In that, we agree. I just find funny that the "new lore" is "coming back to the old lore" hehe
They made some changes to the find familiar spell in BG3 as showed in the gameplay
The most important is that it requires concentration and can attack and move more than 30m (even if the description says otherwise). I wonder if that´s only a feature for rangers or if it´s for every class.
ED: It seems there´s no "Help" action nor "ritual casting" in BG3, at least in the EA, so the familiars having an attack and being a cantrip makes sense from a game mechanics perspective.
same. if anything lore wise i only enjoy 2nd and 3rd edition.
Yeah, 4th and 5th edition killed the lore for me, and I was highly enthusiastic about the Planes before then. This disappointment is probably going to trickle down into any games that have to deal with the world of DnD post-Spellplague. It's hard to avoid how badly they mangled many beloved things, even when you want to tell a separate story entirely.
You do not have to worry too much about it. When the time came to write the Lore of 5e they basically wiped out 95% of the changes of 4e and left all like it was before 4e.
Abeir and Toril together? Nope, separated again. Maztica in other plane? Nope, It´s back Spellplague? Gone for good. Gods that disappeared or became unimportant like Mystra, the entire Mulhorand Pantheon, Amaunator, Cyric, Helm,Mask, Lathander,Bhaal, all the previously lost Drow gods, Leira,Myrkul, Gilgeam, Enlil, and Nanna-Sin;Azuth? Made a comeback
The majority of the earthmotes had fallen, the Sea of the Fallen Stars had returned to its pre-Spellplague volume, the Underchasm had been filled in, and nations and most of the lands that were sent to Abeir during the Spellplague had returned to Toril.Halruaa, Lantan and Nimbral had returned to the Realms, Anauroch is a desert again, etc, etc etc...
Bonus points if the new entity of magic also pulls the plug out of Elminster and end his damnable cameo crew for good: no divine juice, no more immortality cheat for them. Win-Win.
Ok, finally was able to watch Panel from Hell last evening. Couple of random thoughts.
- this stream was less exciting thn the precious one, probably because there was less gameplay footage and more talking.
- New cinematics with Lae'zel and intellect devourer gave me a bit of a pause. It is not (or shouldn't be a cinematics to watch by kids. Way more dark than anything BG1 or BG2 proposed.Not sure how I feel about it just yet.
- I very like the fact that Larian did not restrain themselves to implement some cool and fun mechanics, even if this means much more work for scripters. I'm a bit worried though, that the game will be more próbę to bugs because of that. But that's precisely Earky Access is for, I guess.
- I love how they handled familiars. Even though I almost always play spellcasters, I very rarely use familiars. It's just I don't see much of a benefit from doing that, and I constantly need to be careful to not have them killed. Here, there is a good chance to finally use fsmiliars, if only to spy or eavesdrop oponents or other NPC's. I wonder if Larian will implement possibility to use the information got by a familiar in the dialog with the character that was eavasdropped. That would be super fun.
- I really like Animal Handling. It seems that they have extended the poll of creatures susceptible to animal handling (bullette). I think I know who will be my favourite new pet!
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
(...)
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
Me too. I hate low level D&D. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and ToEE are great games DESPITE the low level cap. However, BG2 is far more popular than BG1 despite BG1 being available in more languages. Exactly because on BG2 you can do more than just autoattacks and can fight dragons.
Low level D&D is mostly kobold slaying in sword coast. If you look to NWN1/2, you start both at lv 3 after the tutorial and is around lv 10 on end of the first chapter.
Hell, a Invoker only starts to get SOME decent destructive power at lv 5(fireball, once per rest) and a necromancer, only some animate dead capability at lv 9 on 2e. In lore, to become a Red wizard of Thay apprentice, you need to be able to cast tier 3 spells and have rank 8 spellcraft and most Red Wizards of Thay can cast control weather(circle 7)
I will probably purchase BG3, but the 5e ruleset and low level focus are huge downsides. And I know that most 5e adventurers are just kobold slaying on sword coast. But I wanna explore the D&D multiverse and in order to do that, you need to go at least medium level. Or do you wanna descent to the 666th layer of abyss, enter the city of liches to face the almighty, all powerful epic .... Lv 4 kobold and spend 100 hours of play only autoattacking with no decent spell or abilities to use?
(...)
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
Me too. I hate low level D&D. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and ToEE are great games DESPITE the low level cap. However, BG2 is far more popular than BG1 despite BG1 being available in more languages. Exactly because on BG2 you can do more than just autoattacks and can fight dragons.
Low level D&D is mostly kobold slaying in sword coast. If you look to NWN1/2, you start both at lv 3 after the tutorial and is around lv 10 on end of the first chapter.
