Clerics really need more offensive options. I don't have spiritual weapon? How come? Its such a staple cleric spell in 5e. Without it clerics don't have much they can do with their bonus action (other than healing word).
Enhance Ability is another staple 2nd level spell that clerics should have access to.
Clerics really need more offensive options. I don't have spiritual weapon? How come? Its such a staple cleric spell in 5e. Without it clerics don't have much they can do with their bonus action (other than healing word).
Enhance Ability is another staple 2nd level spell that clerics should have access to.
I wholehardly agree. I will probably reroll my character and choose something with more firepower. Besides I have created copy paste character to Shadowheart (just with different patron deity). I'm thinking of warlock.
Hex + Eldritch Blast is a pretty safe combo. Just be mindful that as long as you maintain concentration (which can be a full day) you can recast Hex as a bonus action (a separate spell appears for it in your spell quickslots).
Although now that I think about it you could also dual wield either short swords, scimitars, or daggers (depending on what martial weapon proficiencies you have). That would give you something to do with your bonus action as a cleric.
Hex + Eldritch Blast is a pretty safe combo. Just be mindful that as long as you maintain concentration (which can be a full day) you can recast Hex as a bonus action (a separate spell appears for it in your spell quickslots).
I havent yet heard much about Concentration as a mechanic in BG3. Does it work similar to 5e? (You can only have 1 concentration spell up at a time, and taking damage causes the concentration check to see if you keep it?)
I've heard it mentioned on Reddit that Larian focused more on the Evil companions for EA and they were actually encouraging players to do evil playthroughs so they could get feedback on whether it was as satisfying as playing a Good path. I don't know if this is true, but that's a fair argument. Still, it would have been nice to have Good/Neutral companions so we could compare the difference between the two when giving feedback. :P
Everyone seems to want characters who are a little nicer and less evil so new companions who will be added will likely lean towards good alignment, assuming Larian is listening to anybody.
I'm seeing that critique a lot too. While I'm sure that they'll add some characters to better fit with a good alignment, they may have also just overtuned the "evilness" of the current companions. It makes sense to me that they shouldnt adore your NPC out of the gate, but maybe Larian will dial back the antagonism from a 10 to a 7.5 or something.
We'll have to see. I have also heard that Larian intends for each character to have a meaningful arc, so the evil/neutral NPCs may seem abrasive now but get better later. We'll have to wait and see on that front.
Two points. First, yes "good" aligned companions are very badly needed. But it's not just that they be good-aligned. I want companions whose company in MY party I enjoy. So they need to not just be good-aligned but also nice/fun/non-abrasive/not annoying/good company. This, actually, is what is truly missing with this first crop of companions.
Second, the argument that the evil companions (this is especially the defense offered often for SH) may change over the course of their story arc. But what about until then? If I'm playing a good PC, and I ROLE-PLAY my good character properly, why would I give a chance to or wait on for change to happen with a companion who does something evil right now (or demands that the party should go with an evil action right now)? There is zero reason for me to allow Astarion's story arc to play out in the first place. The moment he puts a knife to my throat, he dies. That's what's reasonable. And he will then never get the chance to "change" or be "redeemed." Ditto for a cleric of Shar, a githyanki supremacist, and someone who made a pact with a devil for the most superficial of reasons. The only way any of these four characters even survives to get to some point later in the game where they are better/nicer/less evil/more good is if I as the player engages in meta-gaming. And that's not how I should have to play my game.
Xzar and Montaron also were evil and didn't treat the good characters nicely. Shadowheart is on a mission from her goddess, why on earth should she open up to the character she met 1 day ago? There is nothing wrong in her attitude, imho, it's exactly how I would behave with a stranger in that situation.
Everyone seems to want characters who are a little nicer and less evil so new companions who will be added will likely lean towards good alignment, assuming Larian is listening to anybody.
I'm seeing that critique a lot too. While I'm sure that they'll add some characters to better fit with a good alignment, they may have also just overtuned the "evilness" of the current companions. It makes sense to me that they shouldnt adore your NPC out of the gate, but maybe Larian will dial back the antagonism from a 10 to a 7.5 or something.
