Baldurs Gate 3

[Fencers]

Am i missing something or are fighters and rouges unfinished? clerics, warlocks and wizards gets a bunch of spells and abilites while fighters and rouges is incredibly barebones, you get like one extra ability when you make one.

Yes, you are missing an understanding of Dungeons & Dragons.

Take a look here; https://www.5esrd.com/

The basic operation of D&D.

[Gaidax]

Well I did not compare it to BG3, but to Divinity Original Sin. I played both DAO and DOS1 more than once, they are one of the best RPG's I ever played and both offer a lot of replayability, in the way I said, one for different way of solving stuff and the other of having different outcomes. Now I can't completely talk about BG3, it's EA and I did not play that much, but just playing the first few quests you can already see some of that Larian way of allowing you different forms of dealing with stuff as expected, freedom of killing npcs and etc.

They even went much further this time there - think you taking D:OS2 Act 1 and joining Dallis and Alexander right there to slaughter resistance instead and then subsequent act running around collaring people with actual supporting cast for evil faction with its own character and story, that magnitude - with whole different path for Act 1 and obviously Act 2.

From what I seen in EA they are definitely setting 2 paths to go through - a good path and evil path. I do wonder if they manage to properly support evil path, seeing that 90% of players will definitely go goodie-two-shoes and be done, so it might end up being much more beefed up path.

[Aresk]

Trust me when I'm saying that if you go in blind, your jaw will drop, 100%. DA:Origins retains a dark fantasy theme intact with multiple selections of races and allows you to build a large base of choices for both DA2 and DA:I.

I don't want to get too off-topic here, but wasn't DA:O literally just human, dwarf, or elf for race selection? You had different backgrounds for each, but if I recall correctly, it was very vanilla fantasy race selection. I played a bit of it and loved the character banter, but the combat seemed really swingy to me (and this is compared to a Larian game) and required too much save scumming, so I ultimately abandoned it after around ten hours in (maybe I went to an area I wasn't supposed to yet, but then why make that area accessible?). Never touched the other two after that.

DA is an acclaimed series, and I'm glad a lot of people got enjoyment out of it, but comparing three games of story impact to one act of story impact seems a little unfair this early in BG3's development. In terms of companion characters, DA:O has much more entertaining characters than BG3 at this point. In terms of multiplayer, DA:O can't compete.

[MakeMeLaugh]

I don't want to get too off-topic here, but wasn't DA:O literally just human, dwarf, or elf for race selection? You had different backgrounds for each, but if I recall correctly, it was very vanilla fantasy race selection. I played a bit of it and loved the character banter, but the combat seemed really swingy to me (and this is compared to a Larian game) and required too much save scumming, so I ultimately abandoned it after around ten hours in (maybe I went to an area I wasn't supposed to yet, but then why make that area accessible?). Never touched the other two after that.

DA is an acclaimed series, and I'm glad a lot of people got enjoyment out of it, but comparing three games of story impact to one act of story impact seems a little unfair this early in BG3's development. In terms of companion characters, DA:O has much more entertaining characters than BG3 at this point. In terms of multiplayer, DA:O can't compete.

I consider the combat of DAO perfect for that style(active with pause). Once you start figuring out the game and you set the tactics correct, it's beautiful. In the words of the contemporary genius Todd Howard, "IT JUST WORKS!".

Still prefer turn based though. BG3 at the moment can either feel unforgiving and super easy. I think they will have to change it, better balance at least, at the end of the day you can't simply port pen and paper to a game 1:1 and expect it to feel the same.

[Gaidax]

Characters you can make look great, you also are allowed frivolities like demonic eyes and unusual hair and skin colors for the race.

This is a Wood Elf Ranger Hunter I rolled for second playthrough:

[metzger84]

I don't feel any BG vibes coming off off BG3 at all. In fact, the Steam screenshots made me chuckle at how cheesy and generic it looks.

[ohiostate124]

What’s a good class to play for someone completely new to this kinds of game?

[tristannarutofan]

Heh, nothing out of the ordinary there. Folks expecting that this will change anytime soon, in any game, are simply deluding themselves. Thankfully, people are not yet forced to make characters they don't like.

Why would people not like making characters that arent generic featureless white dudes?

- - - Updated - - -

On the topic of companions, I have some issues:

First, why did they choose to have 2 Half-Elves? If the PC is also a Half-Elf, you got 3/4s of your party being Half-Elves and on that note, where's the dwarf? Why don't we have a Tiefling companion? A full elf?

