Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Lyre Mors]

@Darth Roxor iirc.

Roxor will not be playing this game.

 

[rubinstein]

NWN2 OC was a trainwreck from start to finish most people were soured by it WAY before the ending.

Speaking of which, this game would have been ten times better if he and some of the old Black Isle or pre-exodus Obsidian gang had been in the writing team.

Good old Lyric "I complain about everything always" Suite.

Or maybe shit is shit and i'm just calling it like it is.

"This game would've benefited from Obsidian working on it" + "That game Obsidian made is shit" = you are retarded.

NWN2 OC was intentionally written to be shit

Really? How do you explain Grobnar then?

 

[Parabalus]

Enemies do try and push you into chasms if they can, it would be more noticeable if battles lasted longer.

They also shove their allies to wake them up form sleep for example. Makes sleep less of a free CC early game if you do it close to another enemy that takes a turn right after.

Sleep's 5e 24 hp limit makes it worthless. I selected it as one of the spells for my Warlock thinking it would be my workhorse in the early game, but I never used it once. There were barely any fights where there were enough enemies in that HP range anyway, and when I considered that my duel wielding warlock/fighter could do between 10-20 damage a turn (+ some bonus damage if I used hellish rebuke for my spells as a reaction) I found that just doing 24 damage within 1 to 2 turns was more helpful at reducing the number of enemies than 24 hp worth of sleep was.

It seems like it would be a pretty strong lvl 1 spell, where you could sleep 3 or maybe even 4 different enemies. But that was pretty much just the tutorial ship.

And playing on tactician with the enemy HP boost made it even less viable.

It's HP left, not total HP. Jesus all you phaggots are determined to keep banging your head into the same wall. You use it because it's also no save, so 100% hit chance, and even AoE if you've got several targets down low. Or don't. Just don't rag on something you haven't bothered to test.

Why Dual Wield a Warlock? Why the Fighter? Pact of the Blade already gets extra attack at lvl 5 and lets you use CHR stat on any weapon in the game. Just whale with the best available two-hander and let yourself get hit with Phys Resist to trigger Armor of Agathis. Bonus points for adding on no save Ray of Enfeeblement (preferably from someone with actual spell slots) if you're fighting a boss. Multiclassing Warlock costs you the best class feature, which is auto-upcast.

The 24 hp limit makes sleep pretty worthless, again aside from maybe lvl 1 or 2. Doesn't change much whether it is HP left or max HP. If I have an enemy down to under 20hp, I would rather just cause 20 damage and kill them so they are out of the fight permanently them than waste a turn casting sleep to temporarily remove them from the fight. Once you can regularly cause 15+ damage with an action, whether it is attacks or spells, sleep is just wasting one of your turns to waste one of the enemy turns. Which is really just a wash, and gives you no advantage.


I did fighter/warlock because I really want to just play a fighter (my first playthrough in most D&D games is usually a fighter). But due to the 4 character limit my character needs to fulfill some other roles. I pick the NPCs in my party based on what characters I want to interact with rather than their classes or utility. And that is one figher(LZ), one barbarian(Karlach), and one cleric(Shadowheart).

As a result my character needs to cover lockpicking and disarming and I also wanted to have at least some arcane spell casting. I had to restart with a new character (although when I was still early in act I when I saw the available companions it became clear I was gonna be without thief and arcane magic support) and since my highest stats were 16 Dex (for lockpicking and disarming) and 16 Cha (Since I am always the one talking), I went with Warlock as my arcane caster class to multi with. Since then I have picked up an item that gives me 18 dex. So that is definitely the stat I want to use with my weapons, not Charisma.

If I could have a proper 6 person party, there would be less need to gimp my character just to cover needed party roles. Trust me, I would much rather have a regular non-multiclassed fighter that doesn't need to pump so many points into Cha, although I was still planning on trying out a dex fighter rather than a str fighter. Although I am pretty disappointed with Fighters in D&D 5e, tbh.

I really hate the modern trend that fighters need to be dudes that do a bunch of special attacks rather than just being guys that are good at hitting things regularly to cause steady damage and absorbing damage to protect the party. I blame video games for having passed this "Everyone needs a bunch of special abilities to be fun!" idea down to tabletop.

It's not video games, trust me.

I run a 2e group. The party fighter, mechanically, has only *one* option in any fight: "I hit it with my magic sword". Sometimes he'll mix it up and whip out the Arquebus, but that's only ever as opening volley.

He was getting so bored that he'd start trying to do special moves like shoving, sucker-punching or other stuff he knew were mechanical concepts in D20 Conan (his favorite system).

I, as GM, had to work with him, housing ruling stunts he could do because as 2e would have it, either you hit the bad guy with a sword, shoot him with an arrow, or nothing at all.

Different types of fundamental attacks, like grappling or pushing, are fine. Fighters can also make use of whatever powers their equipment has, or that they carry (such as potions). Clever positioning should also be important for a fighter to try to tie down foes and block access to the parties squishier dudes. Fighters don't need super-duper-slam attacks they can use once per rest or whatever other dumb special abilities systems invent for fighters to have.

I just disagree 100% with the idea that everyone needs special abilities. And if players find playing fighters less fulfilling because they don't get to use special moves ever turn, they should play spell casters or one of the hybrid martial/magic classes.

