Baldurs Gate 3

[Endus]

Very good so far, but the unfortunate side effect of D&D ruleset is that almost nothing is deterministic, especially when it comes to conversations.

You can pack crazy Charisma and proficiency in Deception/Persuasion or whatever other skills and you blow up conversations right and left because of that frikkin' dice, this is especially frustrating because a lot of insight, information and more interesting developments are gated by these checks and at time multiple of them, so you are pretty much compelled to save scum, if you want a more interesting story.

Many other checks that are not conversation allow 4 rolls for every team mate, so at least there you have a more reasonable shot at finding that secret entrance/button/lever/whatever, but conversations are a one shot chance and the check requirements are really stacked against you in vast majority of them - talking about something like 50% chance of success for your character that packs +3 Charisma modifier and +2 proficiency on conversation skills. I can't imagine what your run off the mill fighter/wizard/cleric with +0 Cha at best would look like - you'd be like missing 70% of the interesting stuff in convos, no kidding.

I really hope they will relax the required DC for those a tad, pretty ridiculous imo.

- - - Updated - - -

Like this is on my level 3 warlock now:



You'd think I'd be some master silver tongue navigating my way through conversations, but nope - any moment conversation is not some basic mundane stuff and it's a huge uphill battle of minds, even with those stats, which are really as good as it gets for conversations at that level. Like, maybe I could precast "Friends" on just about every bloody NPC I meet, but that's about all I could do more there and it would just give another +2 or so.

Some places having a difficult conversation DC is as it should be, like persuading Shadowheart to spill her beans on who she is in the Blighted Village. That one you can't do without +3 Charisma with Persuasion proficiency, it's like 22 DC persuasion there. But that's OK, she's almost committing a sacrilege against her faith as a cleric there revealing that info in that fashion.

But having a bloody 17 base DC or some such on holding 2 blokes from hitting each other and having a bloody fight where you may need to kill people if you fail that check instead of letting them to just slap each other, that's just ridiculous.

This is how bounded accuracy works in 5e. The term exists because of the application to attack rolls, but the same rationale applies to skill checks. You shouldn't be expecting to pass every check, even with a 20 Charisma and proficiency in the skill; at the levels in the game (which caps at 10 IIRC), you're looking at a +8-9 bonus on the high end, by the end of the game. If a check has a DC of 15, which is only middling hard, there's still a big change of failing, though it's more likely you'll pass.

Also means you can't slap plate armor on and be untouchable to weenie enemies; they'll hit you less often, but they'll still hit you.

IMO, the ideal way to design around this is twofold;

1> No savescumming. Or make it awkward as hell. If you reload a save, you'll get the same dice rolls, because those rolls weren't made in the moment. Maybe you can reload, do something else to "shift" the rolled outcomes, and try again, but that's it.

2> Success and fail states for anything important should be multi-level. One bad roll shouldn't fail an overall success if it matters to the story. If you're trying to convince someone to give up some information you need, make it a three-check process, and if you pass any two, he gives you the information. You do the same in P&P games; if you fail an Athletics check to cross a thin ledge, you slip, and catch yourself, but now an ally has to try and save you, or you can make another check (with worse odds) to pull yourself back up. If you just have them fall to their deaths on a single failed roll, your players won't be happy with you. Also, if you fail to get the information, that brings up another important point in P&P gaming; seed multiple solutions. Maybe you can't convince the guy, so now you've gotta come back at night and break into his house, and risk getting a bounty on your heads. That kind of thing. Obviously, easier to improv on the fly in a P&P game, but not impossible in a CRPG either. You're just coding for multiple ways to deliver a certain quest tag, and ensuring at least one (ideally, the hardest one) can't have you locked out from it.

I haven't played the EA (waiting on the full game), so can't tell how Larian's handling this. But there's also the advantage/disadvantage factors to consider, which are integral to 5e, and I don't know how/if those are incorporated into conversations. But advantage is a HUGE buff.

[MakeMeLaugh]

1> No savescumming. Or make it awkward as hell. If you reload a save, you'll get the same dice rolls, because those rolls weren't made in the moment. Maybe you can reload, do something else to "shift" the rolled outcomes, and try again, but that's it.