We'll have to see. I have also heard that Larian intends for each character to have a meaningful arc, so the evil/neutral NPCs may seem abrasive now but get better later. We'll have to wait and see on that front.
Two points. First, yes "good" aligned companions are very badly needed. But it's not just that they be good-aligned. I want companions whose company in MY party I enjoy. So they need to not just be good-aligned but also nice/fun/non-abrasive/not annoying/good company. This, actually, is what is truly missing with this first crop of companions.
Second, the argument that the evil companions (this is especially the defense offered often for SH) may change over the course of their story arc. But what about until then? If I'm playing a good PC, and I ROLE-PLAY my good character properly, why would I give a chance to or wait on for change to happen with a companion who does something evil right now (or demands that the party should go with an evil action right now)? There is zero reason for me to allow Astarion's story arc to play out in the first place. The moment he puts a knife to my throat, he dies. That's what's reasonable. And he will then never get the chance to "change" or be "redeemed." Ditto for a cleric of Shar, a githyanki supremacist, and someone who made a pact with a devil for the most superficial of reasons. The only way any of these four characters even survives to get to some point later in the game where they are better/nicer/less evil/more good is if I as the player engages in meta-gaming. And that's not how I should have to play my game.
What about survival? If I was on a camping trip in my local hills, where a wild boar is the most dangerous thing you can meet (not to be underestimated...), I would pick my companions or decide to travel alone.
But if I had to travel through hostile environment, where I couldn't survive alone, even the paladins that I like to roleplay wouldn't die a useless death just to avoid company with someone who doesn't have a spotless reputation. To go separate paths if they don't change their attitude once we reach safer regions, of course.
Xzar and Montaron also were evil and didn't treat the good characters nicely. Shadowheart is on a mission from her goddess, why on earth should she open up to the character she met 1 day ago? There is nothing wrong in her attitude, imho, it's exactly how I would behave with a stranger in that situation.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
But you have much more choice from the start in BG1: you can easily get Khalid and Jaheira instead.
As for Larian wanting to focus on the evil playthrough first - maybe, fair enough, though looking at D:OS simply supposing this is the way they create characters is an equally fair take. I think squeezing even more characters into the starting experience won't be too good for pacing though.
Hex + Eldritch Blast is a pretty safe combo. Just be mindful that as long as you maintain concentration (which can be a full day) you can recast Hex as a bonus action (a separate spell appears for it in your spell quickslots).
I havent yet heard much about Concentration as a mechanic in BG3. Does it work similar to 5e? (You can only have 1 concentration spell up at a time, and taking damage causes the concentration check to see if you keep it?)
Yep. The only difference is that Hex seems to stay up for a full day even at low levels.
Xzar and Montaron also were evil and didn't treat the good characters nicely. Shadowheart is on a mission from her goddess, why on earth should she open up to the character she met 1 day ago? There is nothing wrong in her attitude, imho, it's exactly how I would behave with a stranger in that situation.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
But you have much more choice from the start in BG1: you can easily get Khalid and Jaheira instead.
Yes, exactly! In all of my MANY playthroughs of BG1, I have NEVER used Xzar or Monty, and have never even bothered to recruit them. Just the way in which they speak to me when first met is sufficient for me to say "get lost."
To go separate paths if they don't change their attitude once we reach safer regions, of course.
Okay, that's a fair argument. But this very point would be reached the moment we all left Hell and returned to the Realms. So you tell me: do any of their basic attitudes and/or nature (evil?) change by that point in the game?
Xzar and Montaron also were evil and didn't treat the good characters nicely. Shadowheart is on a mission from her goddess, why on earth should she open up to the character she met 1 day ago? There is nothing wrong in her attitude, imho, it's exactly how I would behave with a stranger in that situation.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
But you have much more choice from the start in BG1: you can easily get Khalid and Jaheira instead.
