Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Baldur's Gate III released into Early Access

1102103105107108118

Comments

  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited October 2020
    That´s true in comparison, but I also have to point out that if you have a party with builds like a halforc paladin with crit (almost)x3 and smite, GWM/sharpshooter fighters, elves with elven accuracy and lucky, Sorc2/Figh2/Warlck2, etc you need creatures with +100hp or it´s going to be a one-round-kill fest.
    As @BallpointMan said, you need that for mid-level modules and up above. In TT, I mean.


    Ru1D5bQ.png

    HP bloat is the most hated homebew rule made by larian.

    sources

    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf_zTtm53C_D4DgXm8PmuhGl3qdH_eKI0I_zM01Me0q_2q5Dg/viewanalytics

    https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=712680&page=1

    More than a third of players rated it with the WORST possible rating.

    One thing that I hate on most non faitfhful D&D adaptations is the hp bloat. On DDO, I have a epic level warlock but play on epic levels where every mob require dozens of EB to die is so boring. I like kill & die fast. The unique thing worse than HP bloat is cooldowns.

    "But missing is not fun"

    Says who? Also, this mindset assumes that everyone is playing as a human fighter like an jrpg. On the stream that I watched before deciding to buy the game, most people was asking for warlock over and over and having to hit an enemy 20 times with eldritch blast is not fun or engaging. Is more easy to just nerf enemy AC on the beginning and give a "non increased hit chance" option.


    Honestly, I wouldn´t have touched it. I found out (personal opinion based on my scarce gameplay) that this set has created an unbalance.

    Lae´zel and my elven ranger seem to hit consistently in the 85%-100% all the time with their attacks.
    It´s even more steep in the case of the elven ranger with archery style. It´s really easy to get 90-100 hit% every turn using high ground or advantage shooting from a hiding position (hide is a bonus action, so you can hide every turn after shooting and snipe the enemies from 120ft away). And you even have bless, guidance, invoke duplicity and many more buffs. I do not think I´ll need elven accuracy feat later because that would be overkill.
    Add to that the +1d4 fire you get for free if you have a candle in your inventory you used firebolt or simply have a candelabra or fire surface nearby.

    But all the spells that require a saving throw hits consistently in a 50-70% basis (Acid burst, sacred flame, etc). That would be ok for debuff spells like hold person, charm or Tasha´s HL but it´s the same for damaging spells. I found out that Gale and Shadowheart are more effective attacking than casting spells (that require a save).

    I think they made the enemies easier to hit but they still have roughly the same saving throws, so right now using spells with a saving throw that only deal damage to one enemy it´s a waste of a spell slot because you miss a lot in comparison with simply hit the enemy.

    Maybe it´s just me because I´m used to overcoming some enemies tougher to hit by targeting their low saves with magic, but in BG3 it seems it´s not needed because well, you just hit them most of the time.






    Post edited by PsicoVic on
    Adam_en_tiumscriverSjerrie
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,214
    I personally have not played EA either, but I would also vote against the HP bloat because in other RPGs, giving monsters bigger HP pools tends to seriously mess with the appeal of being a "Blaster"-style mage (which is my preferred playstyle), as Blaster-types specialize in taking down large numbers of weak foes quickly before they can overwhelm the party. Giving monsters much bigger health pools (or constantly respawning waves if your AoE spells are a diminishing resource like in D&D) neuters this playstyle considerably and tips game balance much more strongly towards single-attack, but extremely hard-hitting, characters like min-maxed Fighters or Rogues who can just clean up conga-lines of foes without breaking a sweat.

    scriverThacoBellkanisathaSjerrie
  • byrne20byrne20 Member Posts: 499
    I must admit that I also am not keen on the HP bloat. I am very new to 5th edition so I wasn’t sure if this was a legit thing or not but it was making me jealous when I examined a character that is also level 4 and they have almost double my hp. Kinda feels a bit unfair but people are saying this is balanced by them having a lower AC? I would still rather it was more consistent. Otherwise my already struggling brain is going to have issues learning this new rule set lol

    I already am finding the HP rises by level hard to understand 😂 I will learn it all eventually but it’s like trying to teach an old dog new tricks...

    scriver
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,071
    I think this ties in a bit to the presentation of misses. One of the things I'm hoping they'll improve on is missing animations. Right now the attacking characters animate a usual attack and if they miss the defender just does a dodgy blink-out-of-the-way animation with a swooshy sound effect. So if you miss a lot you don't just not get the satisfaction of seeing the hurty numbers over the foe's head but it will also look very uninteresting -- just a bunch of swooshy dodges upon swooshy dodges.