Hell, a Invoker only starts to get SOME decent destructive power at lv 5(fireball, once per rest) and a necromancer, only some animate dead capability at lv 9 on 2e. In lore, to become a Red wizard of Thay apprentice, you need to be able to cast tier 3 spells and have rank 8 spellcraft and most Red Wizards of Thay can cast control weather(circle 7)
I will probably purchase BG3, but the 5e ruleset and low level focus are huge downsides. And I know that most 5e adventurers are just kobold slaying on sword coast. But I wanna explore the D&D multiverse and in order to do that, you need to go at least medium level. Or do you wanna descent to the 666th layer of abyss, enter the city of liches to face the almighty, all powerful epic .... Lv 4 kobold and spend 100 hours of play only autoattacking with no decent spell or abilities to use?
In all fairness, I didn't see any kobolds in gameplay footages Larian shows thus far. I did see however, bunch of interesting monsters, that I would not necessarily consider low level (more of a medium level), especially in the Underdark section.
I'm fairly sure by capping the level, Larian is making the room for potential sequel(s), which I can understand. All in all BG1 was made the same way.
You know, your hero needs to start from somwhere, so not having a plethora of powerful attacks/spells at the beginning of the adventure is completely normal thing. I wouldn't be happy if my newly generated character could raise the dead, throw meteor storm or shapchange into a mind flayer from the get-go. It comes with the experience (aka the level) ?
(...)
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
Me too. I hate low level D&D. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and ToEE are great games DESPITE the low level cap. However, BG2 is far more popular than BG1 despite BG1 being available in more languages. Exactly because on BG2 you can do more than just autoattacks and can fight dragons.
Low level D&D is mostly kobold slaying in sword coast. If you look to NWN1/2, you start both at lv 3 after the tutorial and is around lv 10 on end of the first chapter.
Hell, a Invoker only starts to get SOME decent destructive power at lv 5(fireball, once per rest) and a necromancer, only some animate dead capability at lv 9 on 2e. In lore, to become a Red wizard of Thay apprentice, you need to be able to cast tier 3 spells and have rank 8 spellcraft and most Red Wizards of Thay can cast control weather(circle 7)
I will probably purchase BG3, but the 5e ruleset and low level focus are huge downsides. And I know that most 5e adventurers are just kobold slaying on sword coast. But I wanna explore the D&D multiverse and in order to do that, you need to go at least medium level. Or do you wanna descent to the 666th layer of abyss, enter the city of liches to face the almighty, all powerful epic .... Lv 4 kobold and spend 100 hours of play only autoattacking with no decent spell or abilities to use?
In all fairness, I didn't see any kobolds in gameplay footages Larian shows thus far. I did see however, bunch of interesting monsters, that I would not necessarily consider low level (more of a medium level), especially in the Underdark section.
I'm fairly sure by capping the level, Larian is making the room for potential sequel(s), which I can understand. All in all BG1 was made the same way.
You know, your hero needs to start from somwhere, so not having a plethora of powerful attacks/spells at the beginning of the adventure is completely normal thing. I wouldn't be happy if my newly generated character could raise the dead, throw meteor storm or shapchange into a mind flayer from the get-go. It comes with the experience (aka the level) ?
What if after 100 hours of play, your newly generated character can't cast even a circle 6 spell? And needs to face far stronger enemies? My point is not against low level cap. BG1 had low XP cap(which is different than lv cap)? Yes.But the campaign starts on candlekeep. Not in a war between adult dragons and a midnflayer spacejammer ship that teleports to hell and throw intellect devourers against two lv 1 guys poorly eqquiped.
And create low level undead is the signature move of a necromancer, is not a high level spell. Nor fireball. We will not see both on EA...
In fact, you will have a single cloudkill per long rest on final game... And a 5e ultra nerfed low damage concentration required cloudkill.
(...)
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
Me too. I hate low level D&D. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and ToEE are great games DESPITE the low level cap. However, BG2 is far more popular than BG1 despite BG1 being available in more languages. Exactly because on BG2 you can do more than just autoattacks and can fight dragons.
Low level D&D is mostly kobold slaying in sword coast. If you look to NWN1/2, you start both at lv 3 after the tutorial and is around lv 10 on end of the first chapter.
Hell, a Invoker only starts to get SOME decent destructive power at lv 5(fireball, once per rest) and a necromancer, only some animate dead capability at lv 9 on 2e. In lore, to become a Red wizard of Thay apprentice, you need to be able to cast tier 3 spells and have rank 8 spellcraft and most Red Wizards of Thay can cast control weather(circle 7)
I will probably purchase BG3, but the 5e ruleset and low level focus are huge downsides. And I know that most 5e adventurers are just kobold slaying on sword coast. But I wanna explore the D&D multiverse and in order to do that, you need to go at least medium level. Or do you wanna descent to the 666th layer of abyss, enter the city of liches to face the almighty, all powerful epic .... Lv 4 kobold and spend 100 hours of play only autoattacking with no decent spell or abilities to use?