Especially for a party based CRPG like Baldur's gate, or POE, or any such game. When you are controlling multiple characters, you don't need to have to micromanage each one to make sure they are all using their special abilities. That should be saved for your spell casters. It is perfectly fine if you only really need to micromange 3 party members while the other ones you can just make sure they are standing where they should be and attacking who they should be.

The everyone needs to be spamming special abilities design philosophy needs to die in a fire.

5E fighters are in a much better spot than 2E or 3E ones.

This is a turn-based table top port, every character gets micromanaged by design.

 

[Zayne]

Is there a way to fix hag quest in act III?
Bitch has 0hp and doesn't interact with me after I discover her true nature.
Not that it was difficult, she literally has a description under her name saying she's the hag I'm looking for.
Not sure if also a bug, or a feature for larianbrains.

I had to heal her and then after that, it finally triggered the fight after hitting her a couple of times. However, the child died, and the quest was never resolved.

You should've hit her with abortion potion first

 

[PapaPetro]

Why wasn't Jim Cummings the voice of Minsc again?

 

[darkpatriot]

Guaranteed critical against the enemy.

against the 20hp enemy. how do you even kill those things without crits i wonder...

This is really the crux of why I find it so useless. I don't need to waste a spell slot and a spell caster's turn temporarily removing weak enemies from the fight. And upleveling the spell makes it even worse, because while it works on slightly stronger enemies, it still won't get the most powerful enemies that cause real trouble, plus it requires using an even higher level spell slot.

Spells to incapacitate an enemy are useful against the main strong enemies, they aren't needed against the weaker minions. That is why Hold Person is an amazing OP spell while sleep is useless past level 1 or maybe level 2.

Hold Person:
1. Only applies to humanoids
2. Offers a saving throw
3. Enemies can attempt the save again next round.

Sleep simply works as long as the enemies are below the effective threshold and are not immune to sleep / enchantment.

Sleep only works if the enemy is a weak minion already. And you can just kill them off quickly anyway. That HP limit really makes it so you can only use it on people you don't want to waste a spell slot on anyway.

 

[Alienman]

You should've hit her with abortion potion first

I keep forgetting throwing potions into people's mouths is a thing. But then again this is Larian, so I should.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Are custom hirelings in the game yet?

Does anyone know how to edit companions (hirelings at best) or how to play with custom characters?
Maybe some mod or something? I can't seem to find it.
I mean some *other* way than the one with running 4 instances of the game.

Here:

Can you make custom companions in this game if the stock NPC's gayness is too much to bear?

Speaking of overpowered, I'm reposting the exploit for a full custom party: https://youtu.be/ILW0FDkJcCs

 

[whydoibother]

Fextralife discourse is up again. BG3 Reddit going against them.

 

[Lagole Gon]

Why wasn't Jim Cummings the voice of Minsc again?

Because Mrs. Cummings said Mr. Cumming was very forceful with his cumming needs.
So he's probably cancelled. Honestly, I don't know what this woman expected.

 

[Orud]

Reminder, here's the community BG3 wiki : https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Main_Page

Fextralife is a piece of shit wiki for every game it ever touches, while the community BG3 wiki contains far more useful information in a far more readable format.

 

[MerchantKing]

Are custom hirelings in the game yet?

Does anyone know how to edit companions (hirelings at best) or how to play with custom characters?
Maybe some mod or something? I can't seem to find it.
I mean some *other* way than the one with running 4 instances of the game.

Here:

Can you make custom companions in this game if the stock NPC's gayness is too much to bear?

Speaking of overpowered, I'm reposting the exploit for a full custom party: https://youtu.be/ILW0FDkJcCs

That's old and outdated for creating a custom party. I don't want to play with four MCs and have to deal with the same cutscenes four times in a row for every single cutscene. Plus, I don't have any control over which MC does the dialogue either without taking extra steps whenever there's a dialogue coming up.

 

[Haplo]

Guaranteed critical against the enemy.

against the 20hp enemy. how do you even kill those things without crits i wonder...

This is really the crux of why I find it so useless. I don't need to waste a spell slot and a spell caster's turn temporarily removing weak enemies from the fight. And upleveling the spell makes it even worse, because while it works on slightly stronger enemies, it still won't get the most powerful enemies that cause real trouble, plus it requires using an even higher level spell slot.

Spells to incapacitate an enemy are useful against the main strong enemies, they aren't needed against the weaker minions. That is why Hold Person is an amazing OP spell while sleep is useless past level 1 or maybe level 2.

Hold Person:
1. Only applies to humanoids
2. Offers a saving throw
3. Enemies can attempt the save again next round.

Sleep simply works as long as the enemies are below the effective threshold and are not immune to sleep / enchantment.

Sleep only works if the enemy is a weak minion already. And you can just kill them off quickly anyway. That HP limit really makes it so you can only use it on people you don't want to waste a spell slot on anyway.

It works on strong enemies fine if you weaken them first.
Was helpful in my level 4 fight with 140+ HP Auntie.

 

[darkpatriot]

Enemies do try and push you into chasms if they can, it would be more noticeable if battles lasted longer.

