Intro
Baldur's Gate 3 is a sprawling, slightly kitschy, long-winded,accessible yet also quite challenging[1] role-playing game with fairly high production values that apparently pissed off other CRPG devs.
A sort of interactive pulp swords & sorcery novel. It's a flawed if IMO provisionally worthy yet lesser sequel to Baldur's Gate 2. Lesser but still rather good.
It is like heroin to CRPG types despite a slight tinge of woke, the dumb and optional romance system, and some flaws which are going to be rectified by mods fairly quickly or solved by the time you get to Baldur's Gate and can actually buy a fucking quiver, gem pouch or potion case. Romances are optional, the personal quests of party members are fairly interesting and quite decent afaict.
It allows up to 4 people to play what's essentially a D&D campaign without someone having to be GM. Perhaps some people would like to play it together in the evenings and it might strengthen this community? If playing thrice weekly for 4 hours, you could probably clear it under half a year even with a bit of save-scumming that's necessary for some of the tough fights.
Don't rush- perhaps Larian will give it paused realtime or FPS play or just speed up the computer turns which should be instant but sometimes (5% of the time) take 200-300 ms to decide per enemy mook.
As it's a significant cultural artifact and probably of interest to enough people on this forum, I believe it deserves its own thread.
For mods: ||It's not related to 'science, politics or philosophy', however, I feel it maybe deserves an exception due to its high profile. Factorio, a decade old game popular with Motte kind of people has 29 hits in search, BG3 has 25 mostly from the last 2 weeks. All argument and no play makes Jack a dull boy, no ? ||
Rules:
-
Please post in the appropriate subthread. I'm going to start with 'reviews, technical issues, rant & gripe, gameplay advice, lore'. Feel free to make another top-level subthread if it doesn't fit into the other categories.
-
For story and lore discussion not known to people familiar with general D&D, use spoiler tags, which are doubled pipes = '|' repeated twice without the quotes. Spoiler tag end is another set of doubled pipes.
-
Story discussion only in the 'lore discussion' thread.
-
Please report any comments spoiling the plot outside of the stuff that's in the intro cinematic.
[1]: I'm at around +2sd of ice people mental acuity and a disgusting minmaxing scrub who almost cleared** the infamous 'tactics' mod for BG2+ToB and I'm being challenged by the high difficulty fights in BG3. Even a run-of-the mill fight turns deadly if you're not paying attention, and certain fights are positively malicious.
And I'm just in chapter 2 atm. Yes, if you want you can re-roll PC and every party member for every dungeon but in essence that's just like save-scumming but worse. You don't have to do it, and I only re-rolled main char because I was unfamiliar with the ruleset and wanted to try a few different options. The dungeon puzzles, so far, seem mostly bloody obvious, I've encountered some mildly challenging treasure related ones, surely there's going to be a few good ones too.
**am not sure I ever cleared the final fight of the entire game with the tactics mod.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So far I just think there's too much dice rolling. I'm fine with combat having tons of dice rolls under the hood, but there are just too many occasions in dialogue where you have to roll for outcomes, sometimes for things that shouldn't be left to chance, or situations where someone with 18 in an ability simply should never fail the check unless they're dead drunk. It encourages savescumming which I'd rather not engage in.
Absolutely agree that this is a big problem and the game would be substantially better without it. My party's rogue has a 95% chance to unlock almost every single lock I encounter, and anything that is possible to unlock for anyone else is near impossible for him to fail. Every single chest or lock is just a 5% chance for me to lose an item through chance. On the flipside, there's no actual punishment for making different choices either. My twig of an elven sorcerer can frequently just pass strength/dexterity/religion checks with the help of guidance/savescumming, so there's no real reason to care about the tradeoffs.
What having dicerolls for checks like this means is that you just emphasise being good at rolling dice and de-emphasise character-building and the choices you make in it. Competent RPGs have known for a long time that social rolls/skill checks like this should just be flat prerequisites rather than random rolls, because making it random is bad for the game. I can't really blame someone for savescumming when their super-strong barbarian can just, through random chance, end up actually being an erudite scholar who can't do basic athletic tasks because of a funky role distribution. It reduces the distinction between playthroughs and makes your choices in character creation/levelling that much less impactful. Game will be a lot better when a mod comes out that just replaces all of the rolled checks with flat bonus requirements. I also think a cheat mod which gives you guidance at all times when there's a caster with it in the party would be a net improvement along those lines as well.
More options
Context Copy link
I think dice rolling on screen is immersion breaking, you don't need to remind me your game is a toy every 5 minutes, it's like a movie zooming out every half hour to show the director shouting instructions to the cast on a soundstage.
In general hard stat-checks are preferable to dice rolls. On tabletop there's a communal gambling element to it, which can be fun, but in single-player games (and I'd guess 90%+ of BG3 players will primary or entirely play single-player), stat checks reward you for building your character in a certain way without subjecting you to the arbitrariness of dice throws. It doesn't make sense either, you either have the charisma to be charming or the strength to lift an object or you don't.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that's a big complaint for me. It should happen instantly, you should see the dice roll like in BG2..
Especially because my FPS tanks during the dice rolls.
More options
Context Copy link
I think if the game (a) removed the "nat 1/20 is an auto-fail/success on skill checks" and possibly gave you the option to "take 10" 3e style on a bog-standard check (or take 20 outside of conversation at the cost of a short rest), that'd go a long way to solving the problem.
That drove me nuts when I played paranoia, since the more you roll, the more 5% chances you have to have something horrible happening to you. It makes you never want to do anything, since even opening an (untrapped) door can be hazardous.
More options
Context Copy link
Note this isn't actually a rule in 5e for skill checks, only for attack rolls automatically hitting/missing. It wasn't a rule in 3.x either. It's just people keep misapplying the attack-roll rule to other rolls and inadvertently houseruling it even though it's a stupid change, sometimes including D&D developers and now apparently including Lorian Studios developers.
In 3rd edition it only applied to attack rolls, but then in the Deities and Demigods supplement they added a special rule for gods:
Yes, if you attain godhood you don't automatically fail saving throws on 1, just like everyone else. Then in 3.5 they actually did add automatic success/failure to saving throws (which I would argue was a negative change) but still didn't have it for skill checks. (3.5 came out a year after Deities and Demigods so they could have been consciously trying to make it backwards compatible, but I'd guess they just forgot it didn't work like that and then in 3.5 rewrote the rules to match the way they played it.)
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, agree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link