In all fairness, I didn't see any kobolds in gameplay footages Larian shows thus far. I did see however, bunch of interesting monsters, that I would not necessarily consider low level (more of a medium level), especially in the Underdark section.
I'm fairly sure by capping the level, Larian is making the room for potential sequel(s), which I can understand. All in all BG1 was made the same way.
You know, your hero needs to start from somwhere, so not having a plethora of powerful attacks/spells at the beginning of the adventure is completely normal thing. I wouldn't be happy if my newly generated character could raise the dead, throw meteor storm or shapchange into a mind flayer from the get-go. It comes with the experience (aka the level) ?
What if after 100 hours of play, your newly generated character can't cast even a circle 6 spell? And needs to face far stronger enemies? My point is not against low level cap. BG1 had low XP cap(which is different than lv cap)? Yes.But the campaign starts on candlekeep. Not in a war between adult dragons and a midnflayer spacejammer ship that teleports to hell and throw intellect devourers against two lv 1 guys poorly eqquiped.
And create low level undead is the signature move of a necromancer, is not a high level spell. Nor fireball. We will not see both on EA...
In fact, you will have a single cloudkill per long rest on final game... And a 5e ultra nerfed low damage concentration required cloudkill.
Yeah, the fact that you will start the game as 1st level character in the middle of two eternal conflicts (illithid - githyanki struggle and the Blood War) bothers me too. There would need to be a hell of a good story wise explanation for me to "buy it" in 100%. But I strongly believe we will get one.
(...)
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
Me too. I hate low level D&D. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and ToEE are great games DESPITE the low level cap. However, BG2 is far more popular than BG1 despite BG1 being available in more languages. Exactly because on BG2 you can do more than just autoattacks and can fight dragons.
Low level D&D is mostly kobold slaying in sword coast. If you look to NWN1/2, you start both at lv 3 after the tutorial and is around lv 10 on end of the first chapter.
Hell, a Invoker only starts to get SOME decent destructive power at lv 5(fireball, once per rest) and a necromancer, only some animate dead capability at lv 9 on 2e. In lore, to become a Red wizard of Thay apprentice, you need to be able to cast tier 3 spells and have rank 8 spellcraft and most Red Wizards of Thay can cast control weather(circle 7)
I will probably purchase BG3, but the 5e ruleset and low level focus are huge downsides. And I know that most 5e adventurers are just kobold slaying on sword coast. But I wanna explore the D&D multiverse and in order to do that, you need to go at least medium level. Or do you wanna descent to the 666th layer of abyss, enter the city of liches to face the almighty, all powerful epic .... Lv 4 kobold and spend 100 hours of play only autoattacking with no decent spell or abilities to use?
In all fairness, I didn't see any kobolds in gameplay footages Larian shows thus far. I did see however, bunch of interesting monsters, that I would not necessarily consider low level (more of a medium level), especially in the Underdark section.
I'm fairly sure by capping the level, Larian is making the room for potential sequel(s), which I can understand. All in all BG1 was made the same way.
You know, your hero needs to start from somwhere, so not having a plethora of powerful attacks/spells at the beginning of the adventure is completely normal thing. I wouldn't be happy if my newly generated character could raise the dead, throw meteor storm or shapchange into a mind flayer from the get-go. It comes with the experience (aka the level) ?
What if after 100 hours of play, your newly generated character can't cast even a circle 6 spell? And needs to face far stronger enemies? My point is not against low level cap. BG1 had low XP cap(which is different than lv cap)? Yes.But the campaign starts on candlekeep. Not in a war between adult dragons and a midnflayer spacejammer ship that teleports to hell and throw intellect devourers against two lv 1 guys poorly eqquiped.
And create low level undead is the signature move of a necromancer, is not a high level spell. Nor fireball. We will not see both on EA...
In fact, you will have a single cloudkill per long rest on final game... And a 5e ultra nerfed low damage concentration required cloudkill.
Yeah, the fact that you will start the game as 1st level character in the middle of two eternal conflicts (illithid - githyanki struggle and the Blood War) bothers me too. There would need to be a hell of a good story wise explanation for me to "buy it" in 100%. But I strongly believe we will get one.