They also shove their allies to wake them up form sleep for example. Makes sleep less of a free CC early game if you do it close to another enemy that takes a turn right after.

Sleep's 5e 24 hp limit makes it worthless. I selected it as one of the spells for my Warlock thinking it would be my workhorse in the early game, but I never used it once. There were barely any fights where there were enough enemies in that HP range anyway, and when I considered that my duel wielding warlock/fighter could do between 10-20 damage a turn (+ some bonus damage if I used hellish rebuke for my spells as a reaction) I found that just doing 24 damage within 1 to 2 turns was more helpful at reducing the number of enemies than 24 hp worth of sleep was.

It seems like it would be a pretty strong lvl 1 spell, where you could sleep 3 or maybe even 4 different enemies. But that was pretty much just the tutorial ship.

And playing on tactician with the enemy HP boost made it even less viable.

It's HP left, not total HP. Jesus all you phaggots are determined to keep banging your head into the same wall. You use it because it's also no save, so 100% hit chance, and even AoE if you've got several targets down low. Or don't. Just don't rag on something you haven't bothered to test.

Why Dual Wield a Warlock? Why the Fighter? Pact of the Blade already gets extra attack at lvl 5 and lets you use CHR stat on any weapon in the game. Just whale with the best available two-hander and let yourself get hit with Phys Resist to trigger Armor of Agathis. Bonus points for adding on no save Ray of Enfeeblement (preferably from someone with actual spell slots) if you're fighting a boss. Multiclassing Warlock costs you the best class feature, which is auto-upcast.

The 24 hp limit makes sleep pretty worthless, again aside from maybe lvl 1 or 2. Doesn't change much whether it is HP left or max HP. If I have an enemy down to under 20hp, I would rather just cause 20 damage and kill them so they are out of the fight permanently them than waste a turn casting sleep to temporarily remove them from the fight. Once you can regularly cause 15+ damage with an action, whether it is attacks or spells, sleep is just wasting one of your turns to waste one of the enemy turns. Which is really just a wash, and gives you no advantage.


I did fighter/warlock because I really want to just play a fighter (my first playthrough in most D&D games is usually a fighter). But due to the 4 character limit my character needs to fulfill some other roles. I pick the NPCs in my party based on what characters I want to interact with rather than their classes or utility. And that is one figher(LZ), one barbarian(Karlach), and one cleric(Shadowheart).

As a result my character needs to cover lockpicking and disarming and I also wanted to have at least some arcane spell casting. I had to restart with a new character (although when I was still early in act I when I saw the available companions it became clear I was gonna be without thief and arcane magic support) and since my highest stats were 16 Dex (for lockpicking and disarming) and 16 Cha (Since I am always the one talking), I went with Warlock as my arcane caster class to multi with. Since then I have picked up an item that gives me 18 dex. So that is definitely the stat I want to use with my weapons, not Charisma.

If I could have a proper 6 person party, there would be less need to gimp my character just to cover needed party roles. Trust me, I would much rather have a regular non-multiclassed fighter that doesn't need to pump so many points into Cha, although I was still planning on trying out a dex fighter rather than a str fighter. Although I am pretty disappointed with Fighters in D&D 5e, tbh.

I really hate the modern trend that fighters need to be dudes that do a bunch of special attacks rather than just being guys that are good at hitting things regularly to cause steady damage and absorbing damage to protect the party. I blame video games for having passed this "Everyone needs a bunch of special abilities to be fun!" idea down to tabletop.

It's not video games, trust me.

I run a 2e group. The party fighter, mechanically, has only *one* option in any fight: "I hit it with my magic sword". Sometimes he'll mix it up and whip out the Arquebus, but that's only ever as opening volley.

He was getting so bored that he'd start trying to do special moves like shoving, sucker-punching or other stuff he knew were mechanical concepts in D20 Conan (his favorite system).

I, as GM, had to work with him, housing ruling stunts he could do because as 2e would have it, either you hit the bad guy with a sword, shoot him with an arrow, or nothing at all.

Different types of fundamental attacks, like grappling or pushing, are fine. Fighters can also make use of whatever powers their equipment has, or that they carry (such as potions). Clever positioning should also be important for a fighter to try to tie down foes and block access to the parties squishier dudes. Fighters don't need super-duper-slam attacks they can use once per rest or whatever other dumb special abilities systems invent for fighters to have.

I just disagree 100% with the idea that everyone needs special abilities. And if players find playing fighters less fulfilling because they don't get to use special moves ever turn, they should play spell casters or one of the hybrid martial/magic classes.

Especially for a party based CRPG like Baldur's gate, or POE, or any such game. When you are controlling multiple characters, you don't need to have to micromanage each one to make sure they are all using their special abilities. That should be saved for your spell casters. It is perfectly fine if you only really need to micromange 3 party members while the other ones you can just make sure they are standing where they should be and attacking who they should be.

The everyone needs to be spamming special abilities design philosophy needs to die in a fire.

5E fighters are in a much better spot than 2E or 3E ones.

This is a turn-based table top port, every character gets micromanaged by design.

