For anyone wondering about NPC ability scores, I just realized they used the Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) when making them. You redistribute those scores as you want and then add in any racial bonuses.
The humans have higher scores because they are getting +1 in every stat. So their worst stat is going to be 9.
For anyone wondering about NPC ability scores, I just realized they used the Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) when making them. You redistribute those scores as you want and then add in any racial bonuses.
The humans have higher scores because they are getting +1 in every stat. So their worst stat is going to be 9.
I might start using that as a house rule in BG. I have such a hard time trying to rp while also wanting to be as theoretically good as I could be.
*edit*
Those starts are terrible in 2e scaling. I might do that and bump them up by one across the board.
There is more going on in every square foot of this game from a table-top roleplaying element than in nearly everything ever released in the genre combined. I'm not sayin that makes it BETTER than the Infinity Engine, I am saying it's even more pure as a representation of a pen and paper session than even Temple of Elemental Evil was, edition preferences aside. You can't go one minute without some kind of stat check triggering.
Okay, that leads me to another question: Does anyone of you people who are playing the Early Access and commenting here not have a background of tabletop D&D? Unless that's a dangerous thing to admit (edited to add this: )
I would like to hear how that influences your view on BG3. I, for example, have never played tabletop D&D. Not because I chose to, but the opportunity just never came. Will that make it more unlikely to understand the system or get into the game?
Okay, that leads me to another question: Does anyone of you people who are playing the Early Access and commenting here not have a background of tabletop D&D? Unless that's a dangerous thing to admit (edited to add this: )
I would like to hear how that influences your view on BG3. I, for example, have never played tabletop D&D. Not because I chose to, but the opportunity just never came. Will that make it more unlikely to understand the system or get into the game?
I haven't. I learned DnD from ... BG 1 & 2. DnD hadn't been popular in Russia and in my family, and then I grew up and didn't have a chance to play, probably because of the lack of RL friends.
Okay, that leads me to another question: Does anyone of you people who are playing the Early Access and commenting here not have a background of tabletop D&D? Unless that's a dangerous thing to admit (edited to add this: )
I would like to hear how that influences your view on BG3. I, for example, have never played tabletop D&D. Not because I chose to, but the opportunity just never came. Will that make it more unlikely to understand the system or get into the game?
I play tabletop. Understanding the 5e rules certainly helps. But the game uses its own variations of these rules. The game also does go into a bit of a tutorial about how different things worked. Others can probably comment better on how good the tutorial is for that.
Also the level cap for the early access is level 4 and there are currently only 6 classes you can play. This keeps the game from getting too into the muck when it comes to understanding everything.
Fighter, ranger, and rogues (the easiest classes to understand) make up half of these. Rangers have even been reworked and simplified a bit. Try to hit things from behind or from elevation when you can and you'll do fine with them.
The next class is the cleric. It's the easiest "full caster" class to understand (a full caster class is a class that can eventually get up to level 9 spells). It's pretty forgiving because you can switch up your spells as needed. With 14 Dexterity, medium armor, and a shield you can have between 17-18 AC. That should be good enough at these levels to tank.
Then you have the wizard. The number of spell options you have is considerably more limited than pen and paper. Taking a cantrip like Ray of Frost or Firebolt should give you always at least something to do at range. You'll recognize some spells in the game like Magic Missile (which is a good choice). Wizards learn spells both from scrolls (for the expending the scroll and a cost of gold) and at level up.
The only class of these that can be hard to understand is the warlock. It can also not be very forgiving if you make poor choices (and the class at the moment has several bugs that make this even more the case). In my view its the hardest to understand class of the 6.
5E is wayyy more approachable and forgiving to classes than 2E. When push comes to shove even wizards can use a light crossbow and at these low levels the difference between a wizard and a fighter using a light crossbow (assuming they have the same stats) will be limited before level 4.
Edit: Unless the fighter takes the archery fighting style
Replaying the game, I had to come here just to vent.