Second, only Wyll & Gale are okay, and that edged me, honestly. I did in Shadowheart find the inside-I-am-brooding vibe though and honestly it's just funny. The descriptions for the companions given earlier were pretty accurate. Just add that Wyll is great.

- - - Updated - - -



I haven't played any other Larian games, but with the short experience I got from playing the EA now, I can agree. I have the impression that all the companions are written by one dude/gal and that he or she was then forced to write Gale and Wyll in a certain way, and their dialogue shows.

In Dragon Age, games I'm a huge fan of, every companion definitely feels like their own person, while currently, the companions in BG3 just probed me to think these:

Shadowheart: lol, the DM's gf with the wannabe edgy char that supposedly believes in Shar, has no idea what that means and will just be Good if she's given a pet to play with.

Wyll: Power's bad, but only if you're an NPC. Is that some left-wing supposed-privilege shaming I'm seeing in some dialogue choices? Woah, this is going places.

Gale: wizard stereotype out the oldest book I got.

Astarion: wtf, get out of my game, kid, along with your "Evil" roleplay.

Lae'zel: bitch, imma killing you every single time over those tieflings, except when and if I ever make a Gith PC.

All in all, I do find the companions very shallow to be honest.

*shrug* cus thats the story they wanted to tell* most likely they just decided the narrative direction and the companions i start off with happen to be those. Lotr cast was 3 humans, 4 hobbits and 2 others

- - - Updated - - -

What’s a good class to play for someone completely new to this kinds of game?

Generally speaking in dnd caster classes are a big nono cus u spend so much time trying to figure out spells. However as a video game u get a few choices from a smaller list, and the game gives descriptions and shows the range so thats less to remember..

Id personally say either a shield using fighter or cleric. High armor will help u deal with mistakes and getting overwhelmed. A warrior can do things like take 2 actions which can help in a pinch. If it were me i might consider the cleric. Play them like a sword and shield fighter who can cast cure wounds in a pinch.

Oh thats another thing. In dnd u have to worry about using all your spells and abilities but i think in this game finishing combat cools doen all your weak abilities that require a short rest.

I saw a video about warlocks that showed at lvl 2 they can gain an ability that buffs 2 skills that u will use alot in fialogue, and with a bracer and ranged attacks a warlock could be pretty good.

But it would def be safest to have 3 party members with high armor instead of 2 and 3 high armors with 2 capable of healing?

[Jastall]

We're not making particularly exciting Baldur's Gate 3 characters.

No surprises there. WoW for example has a bevy of races to choose from, including dwarves with their beards on fire, minotaurs, heavy metal undead and friggin werewolves, but more than 50% of the playerbase still plays a human or a human with pointy ears. Shame, because BG3's character creator looks to be top-notch and I know I'll create far more characters than I'll likely use just to toy around with it.


As for the Dragon Age discussion, any RPG fan that hasn't at least played Origins is doing themselves a massive disservice. The complete edition is like 30 USD on Steam, and for the sheer amount of quality and highly replayable content you get that's an absolute steal. Dragon Age 2 is a lot more contentious, but worth getting on sale at worst thanks to its more low-key story and good DLCs. Inquisition is not everyone's cup of tea due to the yuge open world and somewhat tepid quest design, but the characters are just top notch and I loved, loved the way it built the universe's lore. The Tresspasser DLC is more or less mandatory to fully enjoy the experience as someone else said, but I still recommend it.

[Well]

I don't want to get too off-topic here, but wasn't DA:O literally just human, dwarf, or elf for race selection? You had different backgrounds for each, but if I recall correctly, it was very vanilla fantasy race selection. I played a bit of it and loved the character banter, but the combat seemed really swingy to me (and this is compared to a Larian game) and required too much save scumming, so I ultimately abandoned it after around ten hours in (maybe I went to an area I wasn't supposed to yet, but then why make that area accessible?). Never touched the other two after that.

DA is an acclaimed series, and I'm glad a lot of people got enjoyment out of it, but comparing three games of story impact to one act of story impact seems a little unfair this early in BG3's development. In terms of companion characters, DA:O has much more entertaining characters than BG3 at this point. In terms of multiplayer, DA:O can't compete.

Yes, DA:O is Human/Elf/Dwarf. Guess what I wrote can easily be misinterpreted as multiple in the D&D way. There are the backgrounds though, which differentiate between them.