Yes, exactly! In all of my MANY playthroughs of BG1, I have NEVER used Xzar or Monty, and have never even bothered to recruit them. Just the way in which they speak to me when first met is sufficient for me to say "get lost."
To go separate paths if they don't change their attitude once we reach safer regions, of course.
Okay, that's a fair argument. But this very point would be reached the moment we all left Hell and returned to the Realms. So you tell me: do any of their basic attitudes and/or nature (evil?) change by that point in the game?
I don't know. I'm an observer collecting data and trying to keep an open mind about it, seeing if I want to buy the game or not. I will reserve judgement until I know a lot more. That's why I'm following this thread and asking questions.
I like to bring along Xzar and Monty when I play a character who is naïve and too trusting. Gorion's Ward can't take a look at their character sheet to check their alignment and their introductory interaction doesn't strike me as obviously evil, maybe neutral. Even Korgan can get along well with good people, at times.
I have a much harder time justifying the likes of Dorn for anyone but an unfeeling evil character.
But back to BG3, I agree that I can't really justify the likes of Astarion or Wyll in my party as a good character. My interaction with Astarion didn't descend into violence, so we were able to get along, but at the first mention of his being vampiric, or in any case where my PC can logically deduce this, he's out, and if it doesn't give me the option to kick him that will be disappointing.
Doing good is more challenging than not, but it's certainly possible to take a good attitude to most any situation i've seen so far. Sometimes you have a good reason to think that you have multiple choices that are both reasonable things a good person would do, and you have to make real moral choices.
I think both Shadowheart and GithGirl makes sense at the start. You tolerate them for the same reason they tolerate you, because you're stuck in this boat together and you all want to get to land. Astarion is the only one that is openly hostile which is the only thing that keeps him from also counting with him, but it's not like he keeps being hostile once he learns you aren't with the guys that kidnapped him and put a worm in his eye.
Anyway, I have a question. Does anyone know what the deal is with the junk-merchant child Mattis and the checks you can make during the interactions with him? I've both failed and succeeded them but I can't tell what or if anything is supposed to happen.
edit: and yes the part where you just keep bothering him about flipping coins is my favourite NPC interaction so far
@scriver You can notice that rings are not real and that they don't provide a needed result. But you will understand how much those rings are odd later when you explore the areas.
Xzar and Montaron also were evil and didn't treat the good characters nicely. Shadowheart is on a mission from her goddess, why on earth should she open up to the character she met 1 day ago? There is nothing wrong in her attitude, imho, it's exactly how I would behave with a stranger in that situation.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
But you have much more choice from the start in BG1: you can easily get Khalid and Jaheira instead.
Yes, exactly! In all of my MANY playthroughs of BG1, I have NEVER used Xzar or Monty, and have never even bothered to recruit them. Just the way in which they speak to me when first met is sufficient for me to say "get lost."
To go separate paths if they don't change their attitude once we reach safer regions, of course.
Okay, that's a fair argument. But this very point would be reached the moment we all left Hell and returned to the Realms. So you tell me: do any of their basic attitudes and/or nature (evil?) change by that point in the game?
Partial agree. I'd say this REALLY depends on rp options. There's a lot of ways to spin it in either direction. I don't know how much variation Larian may or may not add to motive, rather than just outcome. Most rp options come to what you want to do, and the not reasons for doing it. The only game I can recall seeing do this was Tyranny. Not only was there a good path, there several different motivations you're character could adopt for taking said path.
I think the best interaction I’ve had so far has got to be the one where you approach the Tiefling Bard lady (potential NPC?) who is singing and having issues with her lines. If like me you are a Ranger and have the speak to animals spell you can speak to the fury creatures that are near her. Their point of view on her singing was quite hilarious ?
I think the best interaction I’ve had so far has got to be the one where you approach the Tiefling Bard lady (potential NPC?) who is singing and having issues with her lines. If like me you are a Ranger and have the speak to animals spell you can speak to the fury creatures that are near her. Their point of view on her singing was quite hilarious ?