Low level D&D games are either auto attacks against low level kobolds like BG1 or massacre like putting a CR 20 Balor against a lv 10 party, in the plane of fire, like ToEE did. Took me almost two hours to beat on my first try and if wasen't by meta knowledge, the skull and summons, i would't have won. BG3 seems that will be low level but with high CR monsters nerfed to accommodate low level parties. Which combines the worst of both approaches... And my guess is that Larian will put tons of gimmicky fights on it.
Throwing intellect devourers against two lv 1 guys poorly equipped is so ridiculous... The first encounter of Knights of the Chalice is not easy like the first encounter on other games, but fell more fair.
"Low level D&D games are either auto attacks against low level kobolds like BG1 or massacre like putting a CR 20 Balor against a lv 10 party, in the plane of fire, like ToEE did. "
Ok, finally was able to watch Panel from Hell last evening. Couple of random thoughts.
- this stream was less exciting thn the precious one, probably because there was less gameplay footage and more talking.
This shows how extremely different from one another we all can be.
I found all the talking and answering questions to be what was so very useful. I just wish the interviewer knew what he was doing because his questions were far too often just stupid. Gameplay, if it is combat gameplay, I don't need any more of to help me decide.
Don't know if it was just me, but seemed to me like they have lowered the DC for dialogue checks involving options to avoid combat. If this is so, then that's a huge plus for the game for me. But even so, I will definitely be save-scumming to ensure I win every one of those checks. When that DC14 CHA check against the goblin demanding his foot be kissed got failed, that would be an instant reload for me.
As for the discussion about low level games, sorry but you guys are totally wrong. Low level D&D games are the BEST!!! D&D just devolves into munchkin goo when you get to high levels.
Ok, finally was able to watch Panel from Hell last evening. Couple of random thoughts.
- this stream was less exciting thn the precious one, probably because there was less gameplay footage and more talking.
This shows how extremely different from one another we all can be.
I found all the talking and answering questions to be what was so very useful. I just wish the interviewer knew what he was doing because his questions were far too often just stupid. Gameplay, if it is combat gameplay, I don't need any more of to help me decide.
Don't know if it was just me, but seemed to me like they have lowered the DC for dialogue checks involving options to avoid combat. If this is so, then that's a huge plus for the game for me. But even so, I will definitely be save-scumming to ensure I win every one of those checks. When that DC14 CHA check against the goblin demanding his foot be kissed got failed, that would be an instant reload for me.
As for the discussion about low level games, sorry but you guys are totally wrong. Low level D&D games are the BEST!!! D&D just devolves into munchkin goo when you get to high levels.
I want juicy stuff, not talking ? Anyway, is it just me or Chris Perkins was VERY restrained in his answers? He just replied the question to the letter and that's it. I don't know him, but I felt he could give us more info. It's not that he revealed some parts of the story or something.
About SC for dialogue check, I noticed that too. But Initially I thought they have programmed the rolls specifically for this footage until the guy who played the game failed the last check on Crusher which led to a battle. If they lowered SC a bit, it's indeed a good choice. They have failed the checks during precious stream far too often.
I like both low and high level adventures, but @SorcererV1ct0r does have a point that (very) low level fights are almost done on autopilot. You do not have many more options as to click attack button or kite.
Some Low level adventures I played were fun if they give you plenty to do with the skills you have at your disposal at your level: options to roleplay, interactions with the environment, opportunities for caster classes, sneaky classes, diplomatic classes, or brawling classes to shine, lands to explore, loot to find, etc.
Right now we know we could use stealth, speak with the dead, use animal handling, summon an improved familiar, destroy walls, use fire, etc... So I think there´s going to be lots of things to do that do not rely on your level.
Some Low level adventures I played were fun if they give you plenty to do with the skills you have at your disposal at your level: options to roleplay, interactions with the environment, opportunities for caster classes, sneaky classes, diplomatic classes, or brawling classes to shine, lands to explore, loot to find, etc.
Right now we know we could use stealth, speak with the dead, use animal handling, summon an improved familiar, destroy walls, use fire, etc... So I think there´s going to be lots of things to do that do not rely on your level.
My current campaign took about a year and a half to get from level 2 to level 10. I've discovered that low level content is plenty interesting and fun, and there are absolutely tons of options available to the players both inside and outside of combat.
Honestly the only campaigns we reached epic levels in D&D or we used mythic paths in PF we started at high levels already or they`re oneshots just to kill a Tarrasque or be wiped out by a Great Old One in PF, with high-level, fully equipped characters.
People I know, we all go for low-to-mid level stuff.
Some Low level adventures I played were fun if they give you plenty to do with the skills you have at your disposal at your level: options to roleplay, interactions with the environment, opportunities for caster classes, sneaky classes, diplomatic classes, or brawling classes to shine, lands to explore, loot to find, etc.