    If they made animations more interesting they'd also make combat feel more cinematic (and this is something that's been dear to my heart ever since NwN1's little combat waltz animation). Have characters animate using their shields, parrying (and even countering for that Fighter subclass that does that), and so forth.

    ThacoBellbyrne20Zaxares
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited October 2020
    I forgot to tell you about the spell that breaks all the probability rules: fire-bolt.

    When you cast firebolt...
    • You miss 50% of the time with the spell for 0 damage
    • You hit 100% of the time with the flaming surface you create for 1-4 fire damage
    • You hit 100% of the time with the explosion of the nearby vines, oil, grease, random dust particles, flammable something, whatever that explodes and it´s almost always there, in the vicinity for 1-6 fire damage more.
    • You hit 100% of the time with the burning persistent damage applied by the fire for even more fire damage.

    Half of the time you set half your party on fire too because... dunno... spontaneous combustion? But still, it´s totally worth it.
    Be a commoner in Baldur´s gate must be like...
    tenor.gif

    I cannot wait for Larian to unlock the level 5 wizards to see what you can do with a Fire-ball :D

    Post edited by PsicoVic on
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,071
    @PsicoVic -- I don't want to be the guy who mentions torches in like every post he makes but have you tried fighting with one? It's like fighting with a Firebolt in melee distance.

    PsicoVicSjerrie
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited October 2020
    Wow, just wow, Don't you end up like Hades insta-burning all the time if you go into melee with fire?

    Seeing as I use to catch fire all the time attacking from range. Mostly due to the $%&###@#$## vines. Maybe it´s because I play in low specs the game, but I could only see the vines when my controlled character is on top of them. Snared. Taking 1d6 damage. In difficult terrain.

    Usually Lae´zel is leisurely sneaking around and suddenly I see the saving throw dice on top of the head of Lae´zel and it´s like. Ok... she´s snared
    Of course, she failed the save, she´s snared and take the 1d6 vine thorn damage
    The enemies just go into combat and all goes to hell
    Aaaaand.... there´s a fire coming from somewhere and all the vines are catching fire so a big column of fire comes to the ensnared Lae´zel
    So... Lae`zel is pulling a Hades again...

    That´s usually the time I think "I really hope Larian fixed the IA of the following party members and they actually avoid the dangerous terrain this time and..."
    Nope, they are all in the middle of the dangerous surface, just in time for the fire column to arrive.
    Cool... let´s waste a turn using "create water" yet again and let´s do the usual "fighting enemies with half hp" thing...
    Now that we´re talking about them, they´re using acid now, because why not?
    The water surface just became flammable again. You may think there could not be more fire around to ignite it after all that water pouring before.
    Well... think again...

    IllShamefulBooby-small.gif







    Post edited by PsicoVic on
    scrivermlnevese
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,071
    That's pretty much what happened. I hit a spider with a torch and it set the spider on fire, and it also set the companion right next to me and the spider on fire.

    I've been trying to recreate it today though so I can make a report on it and I can't make it happen again -- torches don't even seem to be able to lit foes on fire by hitting them. It might just have been some one-off weirdness or something else about the scenario I didn't notice. Maybe the spider had webbed the area and it was the web that caught on fire, causing the immolation of both parties.

    So anyway complain withdrawn.

    PsicoVic
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    Larian seems to think that people are made of flash paper.

  • SjerrieSjerrie Member Posts: 1,203
    mlnevese wrote: »

    "Hi, I'm Charname"

    "Hi Charname"

    "And I'm a kleptomaniac, pyromaniac, hoarder masochist."

    mlnevese
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,550
    mlnevese wrote: »

    This is kind of how I imagined every fight in DBZ should go...

    mlnevese
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,214
    mlnevese wrote: »

    Some people just want to watch the world burn... at 0.1 FPS.

    SjerriescrivermlnevesePsicoVic
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited October 2020
    mlnevese wrote: »

    If You Can’t solve It with fire, You're Not Using Enough fire

    SjerrieBallpointManmlnevese
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    mlnevese wrote: »

    If You Can’t solve It with fire, You're Not Using Enough fire

    Or your problem is a fire elemental.

    mlnevesePsicoVic
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,161
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    mlnevese wrote: »

    If You Can’t solve It with fire, You're Not Using Enough fire

    Or your problem is a fire elemental.