God I the "What's better than a devil you don't know? A devil you do" line. It's so dumb and they deliver it's like it's supposed to be a lynchpin scene.
LITERALLY EVERYTHING IS BETTER THAN THAT RAPHAEL. LITERALLY. EVERYTHING.
Okay, that leads me to another question: Does anyone of you people who are playing the Early Access and commenting here not have a background of tabletop D&D? Unless that's a dangerous thing to admit (edited to add this: )
I would like to hear how that influences your view on BG3. I, for example, have never played tabletop D&D. Not because I chose to, but the opportunity just never came. Will that make it more unlikely to understand the system or get into the game?
I don't either. I played once a week for about two months with other people, the drive was too long, and it just doesn't jive with my personality. When I got a Greyhawk Box Set (that I'm 100% sure my great aunt got on discount at Woolworth's) for Christmas in the early 90s, I played it solo on my bedroom floor, until my mom swept it back into the box because I had been blocking access to my closet for a week. I didn't actually know it was D&D until I was in my 30s.
The point I am making is that environmental hazards, verticality, and the first legit implementation of actions like jump, push etc etc make this feel like an actual session come to life. I had a fight with some bandits yesterday, one of them was standing close to a ledge, and I simply SHOVED him to his death below. It was glorious. Especially in an isometric game.
Has anyone seen the AI use ‘shove off a cliff’ tactic yet?
They won't just shove you, some spells will fling you off, and yes enemies will deliberately use this tactic. It's really great tbh, fall damage was something you did have to consider in PnP.
Okay, that leads me to another question: Does anyone of you people who are playing the Early Access and commenting here not have a background of tabletop D&D? Unless that's a dangerous thing to admit (edited to add this: )
I haven't been playing the EA and I'm not familiar with 5E (in fact, a major reason why I'm eager to get BG3 is because I want to use it as an introduction to 5E rules), but I've been a tabletop player for a looooooong time (probably close to 30 years now!), and so a lot of the campiness that some people have been complaining about (there's this thread on Reddit about somebody who killed a Mind Flayer by throwing a Halfling at it) is something that I actually appreciate, because it's just the kind of random goofball strategy one of my players would come up with at the table.
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 ended up buying Tyranny based on a few of the comments you made about it and I have to say, this is a great setting. Being good is a challenge.
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 ended up buying Tyranny based on a few of the comments you made about it and I have to say, this is a great setting. Being good is a challenge.
Totally side tracking and hijacking here- yes Tyranny was a very needed breath of fresh air.
If everyone hasn't already you should send Larian your feedback (the launcher has a feedback button you can click). I did and thus have now thoroughly secured myself the title of "crazy dude who very politely sent us an insane amount of feedback"
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 ended up buying Tyranny based on a few of the comments you made about it and I have to say, this is a great setting. Being good is a challenge.
I'm glad you like what you see so far. I'm a big fan of the fantasy Roman Empire bronze age. There's a bunch of roleplay choices too.
So, I've finished the Early Access content and wanted to comment about the supposed "excessive" use of elemental surfaces and explosions. My party consisted of a ranger, SH, Gale and L. We rarely used any magics as we rested only once during the whole game (because I thought I shouldn't rest due to the tadpole thing), except for the basics and scrolls. Usually, I finished off enemies by finding a tactical spot (the higher the better) and then shooting them down (BG1 style). I didn't let goblins use any alchemic fire - these poor lads just didn't have a chance, I guess (except for the very first encounter in front of the Druidic Grove).
The use of elemental surfaces and explosions is SEVERELY toned down in BG3 if compared to DOS games where they are an essential part of the tactics. What can make people who don't play the game think that it is too much are the following factors:
- the very first area, a tutorial area in Avernus, has fire everywhere and has explosive items hanging and lying around. As this is the first area, most people at least watched YT videos. As this is the first area, most players mis-clicked and died in fire, or in an explosion. But this area is a big EXCEPTION. It's, like, 1 hour from 35 hours of Early Access.
I'd say the same can be said about the gore aspect. The tutorial has a lot it, but the rest of the game is quite different.