Right now we know we could use stealth, speak with the dead, use animal handling, summon an improved familiar, destroy walls, use fire, etc... So I think there´s going to be lots of things to do that do not rely on your level.
My current campaign took about a year and a half to get from level 2 to level 10. I've discovered that low level content is plenty interesting and fun, and there are absolutely tons of options available to the players both inside and outside of combat.
5e tabletop is mostly low level kobold slaying on sword coast. Modules for 5e rarely goes above lv 10. Descend to Arvenus ends on lv 13. In **** hell. Meanwhile, most pathfinder 1e modules ends up around lv 18.
And again, in video games, people prefer mid, high and epic levels.
On 2e, a LOT of modules on plane of shadows recommend start at lv 7+, Dark Sun modules recommend start at lv 3.
Throughout development, the team have focused heavily on finding what’s at the “core” of the Baldur’s Gate experience. “I think if you ask 20 different Baldur's Gate fans, then you get 20 different answers,” Smith laughs.
For Smith, it seems to boil down to a trusty few factors – the first one being tone. Baldur’s Gate always managed to blend a bunch of different styles together, rather than placing all its chips on one fantasy subgenre or another. “I see people talk about the darkness of Baldur's Gate,” he says. “And it's absolutely something that we want to bring out. But Baldur's Gate was very, very lighthearted and strange and silly and bizarre in places, as well. And that's really a quality that I think separates it from a lot of other RPGs. It is tonally all over the place and it hits its beats so, so well.
“Occasionally it wants to be romantic, and it's very good at being romantic. Occasionally it wants to be darkly romantic, occasionally it wants to have fun. There are characters that are so cartoonish and strange, and they coexist alongside torture and horror... and getting all those things to sit well together, I think, is part of what Baldur's Gate is.”
The biggest pieces of the Baldur’s Gate puzzle, though, are unanimously agreed upon: one is your relationship to your adventuring party, and another is how your decisions and actions impact those relationships and the world around you – and vice versa. “Some of my favorite moments in Baldur's Gate are party interactions," says Smith, “and I think BG2 improved on them massively. That sense of ‘it really matters what I do and it really matters what they think of me’. And that was hugely important. You can really piss people off, and you can let people down... it's all these emotional things which are very powerful.”
It’s all about knowing who you can trust, knowing who you can rely on, continues Smith, and that sense of striving for a common goal as a group. “Pulling together and fighting against the things in yourself that aren't necessarily good for you, or good for anybody else. And that's a huge part of what we wanna do.”
Ok, finally was able to watch Panel from Hell last evening. Couple of random thoughts.
- New cinematics with Lae'zel and intellect devourer gave me a bit of a pause. It is not (or shouldn't be a cinematics to watch by kids. Way more dark than anything BG1 or BG2 proposed.Not sure how I feel about it just yet.
I am pretty certain I hate it - BG used to have quite serious themes without going over the top with gore and body horror. Don't really want to be one of the "things used to better when I was young folks", but I think there is a disturbing trend to make things more brutal, bloodier and grim dark.
Like I think the premise of series like The Boys, Black Lightning and even Cursed is interesting, but the premise and the plot would work just as well with the (on screen) brutality dialed down to half. And to me it would be more enjoyable - not only do I want it slightly icky, but I always have to make sure that there is no possibility at all that my kids are walking in randomly.
And I like showing and sharing the games I play with my kids. Kerbal Space Program, old Baldur's Gate, Civilization. But this? It feels like they are trying very hard to overcompensate for the people who think their BG wouldn't be dark & serious enough.
I was going to wait until it gets some reviews and maybe drops in price a bit. Now I think I'll pass.
EDIT: one more though - I am aware that it can easily be argued that Irenicus' lab was just as gruesome. But that was on a descriptive/narrative level, not a visual one & that makes a difference.
You know, your hero needs to start from somwhere, so not having a plethora of powerful attacks/spells at the beginning of the adventure is completely normal thing. I wouldn't be happy if my newly generated character could raise the dead, throw meteor storm or shapchange into a mind flayer from the get-go. It comes with the experience (aka the level) ?
This is true of course, but at some point things start to become less believable. How is it that lvl 1 characters are suddenly in the midst of a world shattering event? That is something that requires a decent build-up from the story, it's something I'm sure Larian thought of but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Something else I'm sometimes wondering (read: nitpicking) about is the inconsistency between an NPC's or party member's backstory and their actual levels and XP. One example that immediately came to mind was Astarion:
"Astarion prowled the night as a vampire spawn for centuries, serving a sadistic master until he was snatched away."