    Dark Schneider disagrees

    mlnevesePsicoVic
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,302
    Lemernis wrote: »
    Lemernis wrote: »
    Mirandel wrote: »
    Lemernis wrote: »
    mlnevese wrote: »
    Lemernis wrote: »
    Well, it looks like I'll need a new computer to run this game. The HP desktop I bought at Walmart about five years ago was perfectly fine just to play BG EEs and for everyday home office use. I'm not really into gaming anymore and haven't even played BG in a long while. But in any case this game's video demands are just to high for it. The lag makes it unplayable.

    Soooo... any suggestions for a relatively inexpensive desktop that can run this game just fine?

    It depends where in the world you are and how much you want to spend

    I'm in the U.S. Looking to keep it under $300.

    The game needs 16 GB RAM for optimal performance. Mine has 5.45 GB available which is below minimum specs (8 GB).

    There is always e-bay for a shabby but working solution.

    I'm okay with going up to $300-350 for a refurbished machine.

    Recommended system requirements:

    Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
    OS: Windows 10 64-bit
    Processor: Intel i7 4770k / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
    Memory: 16 GB RAM
    Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX580
    DirectX: Version 11
    Storage: 150 GB available space

    Walmart search results here.

    Although the best match for recommended specs in that price range that I've found thus far is this.

    A search for new PC hardware always piques my interest (especially because it's not my money! :smile:), so I wanted to share this in case it's helpful. This laptop will be $450 on Walmart's website on November 4th at 7PM eastern. It's out of budget, but thought it might be a good heads-up that there are some deals around the corner with Black Friday.

    That laptop has a GTX 1650, which I think is technically below the recommended specs, but I've seen conflicting info that it will work from my two second research, so that's something to look into. I think the 1650 is better than the minimum specs, but I'm a bit out of the loop with graphics cards.

    Even if this doesn't work for you, I think you want to make sure you have a dedicated GPU in whatever machine you get. Actually - do you know the specs of your current machine? Instead of a whole new computer, you might be able to just update the graphics card (and probably the power supply as well) for less than the price of a new computer.

    Thank you!

    It's an HP Pavilion Slimline 400 desktop PC, about 5 years old IIRC.

    Processor: AMD A4-5000 APU with Radeon HD graphics
    Graphics card: AMD Radeon HD 8330
    Installed memory (RAM): 6.00 GB (5.45 usable)
    System type: 64-bit Operating System, x64-based processor
    Operating System: Windows 10, 64-bit
    Dirextx version: Directx 12

    Specs for CPU here.

    I may be able to add more RAM but I'm not sure if the CPU can handle it. E.g., if I add, say, 10 more GB of RAM to get it to the recommended specs.

    Edit: But this definitely has me wondering if I should just take it to Best Buy and see if the CPU can handle an upgrade to 16 GB RAM, then I can probably get that done for under $100. Although going ahead and spending $250 more to get a much more powerful computer may be worth it.

    Another issue that motivates me to get a new PC is that I have a Logitech 5.1 sound system that was relatively inexpensive (another Walmart purchase) but it sounds perfectly fine for my office and occasional gaming. However when I try to set it up in Windows to get the five speakers and woofer all working, I can never do it. The two rear speakers never play in any configuration I try. Maybe with a new machine it'll give me more options to fully utilize my sound system...

    This is from very little research, so take with a grain of salt:

    I saw a user review on Best Buy that mentions upgrading the PC to 16 GB, so I'm sure that's doable. However, I'm not sure that will be enough to get the PC to playing Baldur's Gate 3. I would recommend saving that money for a different PC. Looking up the processor, it's below the benchmarks of the minimum processor specs (looked it up here).

    One thing I saw when clicking random links was someone mentioning playing it on Stadia. Is that an option? (It's not what I would prefer personally, but throwing it out there.)

    If it were me, I would save the money from the RAM upgrade and use it on a newer PC. I'm not seeing a lot of deals on desktops at the moment, and the laptop I linked earlier is the best deal I've seen in my short look. Again, I'm not 100% sure it'll work, but I'm fairly confident it will.