- a few "fun" videos created just for fun or to show that cheese is possible in this game. See
In no way videos like these represent the real gameplay. Sure, if you want cheese and you're familiar enough with the game, you can do that. Just as you can spam Cloudkill wand charges from out of the screen in BG2 if you know what to expect. This is not how the normal gameplay looks and this is not required to beat the game. I finished BG3 and never had a game over screen.
- the fact this is a "Larian game". If you have prejudice from the get-go, you expect the game to have everything you "hate" in their previous games, and if you find at least a few confirmations of your fears, you're all set with the appropriate expectations. The reality is this game is a lot more different from the previous Larian games. I know what I'm talking about because I finished both DOS 1 and DOS 2 on Tactician. Gameplay-side, DnD makes things really different: you can only commit one action during each turn, you can't first cast Rain, then cast some electricity spell, then regain all the action points and do it again-- during one turn.
Another subject I'd like to mention is again the subject of food. At the end of the game, I had 30+ potions of healing and 5000 gold. So I could very much use potions instead of food-- it (not using food) wouldn't have changed anything for easier fights. If anything, drinking a potion restoring 10 hp every round (or even 15 hp) is easier than eating a potato every round restoring only 1,2,3 or 4 hp. I would like to see recipes added to game, I'd like to cook my own food so that I could mix different buffs. The same thing PoE did, for example, where you could up your hitpoints from 200-ish to 400-ish just because of food.
One other thing (that still hasn't got a lot of traction on the sites other than the Codex) is the supposed "excessive" HP pools for enemies. First of all, the only time I noticed an enemy had really many hit points was the spider queen. All other opponents had a decent number of hit points and killing them was never a long process. Just manage your possibilities, explore areas from stealth first, find and shoot from good spots, and you'll be good. So, that spider queen. I was very cautious in the whole area and made so that I only had her and one other spider left on the map. Then I kept retreating from the initial zone she was at so that enemies had to chase me. It let me kill that other spider first, finish all small phase spiders the queen spawned, and fight her on the same ground without giving her any tactical advantage. The end result? I never felt she had too many hit points because tactically she had no chance. But the bigger hp pool showed me: "she is dangerous". I was very cautious because of that-- that indicator worked and made me play better than I could.
Elements -- did you ever try fighting with a torch? I did it once. It set my enemy that I hit on fire. That was nice, if a bit over the top. It also exploded coal all around said enemy and set my other melee character who was nextby on fire too. So I never used them again. It's not worth doing unless you've maybe got a single melee frontliner and everyone else in the back of I'm going to risk causing my own people damage every time.
Did you ever do the ruined village encounter? With the goblins on the roofs?
Explosions -- This is not just a tutorial level thing. There's explosive barrels littered all over game. There's even explosive mushrooms in the underdark.
If you're referring to my initial post about explosions though, that wasn't a complaint. That was a joke on my own expense for being dumb enough to throw an object full of explosive fluid at my own feet inside a ship on fire just to find out what it did.
Elements -- did you ever try fighting with a torch?
No, I haven't tried that. My ranger used a crossbow, L used a longsword, SH used a mace. Gale preferred cold attacks for a knockdown effect.
Did you ever do the ruined village encounter? With the goblins on the roofs?
Of course. I passed the Perception check and saw the enemies from afar. Then I went left, reached the roofs myself and kicked the goblins from there, shot them all down.
Explosive barrels littered all over game.
You have to just be careful, eg. in the Zhentarim cave. I saw the barrels, I went up the ladders to be far from them, so no explosions happened there. What is wrong in having the barrels there? That is the difficulty of the level so that you could think on how to save the person who is being interrogated there.
I'm not saying it's wrong -- it's a response to you saying that was only a trait of the prologue level. Because it's not. Literally every location has oil barrels, booze barrels, powder barrels, explosive mushrooms and whatnot. There's just as many of not more than in the prologue chapter in most combat-ecpecting areas.