Not at all. That was not a thing in table-top. That started in video games and started happening because of the influence of video games. Because video game designers find it easier to to create tactics designed around everyone spamming special abilities rather than well designed fundamental mechanics of the system (such as positioning, the balance between various statistics, equipment, etc...). And it happened not because, "people are bored just playing fighters." It happened because a lot of developers are bad and lazy and couldn't design fun systems. So they just had everyone spam special abilities and used that as an excuse for why.

I say this as someone who spent several years DMing 3rd edition as well as running other systems for longer than that and whose favorite type of character to play when I am playing is fighter types. There is plenty to do without having to be able to use butt-blast-charge attack twice per rest, and it is enjoyable to see your equipment choices and character build choices pay off when your guy attacks and defends well using the fundamental mechanics of the game. When they are well designed.

Aside from the retardation of combat being everyone spamming special abilities, it's biggest sin is that it causes designers to design the tactics around the idea of everyone getting special attacks rather than really making sure the fundamental mechanics of movement and attack, and the various character and equipment attributes that affect that, work really well.

So it causes really fucking lazy design from developers. Which is why so many developers love it, because they are lazy and can't design good systems. But they can create a bunch of special abilities like Pole-Dance-Frenzy-Kick.

But the act of building your character, equipping your character, how you move, who you attack, and how you attack (not talking about special abilities, here, but stuff like using different weapons or stuff like grappling/shoving) should themselves be meaningful and fun choices. If special abilities are truly special, limited, and built on top of that foundation, that can be an extra cherry on top.

But if you just give everyone special abilities because the fundamental mechanics of combat in your system are boring and shit, that is bad. And very very lazy.

And if a good designer buys into the excuse that "combat is boring if you don't spam special abilties," then that good designer will waste his abilties designing systems where all the tactics are based around everyone constantly spamming special abilities rather than first focusing on making sure the fundementals of combat are actually well designed, fun, and polished.

 

[whydoibother]

The resolution to both Astarion's and Gale's quests is similar: power or redemption. If Astarion picks power, everyone disapproves. If Gale picks power, nobody disapproves. And arguably his is the much bigger reach.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Fextralife discourse is up again. BG3 Reddit going against them.

Lmao, why? The fuck did they do?

 

[Oberon]

---

Minsc has a strength of 12 and a wisdom of 15

 

[Strange Fellow]

my party has exhausted all leads for removing our tadpoles, just sort of aimlessly walking around killing shit

we go to rest and BAM surprise muscle druid out of nowhere tells us exactly where to go and what to do, act 2 time motherfuckers

great storytelling

 

[perfectslumbers]

Lmao, why? The fuck did they do?

They're mass botting Reddit like they're the CIA

 

[Hagashager]

Enemies do try and push you into chasms if they can, it would be more noticeable if battles lasted longer.

They also shove their allies to wake them up form sleep for example. Makes sleep less of a free CC early game if you do it close to another enemy that takes a turn right after.

Sleep's 5e 24 hp limit makes it worthless. I selected it as one of the spells for my Warlock thinking it would be my workhorse in the early game, but I never used it once. There were barely any fights where there were enough enemies in that HP range anyway, and when I considered that my duel wielding warlock/fighter could do between 10-20 damage a turn (+ some bonus damage if I used hellish rebuke for my spells as a reaction) I found that just doing 24 damage within 1 to 2 turns was more helpful at reducing the number of enemies than 24 hp worth of sleep was.

It seems like it would be a pretty strong lvl 1 spell, where you could sleep 3 or maybe even 4 different enemies. But that was pretty much just the tutorial ship.

And playing on tactician with the enemy HP boost made it even less viable.

It's HP left, not total HP. Jesus all you phaggots are determined to keep banging your head into the same wall. You use it because it's also no save, so 100% hit chance, and even AoE if you've got several targets down low. Or don't. Just don't rag on something you haven't bothered to test.

Why Dual Wield a Warlock? Why the Fighter? Pact of the Blade already gets extra attack at lvl 5 and lets you use CHR stat on any weapon in the game. Just whale with the best available two-hander and let yourself get hit with Phys Resist to trigger Armor of Agathis. Bonus points for adding on no save Ray of Enfeeblement (preferably from someone with actual spell slots) if you're fighting a boss. Multiclassing Warlock costs you the best class feature, which is auto-upcast.

The 24 hp limit makes sleep pretty worthless, again aside from maybe lvl 1 or 2. Doesn't change much whether it is HP left or max HP. If I have an enemy down to under 20hp, I would rather just cause 20 damage and kill them so they are out of the fight permanently them than waste a turn casting sleep to temporarily remove them from the fight. Once you can regularly cause 15+ damage with an action, whether it is attacks or spells, sleep is just wasting one of your turns to waste one of the enemy turns. Which is really just a wash, and gives you no advantage.


I did fighter/warlock because I really want to just play a fighter (my first playthrough in most D&D games is usually a fighter). But due to the 4 character limit my character needs to fulfill some other roles. I pick the NPCs in my party based on what characters I want to interact with rather than their classes or utility. And that is one figher(LZ), one barbarian(Karlach), and one cleric(Shadowheart).