On the topic of combat, I actually really like it. It does have the D&D feel to it, but myself playing on Nightmare in all DA games, I haven't ever considered the game to lean to savescummy. I find that assessment weird tbh. I would even say that it has the best combat out of all the games and allows for player control and depth levels that go far and beyond any game's I've ever played. And no, don't abandon it. :P

It is indeed not okay to compare three games of story impact to one act of BG3, but from what BG3 has shown me up until now (and I've been down there in the EA), it really is a convoluted mess of random stuff that only serve the woah factor and nothing more.

I would say that it is extremely unfair to compare DA:O's multiplayer, a game that was released in 2009, 11 years by now, to an AAA title that has not even been released yet. To add to that, DA:O was not built for multiplayer in mind. In fact, I've never touched DA multiplayer and I never will.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would people not like making characters that arent generic featureless white dudes?

- - - Updated - - -


*shrug* cus thats the story they wanted to tell* most likely they just decided the narrative direction and the companions i start off with happen to be those. Lotr cast was 3 humans, 4 hobbits and 2 others

It's about liking what you like and not being forced or expected to play something you don't. People like white, clean of other features men, and that will not change. Options are great and I really like them, but I find that post of Larian's passive aggressive to be honest.

Comparing LOTR to BG3 is heresy. Nevermind that, your comparison is off anyway. Orcs, Goblins, Eastern Humans, Uruk-Hai and anything not human, hobbit, elf or dwarf with the rare ally outside of those is simply evil and would never be a potential choice for a main character.

[Yriel]

No surprises there. WoW for example has a bevy of races to choose from, including dwarves with their beards on fire, minotaurs, heavy metal undead and friggin werewolves, but more than 50% of the playerbase still plays a human or a human with pointy ears. Shame, because BG3's character creator looks to be top-notch and I know I'll create far more characters than I'll likely use just to toy around with it.

But doesn't the gaming press constantly emphasise how important representation is and that every identity-group must have a chance to play a character that is exactly like them and now it's somehow bad when white dudes make white dude characters ?

[Gaidax]

BG3 story, character diversity, paths and so on are fine and more than fine. You have your mystery you're trying to solve and you have a pretty wide freedom on how to go around it. I mean you even have an option of "surgery" that you take and lose an eye in process, which is a joke vibe overall the way it went, I laughed my ass off there.

Everyone has a baggage on top of it, maybe even too much going around, the initial companions sure have their overdramatic dark secrets to the point I'd wish they would introduce some random bloke Paladin whose only quirk that he has to follow his oaths down to a word, which might give birth to confrontations and its own story even without being yet another dark horse with creepy secrets.

As to the above, quite frankly - it's a pattern in forums, people try too hard to pass as some critics and writing connoisseurs there. It's like that splurging about Dragon Age, it was a good story, but trying to elevate it to level of masterpiece while dissing BG3 EA for the very same holes DA:O had? Yeah okay breh.

I can imagine how EA for DA:O would look like - Prequel, Ostagar, Lothering and Redcliffe. Guess what? All this is your stock humans and maybe an odd other race or two too and the story is mostly "oh noes we were betrayed and have a Darkspawn apocalypse approaching, send for help" and not much more aside from Demon of Redcliffe. Demon of Redcliffe is a great story, but you pretty much get to do the same in BG3 EA, just in a grander way and not just "purge the demon filth" or "lets cut a deal and no one would be the wiser" that really only affects game outro in the end.

My point is - both are great games. To BG3 credit, amazing graphics aside, your choices have a much bigger, severe, immediate and subsequent impact to the point where you literally *big spoilers inc, reveal at your discretion* switch sides and in a much cooler way than that Redcliffe "har har tell these fools you destroyed the demon, while I am all alive and well". You get its own host of additional companions and "friends" out of it, with whom you assault and merrily slaughter the good guys stronghold, men, women, children and all. Then make a big party out of it, drow priestess sex and all if you so desire. Also its mystery is very interesting too, as you clearly get many interested powers waging invisible war over whatever happened, whether it's your imaginary frenemy, tadpole that seems to have a mind of its own, Absolute and that Cambian on top of it who wants to lay his claws on your head. You understand that something is wrong, but you don't know what. You even get to meet a honest to goodness Mindflayer who broke away from the colony control who gives you some insight but also tells you that whatever that is, it's not some usual thing there.

- - - Updated - - -

Now after 2 playthroughs, I can safely claim I seen 85% of what EA has to offer - there are a lot of secrets and hidden areas/paths, so likely I missed some still despite combing the areas.