I did the same in the roof encounter. Still ended up with fire and acid all over the place.
So, I've finished the Early Access content and wanted to comment about the supposed "excessive" use of elemental surfaces and explosions. My party consisted of a ranger, SH, Gale and L. We rarely used any magics as we rested only once during the whole game (because I thought I shouldn't rest due to the tadpole thing), except for the basics and scrolls. Usually, I finished off enemies by finding a tactical spot (the higher the better) and then shooting them down (BG1 style). I didn't let goblins use any alchemic fire - these poor lads just didn't have a chance, I guess (except for the very first encounter in front of the Druidic Grove).
This is a bit like saying that mage chess in BG 2 is not a thing, because you have your cloak of non-detection mage stab them in the back. It's good that there are ways to stop the enemies from turning everything into an elemental surface, but it does not change that it is something they actively try to do.
The use of elemental surfaces and explosions is SEVERELY toned down in BG3 if compared to DOS games where they are an essential part of the tactics.
Yes, I agree. What remains is still too much. Especially on low levels, and when caused by cantrips.
Another subject I'd like to mention is again the subject of food. At the end of the game, I had 30+ potions of healing and 5000 gold. So I could very much use potions instead of food-- it (not using food) wouldn't have changed anything for easier fights. If anything, drinking a potion restoring 10 hp every round (or even 15 hp) is easier than eating a potato every round restoring only 1,2,3 or 4 hp. I would like to see recipes added to game, I'd like to cook my own food so that I could mix different buffs. The same thing PoE did, for example, where you could up your hitpoints from 200-ish to 400-ish just because of food.
I am happy there are no buff foods - it is not a D&D thing, and with strong buffs like those (doubling HP) you either balance the game around them, so you have to use them, or using them trivialized the content. WoW Classic with the super-strong world buffs is a good example of how much they can affect balancing.
As for having lots of healing potions and gold - that seems like an potential economy issue. The economy in all BG games breaks at some point if you collect enough stuff, but not in the first chapter, even when knowing where to get some easy gold (like the Bassilus quest). And even if you consider the BG economy broken - that is from the perspective of a veteran - I remember being very short on gold on my first 1-2 playthroughs.
On the potatoes & other food: I think it is more of an easy access to out of combat healing issue, than an within-combat issue. Having unlimited out-of-combat healing messes up the balance between per-rest abilities and actions you can do at will or per encounter. I think all healing should have a substantial cost - be it time, spell slots or gold.
It's also absurd to me that you can even slightly increase your combat performance by eating potatoes while fighting. Trying to do so while being in a sword fight sounds like a good way to get killed. But that is a credibility issue, not a balance issue - except that it totally nerfs Goodberry.
One other thing (that still hasn't got a lot of traction on the sites other than the Codex) is the supposed "excessive" HP pools for enemies. First of all, the only time I noticed an enemy had really many hit points was the spider queen. All other opponents had a decent number of hit points and killing them was never a long process. Just manage your possibilities, explore areas from stealth first, find and shoot from good spots, and you'll be good. So, that spider queen. I was very cautious in the whole area and made so that I only had her and one other spider left on the map. Then I kept retreating from the initial zone she was at so that enemies had to chase me. It let me kill that other spider first, finish all small phase spiders the queen spawned, and fight her on the same ground without giving her any tactical advantage. The end result? I never felt she had too many hit points because tactically she had no chance. But the bigger hp pool showed me: "she is dangerous". I was very cautious because of that-- that indicator worked and made me play better than I could.
I didn't check that yet, but aren't enemies at the top end of the random hp ranges given in the sourcebooks? If so this is likely to become more of a problem in later chapters, when the range gets wider. But I am reserving judgment on that issue for now.
So, I've finished the Early Access content and wanted to comment about the supposed "excessive" use of elemental surfaces and explosions...
One thing I've appreciated about your reviews here is you seem to have no expectation of how a BG or D&D game ought to be, and seem to be willing to analyze the game in a more neutral fashion.