As a result my character needs to cover lockpicking and disarming and I also wanted to have at least some arcane spell casting. I had to restart with a new character (although when I was still early in act I when I saw the available companions it became clear I was gonna be without thief and arcane magic support) and since my highest stats were 16 Dex (for lockpicking and disarming) and 16 Cha (Since I am always the one talking), I went with Warlock as my arcane caster class to multi with. Since then I have picked up an item that gives me 18 dex. So that is definitely the stat I want to use with my weapons, not Charisma.

If I could have a proper 6 person party, there would be less need to gimp my character just to cover needed party roles. Trust me, I would much rather have a regular non-multiclassed fighter that doesn't need to pump so many points into Cha, although I was still planning on trying out a dex fighter rather than a str fighter. Although I am pretty disappointed with Fighters in D&D 5e, tbh.

I really hate the modern trend that fighters need to be dudes that do a bunch of special attacks rather than just being guys that are good at hitting things regularly to cause steady damage and absorbing damage to protect the party. I blame video games for having passed this "Everyone needs a bunch of special abilities to be fun!" idea down to tabletop.

It's not video games, trust me.

I run a 2e group. The party fighter, mechanically, has only *one* option in any fight: "I hit it with my magic sword". Sometimes he'll mix it up and whip out the Arquebus, but that's only ever as opening volley.

He was getting so bored that he'd start trying to do special moves like shoving, sucker-punching or other stuff he knew were mechanical concepts in D20 Conan (his favorite system).

I, as GM, had to work with him, housing ruling stunts he could do because as 2e would have it, either you hit the bad guy with a sword, shoot him with an arrow, or nothing at all.

Different types of fundamental attacks, like grappling or pushing, are fine. Fighters can also make use of whatever powers their equipment has, or that they carry (such as potions). Clever positioning should also be important for a fighter to try to tie down foes and block access to the parties squishier dudes. Fighters don't need super-duper-slam attacks they can use once per rest or whatever other dumb special abilities systems invent for fighters to have.

I just disagree 100% with the idea that everyone needs special abilities. And if players find playing fighters less fulfilling because they don't get to use special moves ever turn, they should play spell casters or one of the hybrid martial/magic classes.

Especially for a party based CRPG like Baldur's gate, or POE, or any such game. When you are controlling multiple characters, you don't need to have to micromanage each one to make sure they are all using their special abilities. That should be saved for your spell casters. It is perfectly fine if you only really need to micromange 3 party members while the other ones you can just make sure they are standing where they should be and attacking who they should be.

The everyone needs to be spamming special abilities design philosophy needs to die in a fire.

5E fighters are in a much better spot than 2E or 3E ones.

This is a turn-based table top port, every character gets micromanaged by design.

Not at all. That was not a thing in table-top. That started in video games and started happening because of the influence of video games. Because video game designers find it easier to to create tactics designed around everyone spamming special abilities rather than well designed fundamental mechanics of the system (such as positioning, the balance between various statistics, equipment, etc...). And it happened not because, "people are bored just playing fighters." It happened because a lot of developers are bad and lazy and couldn't design fun systems. So they just had everyone spam special abilities and used that as an excuse for why.

I say this as someone who spent several years DMing 3rd edition as well as running other systems for longer than that and whose favorite type of character to play when I am playing is fighter types. There is plenty to do without having to be able to use butt-blast-charge attack twice per rest, and it is enjoyable to see your equipment choices and character build choices pay off when your guy attacks and defends well using the fundamental mechanics of the game. When they are well designed.

Aside from the retardation of combat being everyone spamming special abilities, it's biggest sin is that it causes designers to design the tactics around the idea of everyone getting special attacks rather than really making sure the fundamental mechanics of movement and attack, and the various character and equipment attributes that affect that, work really well.

So it causes really fucking lazy design from developers. Which is why so many developers love it, because they are lazy and can't design good systems. But they can create a bunch of special abilities like Pole-Dance-Frenzy-Kick.

But the act of building your character, equipping your character, how you move, who you attack, and how you attack (not talking about special abilities, here, but stuff like using different weapons or stuff like grappling/shoving) should themselves be meaningful and fun choices. If special abilities are truly special, limited, and built on top of that foundation, that can be an extra cherry on top.

But if you just give everyone special abilities because the fundamental mechanics of combat in your system are boring and shit, that is bad. And very very lazy.

And if a good designer buys into the excuse that "combat is boring if you don't spam special abilties," then that good designer will waste his abilties designing systems where all the tactics are based around everyone constantly spamming special abilities rather than first focusing on making sure the fundementals of combat are actually well designed, fun, and polished.

What constitutes a special ability in your mind?

To me, it's something that is essentially just a mage spell but with a metallic aesthetic. IE: Warriors having some kind of "Whirlwind Swing" that somehow does lightning damage on top of whatever sword they're using.

That said, maneuvers like a sucker-punch, tripping someone, feigning an attack, drawing aggression, going berserk, aren't spells. They're perfextly normal, mundane maneuvers actual fighters use.

That a aystem like 5e makes them into some toggle-able ability is less bad game design and more that players are so lacking in imagination they can't just think to do it themselves with an ability check.

In my 2e group, when the fighter wants to do something like try to trip I have him make a Strength check against the enemy's Dexterity. 2e actually allows ability-score checks and are supposed to be the "catch-all" for any weird check that isn't explicitly given its own rules.