So he had shady but steady work for hundreds of years, but that work didn't give him the XP for an extra couple of levels..?
Some Low level adventures I played were fun if they give you plenty to do with the skills you have at your disposal at your level: options to roleplay, interactions with the environment, opportunities for caster classes, sneaky classes, diplomatic classes, or brawling classes to shine, lands to explore, loot to find, etc.
Right now we know we could use stealth, speak with the dead, use animal handling, summon an improved familiar, destroy walls, use fire, etc... So I think there´s going to be lots of things to do that do not rely on your level.
My current campaign took about a year and a half to get from level 2 to level 10. I've discovered that low level content is plenty interesting and fun, and there are absolutely tons of options available to the players both inside and outside of combat.
5e tabletop is mostly low level kobold slaying on sword coast. Modules for 5e rarely goes above lv 10. Descend to Arvenus ends on lv 13. In **** hell. Meanwhile, most pathfinder 1e modules ends up around lv 18.
And again, in video games, people prefer mid, high and epic levels.
On 2e, a LOT of modules on plane of shadows recommend start at lv 7+, Dark Sun modules recommend start at lv 3.
My game isnt from any module. I homebrew the sessions as well as the settings, and then stitch them into Faerun. The first 5 levels were set in a desert kingdom adjacent to Mulhorand. My second 5 levels have been set in the Moon Shaes in another fabricated city state.
It is not the edition's fault if DM's are lazy and put all of their games in the same space.
Something else I'm sometimes wondering (read: nitpicking) about is the inconsistency between an NPC's or party member's backstory and their actual levels and XP. One example that immediately came to mind was Astarion:
"Astarion prowled the night as a vampire spawn for centuries, serving a sadistic master until he was snatched away."
So he had shady but steady work for hundreds of years, but that work didn't give him the XP for an extra couple of levels..?
I dislike these inconsistencies as well, but they are rife within CRPGs. For example - Apparently my fresh Bhaalspawn who has lived his life in Candlekeep is as experienced as Khalid, a fighter who has traveled from Calimshan and is a member of the Harpers.
At some point, you just have accept it comes with the territory.
Comments
They made some changes to the find familiar spell in BG3 as showed in the gameplay
The most important is that it requires concentration and can attack and move more than 30m (even if the description says otherwise). I wonder if that´s only a feature for rangers or if it´s for every class.
ED: It seems there´s no "Help" action nor "ritual casting" in BG3, at least in the EA, so the familiars having an attack and being a cantrip makes sense from a game mechanics perspective.
Says the guy who's not going to play the game...
So Ao restored the backup?
Yea that Elminster guy. What's he all about?
- this stream was less exciting thn the precious one, probably because there was less gameplay footage and more talking.
- New cinematics with Lae'zel and intellect devourer gave me a bit of a pause. It is not (or shouldn't be a cinematics to watch by kids. Way more dark than anything BG1 or BG2 proposed.Not sure how I feel about it just yet.
- I very like the fact that Larian did not restrain themselves to implement some cool and fun mechanics, even if this means much more work for scripters. I'm a bit worried though, that the game will be more próbę to bugs because of that. But that's precisely Earky Access is for, I guess.
- I love how they handled familiars. Even though I almost always play spellcasters, I very rarely use familiars. It's just I don't see much of a benefit from doing that, and I constantly need to be careful to not have them killed. Here, there is a good chance to finally use fsmiliars, if only to spy or eavesdrop oponents or other NPC's. I wonder if Larian will implement possibility to use the information got by a familiar in the dialog with the character that was eavasdropped. That would be super fun.
- I really like Animal Handling. It seems that they have extended the poll of creatures susceptible to animal handling (bullette). I think I know who will be my favourite new pet!
- It seems that judging from the size of EA, the game will be HUGE, and that's a really good thing. And Swen told, that players will be able to reach lvl 4 in EA. Since EA will cover only first chapter and level will be capped at 10, the second half of the level progression (5-10) will be super slow. I wonder if they change their mind to raise level cap a bit. To level 12 maybe?
Overall good stuff, but I want more gameplay footage!
Her twitter photo
Me too. I hate low level D&D. Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and ToEE are great games DESPITE the low level cap. However, BG2 is far more popular than BG1 despite BG1 being available in more languages. Exactly because on BG2 you can do more than just autoattacks and can fight dragons.
Low level D&D is mostly kobold slaying in sword coast. If you look to NWN1/2, you start both at lv 3 after the tutorial and is around lv 10 on end of the first chapter.