So, I've finished the Early Access content and wanted to comment about the supposed "excessive" use of elemental surfaces and explosions...
One thing I've appreciated about your reviews here is you seem to have no expectation of how a BG or D&D game ought to be, and seem to be willing to analyze the game in a more neutral fashion.
A sequel can't be evaluated in a vacuum, because it doesn't exist in one. Nobody talks about episodes 7-9 outside the context of their status as Star Wars films. Fallout 3, DA 2, etc.
However you feel about surface affects generally, can we all agree that that the hag lairs use of them is ridiculous? Trying to draw out the confrontation with the hag, by making you go through the exact same challenge over and over again (throwing something on the poison emitters) is not interesting. The whole place was basically otherwise empty (except for one like secret area).
Like it looks cool visually. But it feels very much like they were trying to draw out this confrontation (and not in an exciting way).
Another subject I'd like to mention is again the subject of food. At the end of the game, I had 30+ potions of healing and 5000 gold. So I could very much use potions instead of food-- it (not using food) wouldn't have changed anything for easier fights. If anything, drinking a potion restoring 10 hp every round (or even 15 hp) is easier than eating a potato every round restoring only 1,2,3 or 4 hp. I would like to see recipes added to game, I'd like to cook my own food so that I could mix different buffs. The same thing PoE did, for example, where you could up your hitpoints from 200-ish to 400-ish just because of food.
FYI. You may have more side quests you could do or things you could sell. I had about 10,000 gold by the end and that was after screwing up a sale and losing maybe 2000. There is the underdark to explore as well (if you missed it).
Edit: I also picked up like every item I could. So that could just be the difference.
So, I've finished the Early Access content and wanted to comment about the supposed "excessive" use of elemental surfaces and explosions...
One thing I've appreciated about your reviews here is you seem to have no expectation of how a BG or D&D game ought to be, and seem to be willing to analyze the game in a more neutral fashion.
A sequel can't be evaluated in a vacuum, because it doesn't exist in one. Nobody talks about episodes 7-9 outside the context of their status as Star Wars films. Fallout 3, DA 2, etc.
Sure it can. And people can actually judge some of the lesser Star Wars movies as mediocre without having to compare them to the top films in the series. Obviously people frequently make comparisons, but that doesn't at all have to be your criteria on whether you want to watch those movies. I've never watched Episode II for example, not because people talk about how much worse it is than ESB or New Hope, but because people say it's a straight up bad movie on its own.
Fallout 3 is another solid example imo. It can be compared to its predecessors but no one is obligated to have to do that to judge whether it's a game they'll enjoy. And many gamers did play it, mostly ignorant of the older games.
However you feel about surface affects generally, can we all agree that that the hag lairs use of them is ridiculous? Trying to draw out the confrontation with the hag, by making you go through the exact same challenge over and over again (throwing something on the poison emitters) is not interesting. The whole place was basically otherwise empty (except for one like secret area).
Like it looks cool visually. But it feels very much like they were trying to draw out this confrontation (and not in an exciting way).
Interesting. I didn't throw anything on those poison emitters there. What I did in the area was: using stealth not to fight poor souls who were controlled by her, using jumps in order not to get into poison clouds, and then I had to use Feather fall for the last jump.
Another subject I'd like to mention is again the subject of food. At the end of the game, I had 30+ potions of healing and 5000 gold. So I could very much use potions instead of food-- it (not using food) wouldn't have changed anything for easier fights. If anything, drinking a potion restoring 10 hp every round (or even 15 hp) is easier than eating a potato every round restoring only 1,2,3 or 4 hp. I would like to see recipes added to game, I'd like to cook my own food so that I could mix different buffs. The same thing PoE did, for example, where you could up your hitpoints from 200-ish to 400-ish just because of food.
FYI. You may have more side quests you could do or things you could sell. I had about 10,000 gold by the end and that was after screwing up a sale and losing maybe 2000. There is the underdark to explore as well (if you missed it).
Edit: I also picked up like every item I could. So that could just be the difference.