 

[darkpatriot]

It's not video games, trust me.

I run a 2e group. The party fighter, mechanically, has only *one* option in any fight: "I hit it with my magic sword". Sometimes he'll mix it up and whip out the Arquebus, but that's only ever as opening volley.

He was getting so bored that he'd start trying to do special moves like shoving, sucker-punching or other stuff he knew were mechanical concepts in D20 Conan (his favorite system).

I, as GM, had to work with him, housing ruling stunts he could do because as 2e would have it, either you hit the bad guy with a sword, shoot him with an arrow, or nothing at all.

Different types of fundamental attacks, like grappling or pushing, are fine. Fighters can also make use of whatever powers their equipment has, or that they carry (such as potions). Clever positioning should also be important for a fighter to try to tie down foes and block access to the parties squishier dudes. Fighters don't need super-duper-slam attacks they can use once per rest or whatever other dumb special abilities systems invent for fighters to have.

I just disagree 100% with the idea that everyone needs special abilities. And if players find playing fighters less fulfilling because they don't get to use special moves ever turn, they should play spell casters or one of the hybrid martial/magic classes.

Especially for a party based CRPG like Baldur's gate, or POE, or any such game. When you are controlling multiple characters, you don't need to have to micromanage each one to make sure they are all using their special abilities. That should be saved for your spell casters. It is perfectly fine if you only really need to micromange 3 party members while the other ones you can just make sure they are standing where they should be and attacking who they should be.

The everyone needs to be spamming special abilities design philosophy needs to die in a fire.

5E fighters are in a much better spot than 2E or 3E ones.

This is a turn-based table top port, every character gets micromanaged by design.

Not at all. That was not a thing in table-top. That started in video games and started happening because of the influence of video games. Because video game designers find it easier to to create tactics designed around everyone spamming special abilities rather than well designed fundamental mechanics of the system (such as positioning, the balance between various statistics, equipment, etc...). And it happened not because, "people are bored just playing fighters." It happened because a lot of developers are bad and lazy and couldn't design fun systems. So they just had everyone spam special abilities and used that as an excuse for why.

I say this as someone who spent several years DMing 3rd edition as well as running other systems for longer than that and whose favorite type of character to play when I am playing is fighter types. There is plenty to do without having to be able to use butt-blast-charge attack twice per rest, and it is enjoyable to see your equipment choices and character build choices pay off when your guy attacks and defends well using the fundamental mechanics of the game. When they are well designed.

Aside from the retardation of combat being everyone spamming special abilities, it's biggest sin is that it causes designers to design the tactics around the idea of everyone getting special attacks rather than really making sure the fundamental mechanics of movement and attack, and the various character and equipment attributes that affect that, work really well.

So it causes really fucking lazy design from developers. Which is why so many developers love it, because they are lazy and can't design good systems. But they can create a bunch of special abilities like Pole-Dance-Frenzy-Kick.

But the act of building your character, equipping your character, how you move, who you attack, and how you attack (not talking about special abilities, here, but stuff like using different weapons or stuff like grappling/shoving) should themselves be meaningful and fun choices. If special abilities are truly special, limited, and built on top of that foundation, that can be an extra cherry on top.

But if you just give everyone special abilities because the fundamental mechanics of combat in your system are boring and shit, that is bad. And very very lazy.

And if a good designer buys into the excuse that "combat is boring if you don't spam special abilties," then that good designer will waste his abilties designing systems where all the tactics are based around everyone constantly spamming special abilities rather than first focusing on making sure the fundementals of combat are actually well designed, fun, and polished.

What constitutes a special ability in your mind?

To me, it's something that is essentially just a mage spell but with a metallic aesthetic. IE: Warriors having some kind of "Whirlwind Swing" that somehow does lightning damage on top of whatever sword they're using.

That said, maneuvers like a sucker-punch, tripping someone, feigning an attack, drawing aggression, going berserk, aren't spells. They're perfextly normal, mundane maneuvers actual fighters use.

That a aystem like 5e makes them into some toggle-able ability is less bad game design and more that players are so lacking in imagination they can't just think to do it themselves with an ability check.

In my 2e group, when the fighter wants to do something like try to trip I have him make a Strength check against the enemy's Dexterity. 2e actually allows ability-score checks and are supposed to be the "catch-all" for any weird check that isn't explicitly given its own rules.

An important factor that determines whether it is a special ability or not is whether it is part of the fundamental mechanics that everyone can use, and also whether it is arbitrarily tied to some kind of limitation on how often you can do it.

If the system has tripping mechanics that anyone can try it isn't a special ability even if the people who are stronger or better fighters will be more likely to succeed at it.

But if fighters get a special trip attack that only they have access to it is a special ability. Especially if for some reason they can only try to do it a few times before they have to take a nap.

 

[Herumor]

Why wasn't Jim Cummings the voice of Minsc again?

Why wasn't Sarevok's VA in the game either? The new one sounds constipated at times, as if he's struggling to push out one massive log.

 

[Hagashager]

It's not video games, trust me.

