Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Rhobar121]

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

Seems like he's doing nothing but voice acting:

He might still be busy. Wyll's actor was most likely changed for this reason. By the time they rewrote the character, the original actor was no longer available.

 

[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.

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.

I am fine with some characters being more likely to succeed at some kind of action, like a trip or a disarm, and even an ability to specialize in being more likely to pull them off. But there is no reason any other character can't try to knock a weapon out of someone's hand either.

And almost every action a character takes that isn't trivial should be affected by the character build and attributes.

However for alternate types of attacks (shoving/tripping/disarming/etc...) there should be some kind of trade-offs that make them situationally useful compared to a basic attack or that require some kind of character build investment to overcome/mitigate.

When you don't include that trade-off, that is how they start turning into special abilities. If you could do a normal attack that had no drawbacks and also tacked on a chance the enemy might get disarmed, why wouldn't you always do that? That is when designers start adding on stuff like, "You can only try to disarm someone 2 times before you have to rest," and "Only certain classes can do it." And that is how it becomes a special ability and suddenly your game design starts hinging around everyone having powerful and useful special abilities that are arbitrarily limited in how often you can use them.

And then the game's design starts being more about managing special abilities and whatever resources they require rather than making sure you have solid fundamentals in place for your combat system.

 

[Takamori]

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.

Yes there is a way, you need to cast heal on her. Throw the hag bane bomb on her after that should do the trick.

 

[Lagole Gon]

---

Minsc has a strength of 12 and a wisdom of 15

Standard ranger stats.
Come to think of it, maybe all companions just get standard set?
Welp. Typical Larain. Belgian mind does not understand that mechanics can tell a story too.

 

[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.

I am fine with some characters being more likely to succeed at some kind of action, like a trip or a disarm, and even an ability to specialize in being more likely to pull them off. But there is no reason any other character can't try to knock a weapon out of someone's hand either.

And almost every action a character takes that isn't trivial should be affected by the character build and attributes.

However for alternate types of attacks (shoving/tripping/disarming/etc...) there should be some kind of trade-offs that make them situationally useful compared to a basic attack or that require some kind of character build investment to overcome/mitigate.

When you don't include that trade-off, that is how they start turning into special abilities. If you could do a normal attack that had no drawbacks and also tacked on a chance the enemy might get disarmed, why wouldn't you always do that? That is when designers start adding on stuff like, "You can only try to disarm someone 2 times before you have to rest," and "Only certain classes can do it." And that is how it becomes a special ability and suddenly your game design starts hinging around everyone having powerful and useful special abilities that are arbitrarily limited in how often you can use them.

And then the game's design starts being more about managing special abilities and whatever resources they require rather than making sure you have solid fundamentals in place for your combat system.

What's wrong with special abilities because I don't get it?
A person who is untrained in combat, at best, try to attack and possibly defend himself (and not very effectively).
A person who is trained in combat would know how to use a special technique/move to gain an advantage, e.g. by disarming an enemy.
It's really easy to balance, you just make it give you some kind of penalty ie the technique used does less damage or is harder to hit.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

---

Minsc has a strength of 12 and a wisdom of 15

Standard ranger stats.
Come to think of it, maybe all companions just get standard set?
Welp. Typical Larain. Belgian mind does not understand that mechanics can tell a story too.

A common complain about Bioware and Obsidian companions is that they had shit stats. Khalid famously had shit stats for a fighter, but that's because he was meant to be a fighter/mage (arcane archer if he was from 3e?). I don't mind companions having average stats for their class.

 

[PapaPetro]

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.

He's got his own active podcast.
Last video was 3 weeks ago.


He's the opposite of busy/dead.
Could've used the work.

Sadly, I can see an internal business discussion over Mercer providing the better ROI from Fan Service than Cummings.

 

[MerchantKing]

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.

Binky still has the same VA in this game. The problem is that those old character are in this game for nostalgia and trying to exploit an old IP.

 

[Lagole Gon]

---

Minsc has a strength of 12 and a wisdom of 15

Standard ranger stats.
Come to think of it, maybe all companions just get standard set?
Welp. Typical Larain. Belgian mind does not understand that mechanics can tell a story too.

A common complain about Bioware and Obsidian companions is that they had shit stats. Khalid famously had shit stats for a fighter, but that's because he was meant to be a fighter/mage (arcane archer if he was from 3e?). I don't mind companions having average stats for their class.

You don't mind Minsc with 12 strength?



Ban Cat Headed Eagle.

 

[darkpatriot]

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.

I am fine with some characters being more likely to succeed at some kind of action, like a trip or a disarm, and even an ability to specialize in being more likely to pull them off. But there is no reason any other character can't try to knock a weapon out of someone's hand either.

And almost every action a character takes that isn't trivial should be affected by the character build and attributes.

