Skip to content

SPOILERS: Spoil Away (There Be BG3 Spoilers Here Yarrr)

123468

Comments

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    kanisatha wrote: »
    scriver wrote: »
    @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.

    Not only do you not have to travel with them, you can attack them.
    ThacoBellJuliusBorisovkanisathaArvia
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    I mean you don't have to travel with them but because there are currently so few NPCs you are definitely pushed towards not doing that. Just because of the way the action economy works in 5E.

    We'll see what happens with the finished product though.
    kanisathaArvia
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    kanisatha wrote: »
    scriver wrote: »
    @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.

    But... this isn't true? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, afaik, it's just an inaccurate summary of what we've seen so far from the gameplay. You can reject the addition of every single companion you want, just like you can reject Xzar and Montaron. Yes, that comes at a cost. As did rejecting those two companions. It seems like folks have a tireless energy to twist some tiny true fact about the game into a false characterization of how the game works.

    Like why write this post? AFAIK It's patently false that you cannot reject the inclusion of companions from virtually every playthrough we've witnessed. And moreover the previous OS titles were all about allowing you to play with or without companions.
    modestvoltabyrne20
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,295
    kanisatha wrote: »
    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.

    While never doing an evil playthrough is self-limited we don't really have much evidence for the last paragraph in your sentence - and this is what is annoying some people. Creating these types of follow voiced origin NPCs takes a lot of resources which tends to limit the number. There is little evidence that you will can really fill a party with good characters if that is what youw want.
    kanisathaBelgarathMTHThacoBell
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited October 2020
    I also want to add since I'm not sure if it's been made clear, that of the five companions of the chapter, both Gale and Wyl are both definitely Good guys (and both very boisterous about it). I mean I understand that for Wyl being a devil pacter is not a Good thing but a Good PC would not have any trouble at all getting along with his goals and aims as far as I have seen so far. He's the driving character behind the "Good Alignment plotline option" and his motivation seems to just be "helping people is the right thing to do".

    As for the other three, while Astarion and GithGirl (I am never going to learn her name) are both very on-the-surface obviously evil (in different ways) but Shadowheart is a much more subtle kind of evil. Well, subtle might be a bit too far, but you know, low profile. She doesn't like showcasing evil the way the other two does. She's the keep to yourself and mind your own business kind of evil. She doesn't go around and trumpet out her worship of Shar and you basically have to pry it out of her. If we strip away what we know of her from the meta-telling of her story and only go by how she acts in-game she'd fit in Good aligned party too, though you'd probably end up getting relationship downvotes from her.

    Honestly so far my main beef with her is being a Trickery cleric without a decent Dex bonus for lockpicking needs and deeds.
    Adam_en_tiumArviaDinoDin
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited October 2020
    scriver wrote: »

    Honestly so far my main beef with her is being a Trickery cleric without a decent Dex bonus for lockpicking needs and deeds.

    I assume it's because they wanted someone who could serve as an alternative tank (thanks to her medium armor and shield proficiency) and strength based character. An alternative to the gith I mean. At least for early access.

    Since she's a half elf she doesn't necessarily have elven weapon proficiencies (I'd have to check but I assume she doesn't). In the absence of them the best weapon she could wield in melee using dexterity would be a dagger.

    So they prioitized strength so that she could effectively use a mace (a strength based weapon). You also can use crushing weapons in the game to break down certain things. So having a party member who is effectively at wielding them is important.
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I mean, in DnD terms, a tank definitely benefits from a high Dex, so... ;)
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited October 2020
    scriver wrote: »

    I mean, in DnD terms, a tank definitely benefits from a high Dex, so... ;)

    I mean it does but even with her sucky dexterity her AC is better than Wyll's, is comparable to Gale's when mage armor is active (but she has more health), and looks to be on par with Astarion (certainly by level 4 anyways).

    It could also be that they wanted her to have higher strength over dexterity because of the ability to switch characters in dialog. Just so you'd have someone better suited for strength choices.