I run a 2e group. The party fighter, mechanically, has only *one* option in any fight: "I hit it with my magic sword". Sometimes he'll mix it up and whip out the Arquebus, but that's only ever as opening volley.

He was getting so bored that he'd start trying to do special moves like shoving, sucker-punching or other stuff he knew were mechanical concepts in D20 Conan (his favorite system).

I, as GM, had to work with him, housing ruling stunts he could do because as 2e would have it, either you hit the bad guy with a sword, shoot him with an arrow, or nothing at all.

Different types of fundamental attacks, like grappling or pushing, are fine. Fighters can also make use of whatever powers their equipment has, or that they carry (such as potions). Clever positioning should also be important for a fighter to try to tie down foes and block access to the parties squishier dudes. Fighters don't need super-duper-slam attacks they can use once per rest or whatever other dumb special abilities systems invent for fighters to have.

I just disagree 100% with the idea that everyone needs special abilities. And if players find playing fighters less fulfilling because they don't get to use special moves ever turn, they should play spell casters or one of the hybrid martial/magic classes.

Especially for a party based CRPG like Baldur's gate, or POE, or any such game. When you are controlling multiple characters, you don't need to have to micromanage each one to make sure they are all using their special abilities. That should be saved for your spell casters. It is perfectly fine if you only really need to micromange 3 party members while the other ones you can just make sure they are standing where they should be and attacking who they should be.

The everyone needs to be spamming special abilities design philosophy needs to die in a fire.

5E fighters are in a much better spot than 2E or 3E ones.

This is a turn-based table top port, every character gets micromanaged by design.

Not at all. That was not a thing in table-top. That started in video games and started happening because of the influence of video games. Because video game designers find it easier to to create tactics designed around everyone spamming special abilities rather than well designed fundamental mechanics of the system (such as positioning, the balance between various statistics, equipment, etc...). And it happened not because, "people are bored just playing fighters." It happened because a lot of developers are bad and lazy and couldn't design fun systems. So they just had everyone spam special abilities and used that as an excuse for why.

I say this as someone who spent several years DMing 3rd edition as well as running other systems for longer than that and whose favorite type of character to play when I am playing is fighter types. There is plenty to do without having to be able to use butt-blast-charge attack twice per rest, and it is enjoyable to see your equipment choices and character build choices pay off when your guy attacks and defends well using the fundamental mechanics of the game. When they are well designed.

Aside from the retardation of combat being everyone spamming special abilities, it's biggest sin is that it causes designers to design the tactics around the idea of everyone getting special attacks rather than really making sure the fundamental mechanics of movement and attack, and the various character and equipment attributes that affect that, work really well.

So it causes really fucking lazy design from developers. Which is why so many developers love it, because they are lazy and can't design good systems. But they can create a bunch of special abilities like Pole-Dance-Frenzy-Kick.

But the act of building your character, equipping your character, how you move, who you attack, and how you attack (not talking about special abilities, here, but stuff like using different weapons or stuff like grappling/shoving) should themselves be meaningful and fun choices. If special abilities are truly special, limited, and built on top of that foundation, that can be an extra cherry on top.

But if you just give everyone special abilities because the fundamental mechanics of combat in your system are boring and shit, that is bad. And very very lazy.

And if a good designer buys into the excuse that "combat is boring if you don't spam special abilties," then that good designer will waste his abilties designing systems where all the tactics are based around everyone constantly spamming special abilities rather than first focusing on making sure the fundementals of combat are actually well designed, fun, and polished.

What constitutes a special ability in your mind?

To me, it's something that is essentially just a mage spell but with a metallic aesthetic. IE: Warriors having some kind of "Whirlwind Swing" that somehow does lightning damage on top of whatever sword they're using.

That said, maneuvers like a sucker-punch, tripping someone, feigning an attack, drawing aggression, going berserk, aren't spells. They're perfextly normal, mundane maneuvers actual fighters use.

That a aystem like 5e makes them into some toggle-able ability is less bad game design and more that players are so lacking in imagination they can't just think to do it themselves with an ability check.

In my 2e group, when the fighter wants to do something like try to trip I have him make a Strength check against the enemy's Dexterity. 2e actually allows ability-score checks and are supposed to be the "catch-all" for any weird check that isn't explicitly given its own rules.

An important factor that determines whether it is a special ability or not is whether it is part of the fundamental mechanics that everyone can use, and also whether it is arbitrarily tied to some kind of limitation on how often you can do it.

If the system has tripping mechanics that anyone can try it isn't a special ability even if the people who are stronger or better fighters will be more likely to succeed at it.

But if your fighters get a special trip attack that only they have access to it is a special ability. Especially if for some reason they can only try to do it once before they have to take a nap.

Right, okay then we're on the same page.

In BG 3, at least, anyone can attempt a shove, dipping, rushing etc.

Fighters do get their "Superiority Dice" though which translates to special martial abilities that most definitely come close to spells. (Rally literally being a healing spell).

That said, there's a measure of semantics at play. A lot of special maneuvers warriors can use are things actual people are trained to do. Why it's tied to a cool-down or daily usage though can't be explained, they are just spells at that point.

 

[Rhobar121]

Why wasn't Jim Cummings the voice of Minsc again?