Hell, a Invoker only starts to get SOME decent destructive power at lv 5(fireball, once per rest) and a necromancer, only some animate dead capability at lv 9 on 2e. In lore, to become a Red wizard of Thay apprentice, you need to be able to cast tier 3 spells and have rank 8 spellcraft and most Red Wizards of Thay can cast control weather(circle 7)
I will probably purchase BG3, but the 5e ruleset and low level focus are huge downsides. And I know that most 5e adventurers are just kobold slaying on sword coast. But I wanna explore the D&D multiverse and in order to do that, you need to go at least medium level. Or do you wanna descent to the 666th layer of abyss, enter the city of liches to face the almighty, all powerful epic .... Lv 4 kobold and spend 100 hours of play only autoattacking with no decent spell or abilities to use?
In all fairness, I didn't see any kobolds in gameplay footages Larian shows thus far. I did see however, bunch of interesting monsters, that I would not necessarily consider low level (more of a medium level), especially in the Underdark section.
I'm fairly sure by capping the level, Larian is making the room for potential sequel(s), which I can understand. All in all BG1 was made the same way.
You know, your hero needs to start from somwhere, so not having a plethora of powerful attacks/spells at the beginning of the adventure is completely normal thing. I wouldn't be happy if my newly generated character could raise the dead, throw meteor storm or shapchange into a mind flayer from the get-go. It comes with the experience (aka the level) ?
What if after 100 hours of play, your newly generated character can't cast even a circle 6 spell? And needs to face far stronger enemies? My point is not against low level cap. BG1 had low XP cap(which is different than lv cap)? Yes.But the campaign starts on candlekeep. Not in a war between adult dragons and a midnflayer spacejammer ship that teleports to hell and throw intellect devourers against two lv 1 guys poorly eqquiped.
And create low level undead is the signature move of a necromancer, is not a high level spell. Nor fireball. We will not see both on EA...
In fact, you will have a single cloudkill per long rest on final game... And a 5e ultra nerfed low damage concentration required cloudkill.
Yeah, the fact that you will start the game as 1st level character in the middle of two eternal conflicts (illithid - githyanki struggle and the Blood War) bothers me too. There would need to be a hell of a good story wise explanation for me to "buy it" in 100%. But I strongly believe we will get one.
Low level D&D games are either auto attacks against low level kobolds like BG1 or massacre like putting a CR 20 Balor against a lv 10 party, in the plane of fire, like ToEE did. Took me almost two hours to beat on my first try and if wasen't by meta knowledge, the skull and summons, i would't have won. BG3 seems that will be low level but with high CR monsters nerfed to accommodate low level parties. Which combines the worst of both approaches... And my guess is that Larian will put tons of gimmicky fights on it.
Throwing intellect devourers against two lv 1 guys poorly equipped is so ridiculous... The first encounter of Knights of the Chalice is not easy like the first encounter on other games, but fell more fair.
Wow, this statement is shockingly wrong!
I found all the talking and answering questions to be what was so very useful. I just wish the interviewer knew what he was doing because his questions were far too often just stupid. Gameplay, if it is combat gameplay, I don't need any more of to help me decide.
Don't know if it was just me, but seemed to me like they have lowered the DC for dialogue checks involving options to avoid combat. If this is so, then that's a huge plus for the game for me. But even so, I will definitely be save-scumming to ensure I win every one of those checks. When that DC14 CHA check against the goblin demanding his foot be kissed got failed, that would be an instant reload for me.
As for the discussion about low level games, sorry but you guys are totally wrong.
I want juicy stuff, not talking ? Anyway, is it just me or Chris Perkins was VERY restrained in his answers? He just replied the question to the letter and that's it. I don't know him, but I felt he could give us more info. It's not that he revealed some parts of the story or something.
About SC for dialogue check, I noticed that too. But Initially I thought they have programmed the rolls specifically for this footage until the guy who played the game failed the last check on Crusher which led to a battle. If they lowered SC a bit, it's indeed a good choice. They have failed the checks during precious stream far too often.
I like both low and high level adventures, but @SorcererV1ct0r does have a point that (very) low level fights are almost done on autopilot. You do not have many more options as to click attack button or kite.
Some Low level adventures I played were fun if they give you plenty to do with the skills you have at your disposal at your level: options to roleplay, interactions with the environment, opportunities for caster classes, sneaky classes, diplomatic classes, or brawling classes to shine, lands to explore, loot to find, etc.
Right now we know we could use stealth, speak with the dead, use animal handling, summon an improved familiar, destroy walls, use fire, etc... So I think there´s going to be lots of things to do that do not rely on your level.
My current campaign took about a year and a half to get from level 2 to level 10. I've discovered that low level content is plenty interesting and fun, and there are absolutely tons of options available to the players both inside and outside of combat.