2> Success and fail states for anything important should be multi-level. One bad roll shouldn't fail an overall success if it matters to the story. If you're trying to convince someone to give up some information you need, make it a three-check process, and if you pass any two, he gives you the information. You do the same in P&P games; if you fail an Athletics check to cross a thin ledge, you slip, and catch yourself, but now an ally has to try and save you, or you can make another check (with worse odds) to pull yourself back up. If you just have them fall to their deaths on a single failed roll, your players won't be happy with you. Also, if you fail to get the information, that brings up another important point in P&P gaming; seed multiple solutions. Maybe you can't convince the guy, so now you've gotta come back at night and break into his house, and risk getting a bounty on your heads. That kind of thing. Obviously, easier to improv on the fly in a P&P game, but not impossible in a CRPG either. You're just coding for multiple ways to deliver a certain quest tag, and ensuring at least one (ideally, the hardest one) can't have you locked out from it.

1- I remember Larian saying they like to let people play in any way they want, abusing exploits or whatever. So if people want to save scum, let them, this is not a competitive game anyway.

2- A system like that would get old fast. You failed a roll, you know there will be more and now suddenly rolls doesn't feel as important anymore. There's not much to do here, best they could do is put some punishment for failing important story rolls, sometimes making the game harder, killing npcs, etc. Adding multiple rolls should lead to multiple punishments as well, otherwise it's pointless.

[Endus]

1- I remember Larian saying they like to let people play in any way they want, abusing exploits or whatever. So if people want to save scum, let them, this is not a competitive game anyway.

Sure, that's a really generic point of view regarding the nature of narrative storytelling; I think failures are as, if not more, interesting than successes, a lot of the time. You get a lot more drama from the hero leaping a chasm, missing, and scrabbling to try and get a handhold, than you do if they just hop over and it's fine.

2- A system like that would get old fast. You failed a roll, you know there will be more and now suddenly rolls doesn't feel as important anymore. There's not much to do here, best they could do is put some punishment for failing important story rolls, sometimes making the game harder, killing npcs, etc. Adding multiple rolls should lead to multiple punishments as well, otherwise it's pointless.

It means a single bad roll doesn't ruin everything. It may create new challenges, but you can deal with it. The whole point of what I was proposing is that there's penalties and harms done for failed rolls, it's just that they don't lock the player out of things. If you fail to pick a lock and the lock jams, maybe you can kick the door down (though that makes noise). Maybe there's another hidden entrance that's trapped. The one thing I find dissatisfying is when you fail that roll and know that you can't ever get into that room now. If anything, that's more immersion-breaking than the alternative. The goal is to minimize the desire to save-scum, at the same time you reduce the effectiveness of doing so. Players can just play seamlessly and not spam the F5 key until their character rolls the 20 they need to pass the Persuasion check. That's not "fun gameplay".

And heck; if you can savescum, and you know players will savescum, there's no real point in those checks in the first place. The player's gonna pass 'em every time. It's a question of how much time they waste reloading a quicksave, not whether they can pass the check.

[Gaidax]

This is how bounded accuracy works in 5e. The term exists because of the application to attack rolls, but the same rationale applies to skill checks. You shouldn't be expecting to pass every check, even with a 20 Charisma and proficiency in the skill; at the levels in the game (which caps at 10 IIRC), you're looking at a +8-9 bonus on the high end, by the end of the game. If a check has a DC of 15, which is only middling hard, there's still a big change of failing, though it's more likely you'll pass.

What I am saying is that you can't throw 17DC conversation checks at level 2 characters, it's really that simple.

Yes it's D&D, yes we roll dice for every last bloody thing we do, but DC needs to be appropriate for the task.

You should not face a bloody 17DC challenge as a level 2 baby that you have snowball's chance of beating by anything except for capped Charisma and proficiency for that level, at which point you still face >50% failures for the most mundane persuasion checks.

All the voice acting and careful scene conversation modeling is useless because you simply will never see a huge chunk of it, simply because anything but full balls to the wall lock/sorc with maxed out charisma, proficiency and Friends, can't realistically ever hope to beat the check without massive savescumming.

They need to reduce DC for many conversation checks by a good 4-5 points.

[MakeMeLaugh]

Sure, that's a really generic point of view regarding the nature of narrative storytelling; I think failures are as, if not more, interesting than successes, a lot of the time. You get a lot more drama from the hero leaping a chasm, missing, and scrabbling to try and get a handhold, than you do if they just hop over and it's fine.


It means a single bad roll doesn't ruin everything. It may create new challenges, but you can deal with it. The whole point of what I was proposing is that there's penalties and harms done for failed rolls, it's just that they don't lock the player out of things. If you fail to pick a lock and the lock jams, maybe you can kick the door down (though that makes noise). Maybe there's another hidden entrance that's trapped. The one thing I find dissatisfying is when you fail that roll and know that you can't ever get into that room now. If anything, that's more immersion-breaking than the alternative. The goal is to minimize the desire to save-scum, at the same time you reduce the effectiveness of doing so. Players can just play seamlessly and not spam the F5 key until their character rolls the 20 they need to pass the Persuasion check. That's not "fun gameplay".