    Edit: Also I assume they were using point buy when they made these characters. So giving her both good dexterity and strength would require them to reduce her scores elsewhere.
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited October 2020
    The fact that I can't give a widow who wants to resurrect her husband 1000 gold to get a resurrection spell cast on him is kind of annoying. I've got 8000 gold lady. Just take some, join the tieflings whose butts I just saved (who are travelling to a major city), and cart him off to the biggest temple of Tyr or Lathander you can find.
    ThacoBellWarChiefZeke
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited October 2020
    I understand that for Wyl being a devil pacter is not a Good thing

    I can't stand this about 5e and I was hoping we wouldn't see characters who go out of their way to highlight the negatives of the system. This would have never flew in earlier editions. Ammon Jerro made pacts with demons for nothing but good, unselfish reasons and he was still Neutral Evil. Bargaining yourself to evil incarnate should always cause an alignment shift. I don't care how good he claims himself to be, my character ain't gonna associate with someone who makes deals with demons for power.

    It's a consequence of doing away with alignment entirely. Now you can kick puppies and bargain with demons and call yourself good ?

    megamike15ThacoBellZaxares
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited October 2020
    Ammar wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    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.

    While never doing an evil playthrough is self-limited we don't really have much evidence for the last paragraph in your sentence - and this is what is annoying some people. Creating these types of follow voiced origin NPCs takes a lot of resources which tends to limit the number. There is little evidence that you will can really fill a party with good characters if that is what youw want.


    I believe they've stated that they're only releasing with the Neutral and Evil characters now because those are the ones that need more work. That clearly implies an intent to have non evil/neutral characters that will be available for playing in the future.

    How many is absolutely up for debate, but the idea that there will be no good characters is counter intuitive to what we know about these kinds of games and lacks evidence to support it as a claim.

    In fact - I've done the leg work of finding the evidence for you:



    At around the 46:40 mark, Swen starts talking, and eventually directly and concretely says that more companions are coming, and that good companions are coming.
    byrne20ArviaJuliusBorisovelminster
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    I like the Spelljammer references though, not gonna lie. The references to Realmspace, the ships of the Githyanki, etc. The Nautiloid was too soon but other than that, it's a plus for the setting. Spelljammer is good stuff all around.
    ThacoBellJuliusBorisov
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I can't fight goblins without failing the Auntie Ethel questline :(
    elminster
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited October 2020
    Also worth noting with Shadowheart that you could actually take the heavily armored feat. She would then have both enough strength and proficiency to use heavy armor. That was probably a deliberate decision on their part.
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    Sacred Flame really sucks in this game. I'll use it and it says its got a 65% chance of working and then it won't work. If Shadowheart had Toll the Dead instead it would be better (its a wisdom save vs a dexterity save for Sacred Flame). It also would fit more I think.
    WarChiefZeke
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    elminster wrote: »
    Sacred Flame really sucks in this game. I'll use it and it says its got a 65% chance of working and then it won't work. If Shadowheart had Toll the Dead instead it would be better (its a wisdom save vs a dexterity save for Sacred Flame). It also would fit more I think.

    It must be bugged. I'm not sure if it has ever worked for me yet. Maybe once but it's definitely no 60%.
    elminster
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited October 2020
    Yea. And like if Firebolt or Ray of Frost fail at least they might leave some kind of ground effect.

    It doesn't even do good damage either. If you have 14 dexterity and fight with a dagger that means you are dealing 1d4+2 damage, or 3-6 damage. So a 1d8 (average of 4.5 damage) is actually not any better than using a dagger with even with a decent amount of dexterity.

    Clerics also should have proficiency with shortbows (which counts as a simple weapon). So even for range its not great.

    The only thing that might make it worth it is it being radiant damage (for undead). But that won't apply in the case of most enemies. Maybe once it gets to level 5 and gets an upgrade it will be more worth it. But at least in the EA it really kind of sucks.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    People are already taking a look under the hood and learning more what is coming later on. I won't reveal any of it here, but beware the rest of the net.
    elminster
  • modestvoltamodestvolta Member Posts: 107

    I believe they've stated that they're only releasing with the Neutral and Evil characters now because those are the ones that need more work. That clearly implies an intent to have non evil/neutral characters that will be available for playing in the future.

    How many is absolutely up for debate, but the idea that there will be no good characters is counter intuitive to what we know about these kinds of games and lacks evidence to support it as a claim.

    In fact - I've done the leg work of finding the evidence for you:



    At around the 46:40 mark, Swen starts talking, and eventually directly and concretely says that more companions are coming, and that good companions are coming.