However for alternate types of attacks (shoving/tripping/disarming/etc...) there should be some kind of trade-offs that make them situationally useful compared to a basic attack or that require some kind of character build investment to overcome/mitigate.

When you don't include that trade-off, that is how they start turning into special abilities. If you could do a normal attack that had no drawbacks and also tacked on a chance the enemy might get disarmed, why wouldn't you always do that? That is when designers start adding on stuff like, "You can only try to disarm someone 2 times before you have to rest," and "Only certain classes can do it." And that is how it becomes a special ability and suddenly your game design starts hinging around everyone having powerful and useful special abilities that are arbitrarily limited in how often you can use them.

And then the game's design starts being more about managing special abilities and whatever resources they require rather than making sure you have solid fundamentals in place for your combat system.

What's wrong with special abilities because I don't get it?
A person who is untrained in combat, at best, try to attack and possibly defend himself (and not very effectively).
A person who is trained in combat would know how to use a special technique/move to gain an advantage, e.g. by disarming an enemy.
It's really easy to balance, you just make it give you some kind of penalty ie the technique used does less damage or is harder to hit.

I don't understand what you are arguing with, then. I said all those things, aside from the idea that people who suck at something shouldn't even be allowed to try.

And I wouldn't define that as a special abilities based on the criteria for a special ability I provided.

If you think I am opposed to tripping, disarming, or grappling being options in a game, let me clarify that I am not.

 

[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.

Binky still has the same VA in this game. The problem is that those old character are in this game for nostalgia and trying to exploit an old IP.

But he doesn't. IMDB says Redd Pepper is the one voicing him in Baldur's Gate 3.

 

[Konjad]

Just finished BG3

That was a long and fun game for sure!

 

[TheDarkUrge]

I have a question on game balance, being still at level 6. Are Extra Attack classes (with a bit of setup) unbelievably stronger than everything else from level 5 onwards or does the situation change at some point? (Tactician Mode, non spam-resting environment)

Martials are pretty strong but extra turns in general is what breaks the game wide open. If you want a completely broken party you get a paladin + fighter, then a sorcerer who twin hastes both of those classes. By level 11 that means the fighter can take 9 attacks in one turn with their action surge. And the sorcerer if they haste themselves can also cast 3 spells per turn with quicken metamagic.

 

[Fedora Master]

Improved my ass.

 

[Darth Roxor]

@Darth Roxor iirc.

Roxor will not be playing this game.

that's a concerningly categorical take

 

[whydoibother]

Just finished BG3

How many "endings" are there, as in, how many ways to tie the knot together? No spoilers, just say 1-2-3....

 

[Sunri]

Just finished BG3

How many "endings" are there, as in, how many ways to tie the knot together? No spoilers, just say 1-2-3....

8000

 

[Konjad]

Just finished BG3

How many "endings" are there, as in, how many ways to tie the knot together? No spoilers, just say 1-2-3....

uhhh

at the very end, the last thing to do in the game before ending you have options:
Press "1" for "good" ending that is extremely predictable and boring
Press "2" for "bad" ending that is extremely predictable, boring, and short

There are some variations to stuff though, but nothing significant tbh. The whole ending (including the area that leads to it) is rather crap. The worst part of the game.

But otherwise I enjoyed the game a lot, including the last act. Larian cannot write any decent endings though.

 

[Abu Antar]

Just finished BG3

How many "endings" are there, as in, how many ways to tie the knot together? No spoilers, just say 1-2-3....

...4-5-6

 

[Orud]

Welp. Typical Larain. Belgian mind does not understand that mechanics can tell a story too.

Don't blame Larian if the message flew over your head. It's a simple message, really : Minsc was trash in BG1 and BG2 too.

 

[Lyre Mors]

that's a concerningly categorical take

Surprise me then

 

[MerchantKing]

Just finished BG3

How many "endings" are there, as in, how many ways to tie the knot together? No spoilers, just say 1-2-3....

There's really only three or four real endings. What happens to other characters along the way or after don't matter.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Which part soured it for you, exactly?

The asinine mind flayer Mary Sue and Shadowcunt's questline takes a nosedive at the end of Act 2 with her dumb hair dye larp. "I have to make a change!" *dyes hair* Are you 12? Downhill from there.

 

[MerchantKing]

---

Minsc has a strength of 12 and a wisdom of 15

Standard ranger stats.
Come to think of it, maybe all companions just get standard set?
Welp. Typical Larain. Belgian mind does not understand that mechanics can tell a story too.

Let's face it, you're going to pay 100 gold to the respec wizard (a casualization feature) to make their stats good anyways as Larian intended.

 

[Konjad]

5.2 mln copies sold

https://www.glitched.online/baldurs...million-on-steam-massive-ps5-launch-expected/

Swen