Yeah, that moment was very touching. In not many games NPCs sing to you and sing that beautifully.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
Ostensibly - this is a "you" issue. You dont want to consort with evil characters *at all*, you're the one making that determination. It affects how you enjoy the game. That's perfectly fine and you should play the game the way you want to, but if you self limit like that, then you should understand that it is you and not the game that forces that situation upon you.
This is similar to if you limited yourself to only play arcane spell casters, and then were upset that you didnt have as many class options as other people. It's unfortunate - but you're the one who has made that decision.
BG3 is going to have good, neutral and evil companions by release. If you cannot tolerate the idea of playing with evil companions that arent funny/non threatening, then you're self-selecting a smaller pool of companions.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
Ostensibly - this is a "you" issue. You dont want to consort with evil characters *at all*, you're the one making that determination. It affects how you enjoy the game. That's perfectly fine and you should play the game the way you want to, but if you self limit like that, then you should understand that it is you and not the game that forces that situation upon you.
This is similar to if you limited yourself to only play arcane spell casters, and then were upset that you didnt have as many class options as other people. It's unfortunate - but you're the one who has made that decision.
BG3 is going to have good, neutral and evil companions by release. If you cannot tolerate the idea of playing with evil companions that arent funny/non threatening, then you're self-selecting a smaller pool of companions.
Yep, time and time again I see this vein of criticism on here. That the game must accommodate some previously imposed limitation by the player.
@scriver You can notice that rings are not real and that they don't provide a needed result. But you will understand how much those rings are odd later when you explore the areas.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
Ostensibly - this is a "you" issue. You dont want to consort with evil characters *at all*, you're the one making that determination. It affects how you enjoy the game. That's perfectly fine and you should play the game the way you want to, but if you self limit like that, then you should understand that it is you and not the game that forces that situation upon you.
This is similar to if you limited yourself to only play arcane spell casters, and then were upset that you didnt have as many class options as other people. It's unfortunate - but you're the one who has made that decision.
BG3 is going to have good, neutral and evil companions by release. If you cannot tolerate the idea of playing with evil companions that arent funny/non threatening, then you're self-selecting a smaller pool of companions.
Not quite. This is a dramatic overstatement. Swen himself, and virtually every developer of cRPGs have said they always want to accommodate and facilitate a range of different ways for players to play their games. So a game should provide for someone to play the game in a reasonable manner and have an expectation that the game will provide for such a playthrough. This is D&D. And in D&D, playing the game as a strongly good-aligned PC is basic. Every D&D game can be expected to and should absolutely facilitate that. So no, I'm not looking for something that is even in the slightest bit unreasonable. And for you to try and say this is a "me" thing and I am "self limiting" is complete B.S.
Xzar and Montaron also were evil and didn't treat the good characters nicely. Shadowheart is on a mission from her goddess, why on earth should she open up to the character she met 1 day ago? There is nothing wrong in her attitude, imho, it's exactly how I would behave with a stranger in that situation.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
But you have much more choice from the start in BG1: you can easily get Khalid and Jaheira instead.
Yes, exactly! In all of my MANY playthroughs of BG1, I have NEVER used Xzar or Monty, and have never even bothered to recruit them. Just the way in which they speak to me when first met is sufficient for me to say "get lost."
To go separate paths if they don't change their attitude once we reach safer regions, of course.
Okay, that's a fair argument. But this very point would be reached the moment we all left Hell and returned to the Realms. So you tell me: do any of their basic attitudes and/or nature (evil?) change by that point in the game?
I don't know. I'm an observer collecting data and trying to keep an open mind about it, seeing if I want to buy the game or not. I will reserve judgement until I know a lot more. That's why I'm following this thread and asking questions.
Oh, okay. It seemed to me you were saying what you were saying based on your experiences playing the game.
But my point still stands, which is that even if some companions like the githyanki and the cleric you end up tolerating initially because you may need to be a team with them to survive, that rationale ends the moment the party returns to the Realms. There is absolutely no rationale for a good-aligned PC to tolerate them after that point in the game.