    (Not sure if it's okay to link specific websites, so mods delete this if necessary.) I use Slick Deals to keep an eye on potential deals. They have a computer and laptop category that will probably get a lot of posts in the next few weeks/months with Black Friday deals. It might be a US only website, but if you're looking at Walmart, I assume you're in the US.

    If you're near a Micro Center, I found this desktop, but I think it would still need a graphics card at some point (and it's out of budget, so again, I'm not much help, sorry!).

    This was helpful, actually, thanks! I did find this in the $300-350 range. If I actually go ahead and take the Amazon offer for the credit card that would whittle it down by $100. I think I'm going to wait for a Black Friday deal for a brand new machine. Anyway, thanks again!

    mlnevesemodestvolta
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 749
    edited October 2020
    A new update and a patch!

    Everyone knows you can pet the dog in Baldur’s Gate 3, but did you know the dog has been petted 400k times? Such a good boy deserves that many pets.

    On a less romantic note (though this really depends on your tastes), 5.87% of players tried to steal the ring… but 26.3% of those players merely sucked a toe. If you haven’t got there yet, you’ll know when you see it. Since we’re talking about failure statistics, many people have made it to The Underdark.

    That I believe!
    74.85% of you stood with the (Good path), and 25.15% of you sided with (Evil creature). Good outweighs evil, it seems.
    No matter what, it seems we people playing CRPGs have a thing for the "Light Side", even if they ask us to go evil in the EA.

    I´m eager to mewt the good guys in BG3. Right now with Gale and Wyll it´s not enough for a good-hearted party =P.
    Kinda like the girls, but they´re pretty pissed off at me all the time when I try to... well, not even help people, but just not leave anyone for themselves and go find a cure. I think in my current run i´m going for a record. Our relationship numbers are so negative I´ll have to use the kelvin degrees scale to make it readable.


    JuliusBorisovSjerriemlneveseArvia
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,212
    edited October 2020
    In fairness, have they really made going evil worth it? In RPG's generally I think by choosing the good option you are at a minimum probably no worse off than someone who is evil.

    The only game I can remember going evil being absolutely worth it was KOTOR 2. Just because you got Force Crush, which was the most OP ability ever.

    Maybe you were better off going a more evil direction with Tyranny. I really don't recall.

    Anyways, my point is going evil is often more risky and the benefits are likely to not be any better.

    Edit: Maybe Fallout New Vegas it was worth it too.

    Post edited by elminster on
    JuliusBorisovmlnevese
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,149
    The good path always seems to have more quests, more xp and better rewards. Also, most people playing RPGs want to be the hero of the story, not the villain.

    BallpointManelminsterArviaJuliusBorisov
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,214
    edited October 2020
    elminster wrote: »
    In fairness, have they really made going evil worth it? In RPG's generally I think by choosing the good option you are at a minimum probably no worse off than someone who is evil.

    The only game I can remember going evil being absolutely worth it was KOTOR 2. Just because you got Force Crush, which was the most OP ability ever.

    Maybe you were better off going a more evil direction with Tyranny. I really don't recall.

    Anyways, my point is going evil is often more risky and the benefits are likely to not be any better.

    Edit: Maybe Fallout New Vegas it was worth it too.

    In all honesty, I feel that if you REALLY want to do Evil paths justice, you HAVE to set the game in a setting where the society itself is built around "evil" principles like institutionalized slavery, regular religious sacrifices etc. It would be the equivalent of, say, playing as drow characters entirely within a drow city. I've played some NWN/2 modules that were explicitly made for Evil characters too. Otherwise, trying to play as Evil in a Good/Neutral setting will ultimately make the player wind up in situations where their actions will seem nonsensical or even farcical because there is no way that society at large would permit those kinds of actions to continue without consequences (and if the player is powerful enough to simply ignore those consequences, then really what's to stop them from just blowing everything up or seizing control of the kingdom/empire/world themselves?)

    mlnevesekanisathaThacoBellPsicoVic
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,207
    Zaxares wrote: »
    elminster wrote: »
    In fairness, have they really made going evil worth it? In RPG's generally I think by choosing the good option you are at a minimum probably no worse off than someone who is evil.

    The only game I can remember going evil being absolutely worth it was KOTOR 2. Just because you got Force Crush, which was the most OP ability ever.

    Maybe you were better off going a more evil direction with Tyranny. I really don't recall.

    Anyways, my point is going evil is often more risky and the benefits are likely to not be any better.