And heck; if you can savescum, and you know players will savescum, there's no real point in those checks in the first place. The player's gonna pass 'em every time. It's a question of how much time they waste reloading a quicksave, not whether they can pass the check.

If you know you always have access to everything, what's the point? Save scum is not something new. If people want to reload because they wanna open that door, then so be it, that's really not a problem. Locking that door forever is not a problem either, it's punishment for the damn roll. There's no problem in having multiple ways to solve something, but you should not be supposed to always solve everything one way or another.

[Gaidax]

If you know you always have access to everything, what's the point? Save scum is not something new. If people want to reload because they wanna open that door, then so be it, that's really not a problem. Locking that door forever is not a problem either, it's punishment for the damn roll. There's no problem in having multiple ways to solve something, but you should not be supposed to always solve everything one way or another.

Yes. I totally understand this approach, it is, after all, a single player game, so if someone wants to savescum in their playthrough then it's fine. I know I do.

People can impose challenges and benefits on themselves as they see fit, it's a Baldur's Gate game, there was an ungodly amount of cheese in it always anyway and the limit is you there.

[Well]

Question:

In-game, do you get the racial spells some races give like the Tiefling and the Drow?

[The Butt Witch]

Question:

In-game, do you get the racial spells some races give like the Tiefling and the Drow?

Yep. The special abilities that some races have are in the game as well.


I find it weird how certain doors have infinite HP, shown by the Infinity symbol instead of the number on the HP bar. I understand that these doors are tied to quests and you shouldn't be able to break through them like through the other doors, but what are we, the aliens from Signs, who couldn't get through a wooden door?

[Syegfryed]

So, half-orcs and gnomes got cut but there is half-elves, completely pointless when you already have elves and humans.

i hope those are just for the Early access, if they do not include all PHB races in the launch i call bullshit

[Morae]

I thought they were going to add more races before full release?

[Well]

Yep. The special abilities that some races have are in the game as well.


I find it weird how certain doors have infinite HP, shown by the Infinity symbol instead of the number on the HP bar. I understand that these doors are tied to quests and you shouldn't be able to break through them like through the other doors, but what are we, the aliens from Signs, who couldn't get through a wooden door?

I'm asking because for instance Tieflings are only listed on the wiki to be getting their initial cantrip and nothing else. Do they get what they normally do at levels 3 & 5? Drow and Drow Half-Elves as well?

- - - Updated - - -

So, half-orcs and gnomes got cut but there is half-elves, completely pointless when you already have elves and humans.

i hope those are just for the Early access, if they do not include all PHB races in the launch i call bullshit

Eh, who cares about half-orcs, honestly. Gnomes on the other hand are a big deal. Orcs too.

[The Butt Witch]

So, half-orcs and gnomes got cut but there is half-elves, completely pointless when you already have elves and humans.

i hope those are just for the Early access, if they do not include all PHB races in the launch i call bullshit

Hey, I want weird races too. I'm partial to Kobolds and Dragonborn, but I guess they aren't popular enough to warrant spending resources on adding them to the game.

Basically just like Argonians in Bethesda games. You KNOW Bethesda would love to just ghost Argonians one day for no explanation whatsoever because they have unique models that cost resources to make. Same as why Argonians females have breasts and belly buttons. No official explanation, it's just that Bethesda didn't want to spend resources on a unique and lore-accurate playable model instead of slapping green textures on a human female model.

[Pogacsa]

Finally managed to finish the download yesterday in the evening so i tried it out. I't a DoS 2 mod but a bit more "flashy". Had lots of funbut i it still does not feels like a Baldur's Gate game. If you liked DoS games it will be worth your money. Gorgeous graphics, story is okay so far, characters are kinda interesting and there is lots of exploration. More of the same from the previous titles.

The only thing that really annoyed me is the return of the surface tactic shit, which was expected since this was one of the main features of the DoS games but somehow it feels wrong when i fire a cantrip fire bolt which misses yet the fire surface it creates still kills the enemy AND you can dip your weapons into them. Cantrips are waaaay overpowered this way.