@kanisatha - For what it's worth, you return to the realms at the end of the prologue. It's the "we need to find a healer" situation that binds you together after that.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
Ostensibly - this is a "you" issue. You dont want to consort with evil characters *at all*, you're the one making that determination. It affects how you enjoy the game. That's perfectly fine and you should play the game the way you want to, but if you self limit like that, then you should understand that it is you and not the game that forces that situation upon you.
This is similar to if you limited yourself to only play arcane spell casters, and then were upset that you didnt have as many class options as other people. It's unfortunate - but you're the one who has made that decision.
BG3 is going to have good, neutral and evil companions by release. If you cannot tolerate the idea of playing with evil companions that arent funny/non threatening, then you're self-selecting a smaller pool of companions.
Not quite. This is a dramatic overstatement. Swen himself, and virtually every developer of cRPGs have said they always want to accommodate and facilitate a range of different ways for players to play their games. So a game should provide for someone to play the game in a reasonable manner and have an expectation that the game will provide for such a playthrough. This is D&D. And in D&D, playing the game as a strongly good-aligned PC is basic. Every D&D game can be expected to and should absolutely facilitate that. So no, I'm not looking for something that is even in the slightest bit unreasonable. And for you to try and say this is a "me" thing and I am "self limiting" is complete B.S.
No... deciding that you cannot abide an evil character under basically any circumstance is self limitation. The jig was up when you admitted you could never bring Xzar and Montaron along based on their introduction dialogues. That is self limitation.
Non self limiting play would be the ability or desire to play the game as a good aligned character in one playthrough, and an evil aligned character on the next. Or perhaps just the tolerance to see how the evil characters play out even when faced with a good aligned PC player (Or the opposite).
Larian has you covered. You're going to get a small subset of good aligned characters, and hopefully they'll fit your carefully curated requirements for a character you want to play with - but at the end of the day, it is your own opinions which prevent you from playing with a larger base of characters. That's on you, and not on Larian.
I'm cool with the merc system as a replacement for the origin characters. I will create my own backstory for them, just like I do when I run through IWD or Storm of Zehir. At least they give you that option, so you can run with the party of your choice and aren't restricted to characters you may not like or who don't fit a proper role in the party.
@kanisatha - For what it's worth, you return to the realms at the end of the prologue. It's the "we need to find a healer" situation that binds you together after that.
Yes I figured as much. But that just begs the question: Are we being railroaded by the game into keeping the company of companions we don't like? At some point, sooner rather than later, I ought to be able to say: "That's it. I'm done hanging out with you lot because I don't like any of you." It shouldn't just be a series of "You have to stay with them even if you don't want to, because otherwise you will not be able to advance the game" scenarios one after the other.
Comments
Enhance Ability is another staple 2nd level spell that clerics should have access to.
I wholehardly agree. I will probably reroll my character and choose something with more firepower. Besides I have created copy paste character to Shadowheart (just with different patron deity). I'm thinking of warlock.
I havent yet heard much about Concentration as a mechanic in BG3. Does it work similar to 5e? (You can only have 1 concentration spell up at a time, and taking damage causes the concentration check to see if you keep it?)
Second, the argument that the evil companions (this is especially the defense offered often for SH) may change over the course of their story arc. But what about until then? If I'm playing a good PC, and I ROLE-PLAY my good character properly, why would I give a chance to or wait on for change to happen with a companion who does something evil right now (or demands that the party should go with an evil action right now)? There is zero reason for me to allow Astarion's story arc to play out in the first place. The moment he puts a knife to my throat, he dies. That's what's reasonable. And he will then never get the chance to "change" or be "redeemed." Ditto for a cleric of Shar, a githyanki supremacist, and someone who made a pact with a devil for the most superficial of reasons. The only way any of these four characters even survives to get to some point later in the game where they are better/nicer/less evil/more good is if I as the player engages in meta-gaming. And that's not how I should have to play my game.
What about survival? If I was on a camping trip in my local hills, where a wild boar is the most dangerous thing you can meet (not to be underestimated...), I would pick my companions or decide to travel alone.