    Edit: Maybe Fallout New Vegas it was worth it too.

    In all honesty, I feel that if you REALLY want to do Evil paths justice, you HAVE to set the game in a setting where the society itself is built around "evil" principles like institutionalized slavery, regular religious sacrifices etc. It would be the equivalent of, say, playing as drow characters entirely within a drow city. I've played some NWN/2 modules that were explicitly made for Evil characters too. Otherwise, trying to play as Evil in a Good/Neutral setting will ultimately make the player wind up in situations where their actions will seem nonsensical or even farcical because there is no way that society at large would permit those kinds of actions to continue without consequences (and if the player is powerful enough to simply ignore those consequences, then really what's to stop them from just blowing everything up or seizing control of the kingdom/empire/world themselves?)
    YES! Exactly!! And the Forgotten Realms setting is also exactly the wrong setting for "evil" paths in games as it is a setting which right from its very beginning was about good winning out over evil, light over darkness, and the (often over-the-top) celebration of heroes and heroism.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    @Zaxares Ironically, good paths can still be incredibly satisfying in such a setting. Everyone loves an underdog.

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    elminster wrote: »
    Maybe you were better off going a more evil direction with Tyranny. I really don't recall.

    You were. I've put an ungodly amount of hours into Tyranny in the past few days.

    ThacoBell
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,212
    Ok good to know. I didn't get past the 2nd chapter I think? Idk. I just wasn't feeling it. The start of the game, where you make all the big decisions, seemed more interesting than the rest of it :)

    mlneveseenergisedcamel
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    edited October 2020
    elminster wrote: »
    Ok good to know. I didn't get past the 2nd chapter I think? Idk. I just wasn't feeling it. The start of the game, where you make all the big decisions, seemed more interesting than the rest of it :)

    Something about Tyranny really clicked with me, personally. I really enjoyed how I was expected to make awful decisions and I could continually get out of them by clever legalese. I felt like I was continually walking a fine line between doing good within the system and having that system brand me a rebel and execute me. Not at all like your typical rpg narrative, with the Big Bad being unseen and unkillable. I also noticed some changes in New Game+ that made it more interesting than the first time around. Great game all around in my opinion.

    So anyway...BG3. We have no idea who the Big Bad of BG3 will be yet but if they are half as interesting as Kyros I will eat my hat.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    @WarChiefZeke We might be Tyranny's two biggest fans.

    WarChiefZekeelminster
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,212
    edited October 2020
    mlnevese wrote: »
    elminster wrote: »
    Ok good to know. I didn't get past the 2nd chapter I think? Idk. I just wasn't feeling it. The start of the game, where you make all the big decisions, seemed more interesting than the rest of it :)

    All modern RPGs completely failed to catch my attention. Pillars 1 I have over 80hrs in trying to like it, never even went further than the castle you eventually get. I didn't get Pillars 2.

    Divinity 1 & 2 I didn't like the mechanics or the story and never went beyond the first city in 1 or the prison in 2.

    Torment and Tyranny suffered both from my dislike of the mechanics and a story that didn't interest me.

    Pathfinder had familiar mechanics and an interesting story but the timers, difficulty spikes and the kingdom management made me put it on pause again... I'll need some time to go back to it.

    I thought BG 3 would be the same but the fact you are personally involved in the story from the beginning was interesting to me. The familiar mechanics of D&D is a plus. So far BG 3 is the first modern RPG that I think I'll play to the end.

    It's not perfect, I don't like all the flaming/acid surfaces, for instance and the inventory management certainly could be better but the story so far seems interesting, at least.

    I actually got the very end of Pillars but then gave up right before the last fight/area. I think the area had some mechanic where you couldn't rest (or maybe it was you couldn't save) and it just kind of annoyed me. It's right at the end of the elven area.

    I get the thinking behind it, where they they want to make it more difficult and add drama, but it feels very forced when the game was cool with me doing it for the other 99% of it. Just let me be a bit cheesy but end the game. Leave that sort of stuff for the more hardcore runs/higher difficulty settings.

    It probably didn't also help that I was incredibly bored of this elvish area you have to go through.

    Anyways, neither Tyranny nor Pillars 1 had combat that interested me. In fact, I actually turned on Story Mode just to get through Tyranny because I was so bored of the combat.

    Post edited by elminster on
    mlneveseBallpointMan
Sign In or Register to comment.