Yeah, I too picked up every item and came back to sell it. 5k is because I also bought items. I don't think there is a problem with the economy in the game - in the normal game, the next step would be to go and buy items in Baldur's Gate (eg. in Sorcerer's Sundries). The point I was trying to make is not that I had too much spare gold but that I had enough gold to buy potions if I needed them.
Comments
The humans have higher scores because they are getting +1 in every stat. So their worst stat is going to be 9.
I might start using that as a house rule in BG. I have such a hard time trying to rp while also wanting to be as theoretically good as I could be.
*edit*
Those starts are terrible in 2e scaling. I might do that and bump them up by one across the board.
Edit: Nevermind I remembered I had a save I could look it up with. Turns out you can't.
I would like to hear how that influences your view on BG3. I, for example, have never played tabletop D&D. Not because I chose to, but the opportunity just never came. Will that make it more unlikely to understand the system or get into the game?
I haven't. I learned DnD from ... BG 1 & 2. DnD hadn't been popular in Russia and in my family, and then I grew up and didn't have a chance to play, probably because of the lack of RL friends.
I play tabletop. Understanding the 5e rules certainly helps. But the game uses its own variations of these rules. The game also does go into a bit of a tutorial about how different things worked. Others can probably comment better on how good the tutorial is for that.
Also the level cap for the early access is level 4 and there are currently only 6 classes you can play. This keeps the game from getting too into the muck when it comes to understanding everything.
Fighter, ranger, and rogues (the easiest classes to understand) make up half of these. Rangers have even been reworked and simplified a bit. Try to hit things from behind or from elevation when you can and you'll do fine with them.
The next class is the cleric. It's the easiest "full caster" class to understand (a full caster class is a class that can eventually get up to level 9 spells). It's pretty forgiving because you can switch up your spells as needed. With 14 Dexterity, medium armor, and a shield you can have between 17-18 AC. That should be good enough at these levels to tank.
Then you have the wizard. The number of spell options you have is considerably more limited than pen and paper. Taking a cantrip like Ray of Frost or Firebolt should give you always at least something to do at range. You'll recognize some spells in the game like Magic Missile (which is a good choice). Wizards learn spells both from scrolls (for the expending the scroll and a cost of gold) and at level up.
The only class of these that can be hard to understand is the warlock. It can also not be very forgiving if you make poor choices (and the class at the moment has several bugs that make this even more the case). In my view its the hardest to understand class of the 6.
5E is wayyy more approachable and forgiving to classes than 2E. When push comes to shove even wizards can use a light crossbow and at these low levels the difference between a wizard and a fighter using a light crossbow (assuming they have the same stats) will be limited before level 4.
Edit: Unless the fighter takes the archery fighting style
God I the "What's better than a devil you don't know? A devil you do" line. It's so dumb and they deliver it's like it's supposed to be a lynchpin scene.
LITERALLY EVERYTHING IS BETTER THAN THAT RAPHAEL. LITERALLY. EVERYTHING.
I don't either. I played once a week for about two months with other people, the drive was too long, and it just doesn't jive with my personality. When I got a Greyhawk Box Set (that I'm 100% sure my great aunt got on discount at Woolworth's) for Christmas in the early 90s, I played it solo on my bedroom floor, until my mom swept it back into the box because I had been blocking access to my closet for a week. I didn't actually know it was D&D until I was in my 30s.
The point I am making is that environmental hazards, verticality, and the first legit implementation of actions like jump, push etc etc make this feel like an actual session come to life. I had a fight with some bandits yesterday, one of them was standing close to a ledge, and I simply SHOVED him to his death below. It was glorious. Especially in an isometric game.
They won't just shove you, some spells will fling you off, and yes enemies will deliberately use this tactic. It's really great tbh, fall damage was something you did have to consider in PnP.