But if I had to travel through hostile environment, where I couldn't survive alone, even the paladins that I like to roleplay wouldn't die a useless death just to avoid company with someone who doesn't have a spotless reputation. To go separate paths if they don't change their attitude once we reach safer regions, of course.
I am not sure how that is supposed to adress the point of too many companions being either dark gray or straightout evil. Sure, Xzar and Montaron are evil.
But you have much more choice from the start in BG1: you can easily get Khalid and Jaheira instead.
As for Larian wanting to focus on the evil playthrough first - maybe, fair enough, though looking at D:OS simply supposing this is the way they create characters is an equally fair take. I think squeezing even more characters into the starting experience won't be too good for pacing though.
Yep. The only difference is that Hex seems to stay up for a full day even at low levels.
I don't know. I'm an observer collecting data and trying to keep an open mind about it, seeing if I want to buy the game or not. I will reserve judgement until I know a lot more. That's why I'm following this thread and asking questions.
I have a much harder time justifying the likes of Dorn for anyone but an unfeeling evil character.
But back to BG3, I agree that I can't really justify the likes of Astarion or Wyll in my party as a good character. My interaction with Astarion didn't descend into violence, so we were able to get along, but at the first mention of his being vampiric, or in any case where my PC can logically deduce this, he's out, and if it doesn't give me the option to kick him that will be disappointing.
Doing good is more challenging than not, but it's certainly possible to take a good attitude to most any situation i've seen so far. Sometimes you have a good reason to think that you have multiple choices that are both reasonable things a good person would do, and you have to make real moral choices.
Anyway, I have a question. Does anyone know what the deal is with the junk-merchant child Mattis and the checks you can make during the interactions with him? I've both failed and succeeded them but I can't tell what or if anything is supposed to happen.
edit: and yes the part where you just keep bothering him about flipping coins is my favourite NPC interaction so far
Partial agree. I'd say this REALLY depends on rp options. There's a lot of ways to spin it in either direction. I don't know how much variation Larian may or may not add to motive, rather than just outcome. Most rp options come to what you want to do, and the not reasons for doing it. The only game I can recall seeing do this was Tyranny. Not only was there a good path, there several different motivations you're character could adopt for taking said path.
Yeah, that moment was very touching. In not many games NPCs sing to you and sing that beautifully.
Ostensibly - this is a "you" issue. You dont want to consort with evil characters *at all*, you're the one making that determination. It affects how you enjoy the game. That's perfectly fine and you should play the game the way you want to, but if you self limit like that, then you should understand that it is you and not the game that forces that situation upon you.
This is similar to if you limited yourself to only play arcane spell casters, and then were upset that you didnt have as many class options as other people. It's unfortunate - but you're the one who has made that decision.
BG3 is going to have good, neutral and evil companions by release. If you cannot tolerate the idea of playing with evil companions that arent funny/non threatening, then you're self-selecting a smaller pool of companions.
Yep, time and time again I see this vein of criticism on here. That the game must accommodate some previously imposed limitation by the player.
Don't be so coy, I want to know
But my point still stands, which is that even if some companions like the githyanki and the cleric you end up tolerating initially because you may need to be a team with them to survive, that rationale ends the moment the party returns to the Realms. There is absolutely no rationale for a good-aligned PC to tolerate them after that point in the game.
No... deciding that you cannot abide an evil character under basically any circumstance is self limitation. The jig was up when you admitted you could never bring Xzar and Montaron along based on their introduction dialogues. That is self limitation.
Non self limiting play would be the ability or desire to play the game as a good aligned character in one playthrough, and an evil aligned character on the next. Or perhaps just the tolerance to see how the evil characters play out even when faced with a good aligned PC player (Or the opposite).
Larian has you covered. You're going to get a small subset of good aligned characters, and hopefully they'll fit your carefully curated requirements for a character you want to play with - but at the end of the day, it is your own opinions which prevent you from playing with a larger base of characters. That's on you, and not on Larian.