    I'm so glad someone found this. I was going to mention it but couldn't quite find the quotes I wanted. Hopefully this puts the dead horse everyone's been beating out its misery.
    BallpointManJuliusBorisovArvia
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    Hopefully this puts the dead horse everyone's been beating out its misery.
    Not in the least, because I'll only believe it when I see those other companions in the game. Larian's unnecessary secrecy about how many and what kind of companions the game will have has been one of their worst actions so far.
    WarChiefZeke
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hopefully this puts the dead horse everyone's been beating out its misery.
    Not in the least, because I'll only believe it when I see those other companions in the game. Larian's unnecessary secrecy about how many and what kind of companions the game will have has been one of their worst actions so far.

    Yes. Let us ignore the lead developer of the game specifically saying that Good characters are going to be in the game so we can continue to hang onto the belief that nothing we want will be in the game.

    Let me guess "It is 100% eminently reasonable to assume..."

    Face it. There are going to be good Companions in the game. I'm sure once they're announced, you will be able to find something you hate about them too.
    DinoDinbyrne20Adam_en_tiumJuliusBorisov
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I understand that for Wyl being a devil pacter is not a Good thing

    I can't stand this about 5e and I was hoping we wouldn't see characters who go out of their way to highlight the negatives of the system. This would have never flew in earlier editions. Ammon Jerro made pacts with demons for nothing but good, unselfish reasons and he was still Neutral Evil. Bargaining yourself to evil incarnate should always cause an alignment shift. I don't care how good he claims himself to be, my character ain't gonna associate with someone who makes deals with demons for power.

    It's a consequence of doing away with alignment entirely. Now you can kick puppies and bargain with demons and call yourself good ?

    Well I just got to the part where more of Wyl's backstory is revealed and if it helps you view him as good guy I can add that he feels he was tricked into the pact and that his questline appears to be about getting out of the pact "Because no peace can ever be achieved with the aid of the Hells".

    I also disagree strongly with the idea that a person who pacts himself to Evil with the aims of doing good would suddenly stop wanting to do good regardless of whether he has a alignment shift to Evil because of it or not, which seems to be the gist of what you are saying to me. Alignments are defined by your actions, not what defines your action. Yes, a wedlock of previous editions would shift his alignment to Evil because of the pact, but they certainly wouldn't stop trying to do good or think of themselves as good people.

    (Now, a decent story could have the Devil corrupt those wishes to do good into unwittingly doing evil, or having his deeds have anti-good consequences whenever he tries to do good, but that is beyond the question)
    Arviakanisatha
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited October 2020
    and that his questline appears to be about getting out of the pact "Because no peace can ever be achieved with the aid of the Hells".

    Well, in that case, maybe I will check him out.

    I dislike 5e warlocks, their mechanics, the way pacts work, etc. I think even 4e did it better. I just think what the powers who grant you warlock status get out of the pact should be much more defined. It's silly, in my opinion, for demons and evil supernatural beings to be giving out power to pathetic mortals willy-nilly. They have to benefit some way for me to really believe it. Do demons get your soul? It would seem to be the only thing that makes sense. Or the soul of another? If it isn't one of those, why would any demon grant you that power? Especially against your will?

    But if he is actually trying to escape it I can believe him to be good.
    elminsterArviakanisathaThacoBell
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,325
    Backtracking a bit here, but I'm quite curious as to the news that apparently you can specify your "partner" as part of character creation. (i.e. who and what your character is attracted to.) It makes me wonder if the game's romances might wind up to be just some generic NPC that precisely matches your "tastes" that you pick up at a certain point in the game, rather than a specific companion who you develop bonds with over the course of your adventures. Anybody heard anything more about this?
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited October 2020
    Zaxares wrote: »
    Backtracking a bit here, but I'm quite curious as to the news that apparently you can specify your "partner" as part of character creation. (i.e. who and what your character is attracted to.) It makes me wonder if the game's romances might wind up to be just some generic NPC that precisely matches your "tastes" that you pick up at a certain point in the game, rather than a specific companion who you develop bonds with over the course of your adventures. Anybody heard anything more about this?

    If you really wanna know.
    They are not your "lover" so much as a representation of the mind flayer parasite trying to get you to give into it. If you use your powers too much and rest a lot it will come to you.
    kanisathaelminsterZaxares
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,325
    If you really wanna know.

    Oho! That's actually pretty clever. I have to give Larian kudos for that idea. XD I was just a bit worried by that news because I believe a similar system existed in other RPGs like Fable (where your romance partner is basically just someone you can grab off the street and marry).
    WarChiefZeke
Sign In or Register to comment.