[Askyl]

Finally managed to finish the download yesterday in the evening so i tried it out. I't a DoS 2 mod but a bit more "flashy". Had lots of funbut i it still does not feels like a Baldur's Gate game. If you liked DoS games it will be worth your money. Gorgeous graphics, story is okay so far, characters are kinda interesting and there is lots of exploration. More of the same from the previous titles.

The only thing that really annoyed me is the return of the surface tactic shit, which was expected since this was one of the main features of the DoS games but somehow it feels wrong when i fire a cantrip fire bolt which misses yet the fire surface it creates still kills the enemy AND you can dip your weapons into them. Cantrips are waaaay overpowered this way.

This is something I've heard a lot of people say about cantrips and spells, since no spell should burn stuff or start a fire unless the spell it self says it does. Larian listen a lot to the community and I think they'll fix this though.

But calling it a DOS mod is so far from wrong it's sad. Just because it's built on the same foundation doesn't make it a "mod". And the facts it's like DOS in many ways just adds the hype for me, that means it's more like D&D than the old BG games were.

It's like calling the WoW alpha a Wc3 mod.

[Pogacsa]

This is something I've heard a lot of people say about cantrips and spells, since no spell should burn stuff or start a fire unless the spell it self says it does. Larian listen a lot to the community and I think they'll fix this though.

But calling it a DOS mod is so far from wrong it's sad. Just because it's built on the same foundation doesn't make it a "mod". And the facts it's like DOS in many ways just adds the hype for me, that means it's more like D&D than the old BG games were.

It's like calling the WoW alpha a Wc3 mod.

Did you play the EA? It's the exact same unmodified engine as DoS2, uses the same casting animations, same movement, same camera handling, same loot handling etc. Yes. It does feel like a mod but if you think pointing this out is 'sad' then more power to you i guess. Also a better comparation would be the Rexxar campaign in Wc3 to the main one.

Does it make it a bad game? Of course not. It is a good game and like i said if people liked the DoS games they will love this.

Also there is nothing to fix with the surface things. It is was one of the main features in DoS games so obviously they left it in and it won't get removed. Which despite what you said makes it more of a DoS game and less of a D&D game.

[Gaidax]

So, half-orcs and gnomes got cut but there is half-elves, completely pointless when you already have elves and humans.

i hope those are just for the Early access, if they do not include all PHB races in the launch i call bullshit

They aren't cut, EA has limited classes, kits and races available. Once it releases we will have everything there is in Player's Handbook at the very least.

- - - Updated - - -

And yes it's D:OS through and through. Anyone who played D:OS games instantly spots that. It's literally D:OS 2 with cranked up graphics and D&D lore and rules.

Many things are straight from D:OS2 a lot of UI, features and so on. Heck even music - you can literally hear remixed notes from Bloodmoon Island score and such. They don't straight up copy that, BG3 has its own score, but they for sure mixed in a bit here and there that teases your memory.

[Alithia]

Thinking about getting it: Will your progress be safed or wiped when a full release comes out?

[Ghostpanther]

Thinking about getting it: Will your progress be safed or wiped when a full release comes out?

Wiped. They said too many changes would be done to the game and thus, players will need to start with a new one when the full version is released.

[Syegfryed]

They aren't cut, EA has limited classes, kits and races available. Once it releases we will have everything there is in Player's Handbook at the very least..

thats what im hopping, but i see not much sense in not put then in the EA, but put half-elves, its a weird choice at very least, cause i think half-ocs are more "dnd" than tieflings and halflings

Hey, I want weird races too. I'm partial to Kobolds and Dragonborn, but I guess they aren't popular enough to warrant spending resources on adding them to the game..

not happy that they didn't include dragonborn in the Early access too, they were some of the main races, they should have done then instead said half-elves...

Eh, who cares about half-orcs, honestly. Gnomes on the other hand are a big deal. Orcs too.

I do, is the closes thing to orcs, in a viable way, we got for a while in dnd

[Askyl]

Did you play the EA? It's the exact same unmodified engine as DoS2, uses the same casting animations, same movement, same camera handling, same loot handling etc. Yes. It does feel like a mod but if you think pointing this out is 'sad' then more power to you i guess. Also a better comparation would be the Rexxar campaign in Wc3 to the main one.

Does it make it a bad game? Of course not. It is a good game and like i said if people liked the DoS games they will love this.

Also there is nothing to fix with the surface things. It is was one of the main features in DoS games so obviously they left it in and it won't get removed. Which despite what you said makes it more of a DoS game and less of a D&D game.

I've played millions of hours DOS and DOS2 and you're making it seem too similar than it is.