Why wasn't Sarevok's VA in the game either? The new one sounds constipated at times, as if he's struggling to push out one massive log.

20 years have passed. Some of the actors may have changed jobs, dead, busy, or whatever.

 

[Rhobar121]

It's not video games, trust me.

I run a 2e group. The party fighter, mechanically, has only *one* option in any fight: "I hit it with my magic sword". Sometimes he'll mix it up and whip out the Arquebus, but that's only ever as opening volley.

He was getting so bored that he'd start trying to do special moves like shoving, sucker-punching or other stuff he knew were mechanical concepts in D20 Conan (his favorite system).

I, as GM, had to work with him, housing ruling stunts he could do because as 2e would have it, either you hit the bad guy with a sword, shoot him with an arrow, or nothing at all.

Different types of fundamental attacks, like grappling or pushing, are fine. Fighters can also make use of whatever powers their equipment has, or that they carry (such as potions). Clever positioning should also be important for a fighter to try to tie down foes and block access to the parties squishier dudes. Fighters don't need super-duper-slam attacks they can use once per rest or whatever other dumb special abilities systems invent for fighters to have.

I just disagree 100% with the idea that everyone needs special abilities. And if players find playing fighters less fulfilling because they don't get to use special moves ever turn, they should play spell casters or one of the hybrid martial/magic classes.

Especially for a party based CRPG like Baldur's gate, or POE, or any such game. When you are controlling multiple characters, you don't need to have to micromanage each one to make sure they are all using their special abilities. That should be saved for your spell casters. It is perfectly fine if you only really need to micromange 3 party members while the other ones you can just make sure they are standing where they should be and attacking who they should be.

The everyone needs to be spamming special abilities design philosophy needs to die in a fire.

5E fighters are in a much better spot than 2E or 3E ones.

This is a turn-based table top port, every character gets micromanaged by design.

Not at all. That was not a thing in table-top. That started in video games and started happening because of the influence of video games. Because video game designers find it easier to to create tactics designed around everyone spamming special abilities rather than well designed fundamental mechanics of the system (such as positioning, the balance between various statistics, equipment, etc...). And it happened not because, "people are bored just playing fighters." It happened because a lot of developers are bad and lazy and couldn't design fun systems. So they just had everyone spam special abilities and used that as an excuse for why.

I say this as someone who spent several years DMing 3rd edition as well as running other systems for longer than that and whose favorite type of character to play when I am playing is fighter types. There is plenty to do without having to be able to use butt-blast-charge attack twice per rest, and it is enjoyable to see your equipment choices and character build choices pay off when your guy attacks and defends well using the fundamental mechanics of the game. When they are well designed.

Aside from the retardation of combat being everyone spamming special abilities, it's biggest sin is that it causes designers to design the tactics around the idea of everyone getting special attacks rather than really making sure the fundamental mechanics of movement and attack, and the various character and equipment attributes that affect that, work really well.

So it causes really fucking lazy design from developers. Which is why so many developers love it, because they are lazy and can't design good systems. But they can create a bunch of special abilities like Pole-Dance-Frenzy-Kick.

But the act of building your character, equipping your character, how you move, who you attack, and how you attack (not talking about special abilities, here, but stuff like using different weapons or stuff like grappling/shoving) should themselves be meaningful and fun choices. If special abilities are truly special, limited, and built on top of that foundation, that can be an extra cherry on top.

But if you just give everyone special abilities because the fundamental mechanics of combat in your system are boring and shit, that is bad. And very very lazy.

And if a good designer buys into the excuse that "combat is boring if you don't spam special abilties," then that good designer will waste his abilties designing systems where all the tactics are based around everyone constantly spamming special abilities rather than first focusing on making sure the fundementals of combat are actually well designed, fun, and polished.

What constitutes a special ability in your mind?

To me, it's something that is essentially just a mage spell but with a metallic aesthetic. IE: Warriors having some kind of "Whirlwind Swing" that somehow does lightning damage on top of whatever sword they're using.

That said, maneuvers like a sucker-punch, tripping someone, feigning an attack, drawing aggression, going berserk, aren't spells. They're perfextly normal, mundane maneuvers actual fighters use.

That a aystem like 5e makes them into some toggle-able ability is less bad game design and more that players are so lacking in imagination they can't just think to do it themselves with an ability check.

In my 2e group, when the fighter wants to do something like try to trip I have him make a Strength check against the enemy's Dexterity. 2e actually allows ability-score checks and are supposed to be the "catch-all" for any weird check that isn't explicitly given its own rules.

An important factor that determines whether it is a special ability or not is whether it is part of the fundamental mechanics that everyone can use, and also whether it is arbitrarily tied to some kind of limitation on how often you can do it.

If the system has tripping mechanics that anyone can try it isn't a special ability even if the people who are stronger or better fighters will be more likely to succeed at it.

But if fighters get a special trip attack that only they have access to it is a special ability. Especially if for some reason they can only try to do it a few times before they have to take a nap.

Actually why not? A person who has trained in sword fighting all his life will certainly be better at using it than some random person. This can take the form of some special moves or fighting styles.
Why wouldn't someone skilled in combat try to disarm an opponent or anything else you can think of. Limiting only to normal attacks is a boring and lazy design.