People I know, we all go for low-to-mid level stuff.
It´s different in videogames, of course.
5e tabletop is mostly low level kobold slaying on sword coast. Modules for 5e rarely goes above lv 10. Descend to Arvenus ends on lv 13. In **** hell. Meanwhile, most pathfinder 1e modules ends up around lv 18.
And again, in video games, people prefer mid, high and epic levels.
On 2e, a LOT of modules on plane of shadows recommend start at lv 7+, Dark Sun modules recommend start at lv 3.
“The Essence of Baldur’s Gate
Throughout development, the team have focused heavily on finding what’s at the “core” of the Baldur’s Gate experience. “I think if you ask 20 different Baldur's Gate fans, then you get 20 different answers,” Smith laughs.
For Smith, it seems to boil down to a trusty few factors – the first one being tone. Baldur’s Gate always managed to blend a bunch of different styles together, rather than placing all its chips on one fantasy subgenre or another. “I see people talk about the darkness of Baldur's Gate,” he says. “And it's absolutely something that we want to bring out. But Baldur's Gate was very, very lighthearted and strange and silly and bizarre in places, as well. And that's really a quality that I think separates it from a lot of other RPGs. It is tonally all over the place and it hits its beats so, so well.
“Occasionally it wants to be romantic, and it's very good at being romantic. Occasionally it wants to be darkly romantic, occasionally it wants to have fun. There are characters that are so cartoonish and strange, and they coexist alongside torture and horror... and getting all those things to sit well together, I think, is part of what Baldur's Gate is.”
The biggest pieces of the Baldur’s Gate puzzle, though, are unanimously agreed upon: one is your relationship to your adventuring party, and another is how your decisions and actions impact those relationships and the world around you – and vice versa. “Some of my favorite moments in Baldur's Gate are party interactions," says Smith, “and I think BG2 improved on them massively. That sense of ‘it really matters what I do and it really matters what they think of me’. And that was hugely important. You can really piss people off, and you can let people down... it's all these emotional things which are very powerful.”
It’s all about knowing who you can trust, knowing who you can rely on, continues Smith, and that sense of striving for a common goal as a group. “Pulling together and fighting against the things in yourself that aren't necessarily good for you, or good for anybody else. And that's a huge part of what we wanna do.”
I am pretty certain I hate it - BG used to have quite serious themes without going over the top with gore and body horror. Don't really want to be one of the "things used to better when I was young folks", but I think there is a disturbing trend to make things more brutal, bloodier and grim dark.
Like I think the premise of series like The Boys, Black Lightning and even Cursed is interesting, but the premise and the plot would work just as well with the (on screen) brutality dialed down to half. And to me it would be more enjoyable - not only do I want it slightly icky, but I always have to make sure that there is no possibility at all that my kids are walking in randomly.
And I like showing and sharing the games I play with my kids. Kerbal Space Program, old Baldur's Gate, Civilization. But this? It feels like they are trying very hard to overcompensate for the people who think their BG wouldn't be dark & serious enough.
I was going to wait until it gets some reviews and maybe drops in price a bit. Now I think I'll pass.
EDIT: one more though - I am aware that it can easily be argued that Irenicus' lab was just as gruesome. But that was on a descriptive/narrative level, not a visual one & that makes a difference.
This is true of course, but at some point things start to become less believable. How is it that lvl 1 characters are suddenly in the midst of a world shattering event? That is something that requires a decent build-up from the story, it's something I'm sure Larian thought of but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Something else I'm sometimes wondering (read: nitpicking) about is the inconsistency between an NPC's or party member's backstory and their actual levels and XP. One example that immediately came to mind was Astarion: So he had shady but steady work for hundreds of years, but that work didn't give him the XP for an extra couple of levels..?
Familiars on 5e, Cat, Spider(...)
Having non mundane familiars was one of teh coolest aspects of casters on previous editions. I wish that i could have a succubus familiar.
This doesn't even make sense.
A succubus has a +6 to intelligence and probably a challenge rating at least ten times that of a housecat...
I think that line of discussion would go beyond the forum's PG rating
My game isnt from any module. I homebrew the sessions as well as the settings, and then stitch them into Faerun. The first 5 levels were set in a desert kingdom adjacent to Mulhorand. My second 5 levels have been set in the Moon Shaes in another fabricated city state.
It is not the edition's fault if DM's are lazy and put all of their games in the same space.
I dislike these inconsistencies as well, but they are rife within CRPGs. For example - Apparently my fresh Bhaalspawn who has lived his life in Candlekeep is as experienced as Khalid, a fighter who has traveled from Calimshan and is a member of the Harpers.
At some point, you just have accept it comes with the territory.