 because I know it will be bad and will harm me. Don't be one of those people that talks bad about a game but buys it anyways. That's what swen-led Larian wants us to do. He knows he can butcher the series and make bad games but we will buy them anyways. I want him to be wrong. You should want him to be wrong. When I see his smug face it makes me sick because he knows he's getting away with it. Let's not let him get away with it. Every sale counts. The game will be a financial success but at the end of the day, if we can make even a small impact, we should be proud of our efforts.

At every moment and situation, if there is a design philosophy difference between BG series and dos series, swen will go with what dos did. Turn based, 4 man party, barrels, 3d over isometric, over world map style and layout, origin characters, animations, character styles, character recruitment layout, exploration style. There will be many more that we haven't been able to see because the game isn't out yet, but rest assured, there will be more.

Swen stole a name and Mike mearls helped him. Swen desecrated the codex's third top game. Swen the thief, and his Larian cultists, his fence sitters (who lean a little too close to his side, despite what they say), Mike mearls and the wotc crew, and potentially you have all contributed to the desecration to that which I love. They're all Larian cultists. There's nothing I can do against them but I will do what I can. And all I can do is not buy the game, and ask that you do the same. Whether you do it for me, for passion, for the one and true BG series, to spite swen and his cultist, or just because it doesn't seem appealing to you, please do it.

Look at all this reverse psychology on display.

 

[DraQ]

How did you get out of your cage?

Passion

Translation: sucked off its keeper.

 

[Gyor]

ere the official statblock for Zaknafein, it's easy to see how the number are closer to 2E than 3.5E.

It's also clear that a lvl 20 character can easily defeat him, putting a character above 15+ on a tier SUPERIOR to legendary heroes from the lore.
I hope that is going to help in understand that lvl 10 is not that low for 5e power levels.

That depends a lot about "where" we are talking. On sword coast a lv 10 guy is very strong. In lower dark? Ludicrous weak. And most 5e modules end up before lv 10. My point is not that you should't do a low level game. Is just that a low level game who starts in Candlekeep is OK. A low level game who starts with mindflayers fighting a army of dragon riders and the PC probably will have to descend to Arvenus, fight a Elder Brain and etc is not OK.

I feel certain we will get BG4 for levels 11-20.

I think they will find ways to tweek the CR of encounters to be where they need them to be. Like maybe the intellect devouvers and mindflayers were injuried, making them weaker.

 

[Thac0]

Don't be one of those people that talks bad about a game but buys it anyways. That's what swen-led Larian wants us to do. He knows he can butcher the series and make bad games but we will buy them anyways. I want him to be wrong. You should want him to be wrong. When I see his smug face it makes me sick because he knows he's getting away with it. Let's not let him get away with it. Every sale counts. The game will be a financial success but at the end of the day, if we can make even a small impact, we should be proud of our efforts.

Because the judging the book from its cover has been proven to be the superior form of art analysis.

 

[Efe]

you are assuming we will fight dragons or elder brains.
big bad is that devil dude.

 

[Sweeper]

I've yet to see a post where Ontopoly was wrong.

 

[DraQ]

I've yet to see a post where Ontopoly was wrong.

Translation:

I'm legally blind and use a screen reader.