Overall a single completionist playthrough, if you reveal everything and don't mash space every time NPC opens a mouth is easy 30 hours. They really crammed a lot into Act 1, it's much much bigger than D:OS2 Act 1, easy twice if not 3 times the size that both area, questlines, interactions and so on.

In 2k20 we get half of that as full price release games, not kidding there - if they keep it up and assuming there will be 3 Acts it looks like it will push easy 90 hours single playthrough completionist and they seem to offer pretty good replayability because aside of aligning with one of two factions in Act 1, you also get to choose two distinct paths to transition to Act 2, which will obviously be wildly different.

My only concern seeing the magnitude of this is that it will take another 2 years to release.

[Fencers]

We're not making particularly exciting Baldur's Gate 3 characters.

I read that on another site yesterday, iirc. Honestly, I have NEVER desired or thought it was especially fun being a non-human in games of any stripe. Escapism by being non-human is and never will be my thing.

I like to see myself represented in media, as HUMAN. Swen, you weirdo.

- - - Updated - - -

What’s a good class to play for someone completely new to this kinds of game?

Ranger or Warlock.

[ClassicPeon]

I havent followed what people are saying much about this game because i wanted to form my own opinion. Am i the only one who thinks the companions just dont hold up to the older bg games so far?

Like i really dont care about any of them. Best developed one(with an actual personality) seems to be the rogue guy. But he is still pretty generic imo

[Rennadrel]

We're not making particularly exciting Baldur's Gate 3 characters.

Considering the character designer is crap and has a fairly small selection to choose from, not to mention a lot of players go with a default or slightly changed default character so they can start playing, this is a nothingburger complaint.

[ONCHEhap]

Considering the character designer is crap and has a fairly small selection to choose from, not to mention a lot of players go with a default or slightly changed default character so they can start playing, this is a nothingburger complaint.

You're the first person I've seen claim that the character designer is crap

[ClassicPeon]

Considering the character designer is crap and has a fairly small selection to choose from, not to mention a lot of players go with a default or slightly changed default character so they can start playing, this is a nothingburger complaint.

As the other guy said, you are the first person i've seen to say that. What are you comparing it to that makes it crap and with a fairly small selection?
And what data do you have that suggest players dont spend a lot of time creating characters?

[Biomega]

I read that on another site yesterday, iirc. Honestly, I have NEVER desired or thought it was especially fun being a non-human in games of any stripe. Escapism by being non-human is and never will be my thing.

That's a fairly popular position, but there's also another problem:

It's really, really hard to do justice to truly alien experiences in fiction. The comment someone made about people just choosing human or "human, but with pointed ears" is the struggle. Without massive amounts of exposition and work, you're really only reskinning, not adding something substantially different. Short human, furred human, scaled human - that's what it very often comes down to, because relating to something SUBSTANTIALLY non-human is incredibly difficult when you have full control over the narrative, and next to impossible if you want to introduce agency (such as in a game). Anytime they add something that SEEMS like it's part of the experience of an alien race, what it really is, is an experience of a different CULTURE - e.g. you could basically just treat elves or dwarves like humans from different cultures and a lot of the time it wouldn't make a substantial difference to the plot at all.

And so very often it's just down to, you know, if they're all just human in different bodies anyway then let's treat them like that. Skins for the cosmetics are one thing, but the more you go off the "human" path the more people will expect different experiences and not just different cosmetics. Making a human or dwarf or elf is mostly the same storytelling, but making an amorphous blob of sentient arsenic would REALLY make players wonder why you're somehow treated as a reasonable person just walking down the street.

[Demsi]

Anyone else find shadowheart and La'zael completely insufferable? They start of as complete cunts wich made me not care about their approval at all, it doesn't help that they disapprove of any selfless action that you do.

[Makabreska]

Anyone else find shadowheart and La'zael completely insufferable? They start of as complete cunts wich made me not care about their approval at all, it doesn't help that they disapprove of any selfless action that you do.

Hey man, we gotta put some effort into our waifus, else the romantic outcome wouldn't bring satisfaction.

La'zael is a githyanki that got infected with tadpole and forced to work with Prime Material plane plebs, so no wonder she is cranky. Similar story with Shadowheart. Basically, each of the origin characters got put into this shitty situation and is forced to cooperate to save their lives (on top of their other problems they got). Being a douche early on is pretty understandable and reasonable.