I haven't been playing the EA and I'm not familiar with 5E (in fact, a major reason why I'm eager to get BG3 is because I want to use it as an introduction to 5E rules), but I've been a tabletop player for a looooooong time (probably close to 30 years now!), and so a lot of the campiness that some people have been complaining about (there's this thread on Reddit about somebody who killed a Mind Flayer by throwing a Halfling at it) is something that I actually appreciate, because it's just the kind of random goofball strategy one of my players would come up with at the table.
I'm going to spoiler tag this only because you have to go pretty far into the game to get it.
I ended up buying Tyranny based on a few of the comments you made about it and I have to say, this is a great setting. Being good is a challenge.
Totally side tracking and hijacking here- yes Tyranny was a very needed breath of fresh air.
(I can only assume anyways
I'm glad you like what you see so far. I'm a big fan of the fantasy Roman Empire bronze age. There's a bunch of roleplay choices too.
The use of elemental surfaces and explosions is SEVERELY toned down in BG3 if compared to DOS games where they are an essential part of the tactics. What can make people who don't play the game think that it is too much are the following factors:
- the very first area, a tutorial area in Avernus, has fire everywhere and has explosive items hanging and lying around. As this is the first area, most people at least watched YT videos. As this is the first area, most players mis-clicked and died in fire, or in an explosion. But this area is a big EXCEPTION. It's, like, 1 hour from 35 hours of Early Access.
I'd say the same can be said about the gore aspect. The tutorial has a lot it, but the rest of the game is quite different.
- a few "fun" videos created just for fun or to show that cheese is possible in this game. See
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/jdzwco/wyvern_poison_is_op_killing_all_goblin_camp/
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/jehms8/check_and_mate_commander_zhalk_and_friends/
In no way videos like these represent the real gameplay. Sure, if you want cheese and you're familiar enough with the game, you can do that. Just as you can spam Cloudkill wand charges from out of the screen in BG2 if you know what to expect. This is not how the normal gameplay looks and this is not required to beat the game. I finished BG3 and never had a game over screen.
- the fact this is a "Larian game". If you have prejudice from the get-go, you expect the game to have everything you "hate" in their previous games, and if you find at least a few confirmations of your fears, you're all set with the appropriate expectations. The reality is this game is a lot more different from the previous Larian games. I know what I'm talking about because I finished both DOS 1 and DOS 2 on Tactician. Gameplay-side, DnD makes things really different: you can only commit one action during each turn, you can't first cast Rain, then cast some electricity spell, then regain all the action points and do it again-- during one turn.
Another subject I'd like to mention is again the subject of food. At the end of the game, I had 30+ potions of healing and 5000 gold. So I could very much use potions instead of food-- it (not using food) wouldn't have changed anything for easier fights. If anything, drinking a potion restoring 10 hp every round (or even 15 hp) is easier than eating a potato every round restoring only 1,2,3 or 4 hp. I would like to see recipes added to game, I'd like to cook my own food so that I could mix different buffs. The same thing PoE did, for example, where you could up your hitpoints from 200-ish to 400-ish just because of food.
One other thing (that still hasn't got a lot of traction on the sites other than the Codex) is the supposed "excessive" HP pools for enemies. First of all, the only time I noticed an enemy had really many hit points was the spider queen. All other opponents had a decent number of hit points and killing them was never a long process. Just manage your possibilities, explore areas from stealth first, find and shoot from good spots, and you'll be good. So, that spider queen. I was very cautious in the whole area and made so that I only had her and one other spider left on the map. Then I kept retreating from the initial zone she was at so that enemies had to chase me. It let me kill that other spider first, finish all small phase spiders the queen spawned, and fight her on the same ground without giving her any tactical advantage. The end result? I never felt she had too many hit points because tactically she had no chance. But the bigger hp pool showed me: "she is dangerous". I was very cautious because of that-- that indicator worked and made me play better than I could.
Did you ever do the ruined village encounter? With the goblins on the roofs?
Explosions -- This is not just a tutorial level thing. There's explosive barrels littered all over game. There's even explosive mushrooms in the underdark.
If you're referring to my initial post about explosions though, that wasn't a complaint. That was a joke on my own expense for being dumb enough to throw an object full of explosive fluid at my own feet inside a ship on fire just to find out what it did.
No, I haven't tried that. My ranger used a crossbow, L used a longsword, SH used a mace. Gale preferred cold attacks for a knockdown effect.
Did you ever do the ruined village encounter? With the goblins on the roofs?
Of course. I passed the Perception check and saw the enemies from afar. Then I went left, reached the roofs myself and kicked the goblins from there, shot them all down.
Explosive barrels littered all over game.
You have to just be careful, eg. in the Zhentarim cave. I saw the barrels, I went up the ladders to be far from them, so no explosions happened there. What is wrong in having the barrels there? That is the difficulty of the level so that you could think on how to save the person who is being interrogated there.
I did the same in the roof encounter. Still ended up with fire and acid all over the place.
This is a bit like saying that mage chess in BG 2 is not a thing, because you have your cloak of non-detection mage stab them in the back. It's good that there are ways to stop the enemies from turning everything into an elemental surface, but it does not change that it is something they actively try to do.
Yes, I agree. What remains is still too much. Especially on low levels, and when caused by cantrips.
I am happy there are no buff foods - it is not a D&D thing, and with strong buffs like those (doubling HP) you either balance the game around them, so you have to use them, or using them trivialized the content. WoW Classic with the super-strong world buffs is a good example of how much they can affect balancing.
As for having lots of healing potions and gold - that seems like an potential economy issue. The economy in all BG games breaks at some point if you collect enough stuff, but not in the first chapter, even when knowing where to get some easy gold (like the Bassilus quest). And even if you consider the BG economy broken - that is from the perspective of a veteran - I remember being very short on gold on my first 1-2 playthroughs.
On the potatoes & other food: I think it is more of an easy access to out of combat healing issue, than an within-combat issue. Having unlimited out-of-combat healing messes up the balance between per-rest abilities and actions you can do at will or per encounter. I think all healing should have a substantial cost - be it time, spell slots or gold.
It's also absurd to me that you can even slightly increase your combat performance by eating potatoes while fighting. Trying to do so while being in a sword fight sounds like a good way to get killed. But that is a credibility issue, not a balance issue - except that it totally nerfs Goodberry.
I didn't check that yet, but aren't enemies at the top end of the random hp ranges given in the sourcebooks? If so this is likely to become more of a problem in later chapters, when the range gets wider. But I am reserving judgment on that issue for now.
One thing I've appreciated about your reviews here is you seem to have no expectation of how a BG or D&D game ought to be, and seem to be willing to analyze the game in a more neutral fashion.
A sequel can't be evaluated in a vacuum, because it doesn't exist in one. Nobody talks about episodes 7-9 outside the context of their status as Star Wars films. Fallout 3, DA 2, etc.
Like it looks cool visually. But it feels very much like they were trying to draw out this confrontation (and not in an exciting way).
FYI. You may have more side quests you could do or things you could sell. I had about 10,000 gold by the end and that was after screwing up a sale and losing maybe 2000. There is the underdark to explore as well (if you missed it).
Edit: I also picked up like every item I could. So that could just be the difference.
Sure it can. And people can actually judge some of the lesser Star Wars movies as mediocre without having to compare them to the top films in the series. Obviously people frequently make comparisons, but that doesn't at all have to be your criteria on whether you want to watch those movies. I've never watched Episode II for example, not because people talk about how much worse it is than ESB or New Hope, but because people say it's a straight up bad movie on its own.
Fallout 3 is another solid example imo. It can be compared to its predecessors but no one is obligated to have to do that to judge whether it's a game they'll enjoy. And many gamers did play it, mostly ignorant of the older games.
Interesting. I didn't throw anything on those poison emitters there. What I did in the area was: using stealth not to fight poor souls who were controlled by her, using jumps in order not to get into poison clouds, and then I had to use Feather fall for the last jump.
Yeah, I too picked up every item and came back to sell it. 5k is because I also bought items.