WotC World Reveal of Baldur's Gate 3

At PAX East today, gameplay footage of Baldur's Gate 3 was revealed for the first time by Larian Studios.

According to PC Gamer, the Early Access version of the game will launch this year with five characters:

• Wyll, Human Warlock
• Shadowheart, Half-elf Cleric
• Lae'zel, Githyanki Fighter
• Gale, Human Wizard
• Astarion, Elven Vampire Spawn Rogue

And you'll be able to create characters using these six classes:

• Fighter (Battle Master, Eldritch Knight)
• Wizard (Evocation, Abjuration)
• Rogue (Arcane Trickster, Thief)
• Ranger (Hunter, Beast Master)
• Cleric (Life, Light, Trickery)
• Warlock (Fiend, Great One)

15 races include (amongst others):

• Elves
• Dwarves
• Humans
• Githyanki
• Drow
• Tieflings
• Vampire Spawn

 

[3catcircus]

Turn-based only. Asked during the Q&A.

Thank God for that. Nothing worse than having to have "pretend-turn-based" in games that are primarily continuous combat by having to hit the pause button after what you think might be about a round. Having the ability to let combat go continuously would be nice, but totally unnecessary. Unlike the other way around.

 

[3catcircus]

And then make Divinity Original Sin III with a D&D label...

The only thing I didn't like about DOS2 was the somewhat bizarre chargen. I'd have preferred being able to build an entire party completely from scratch rather than customize existing builds.

The chargen in the gold box games, wasteland 2, etc. Is near-perfect in that regard.

 

[Seramus]

The chargen in the gold box games, wasteland 2, etc. Is near-perfect in that regard.

Gold Box Games, definitely. But Wasteland 2 was an odd duck, since the companions add so much colorful dialog that you basically want to play 1 Charismatic person and 6 NPCs. DOS2 had the same thing going on where you totally could create custom characters, but the origin story characters were the ones with commentary and unique dialog. So there was no reason NOT to take the origin characters unless you just didn't like them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The only thing I didn't like about DOS2 was the somewhat bizarre chargen. I'd have preferred being able to build an entire party completely from scratch rather than customize existing builds.

The chargen in the gold box games, wasteland 2, etc. Is near-perfect in that regard.

DOS2 was pretty much copied from the Baldur's Gate series: choose from a selection of pregenerated characters fith personalities and personal stories.

DOS2 offered more customisation, by letting you change the class of your party members.

Personally I didn't care for Wasteland 2 because party members had no personality.

 

[abirdcall]

You may be taking the OP's comments to an absurd conclusion. In my games initiative governs, but there are times where the party gets the surprise and I would allow the player to cast the fireball before rolling for initiative.

If a DM doesn't do that are they a bad DM?

 

[3catcircus]

Gold Box Games, definitely. But Wasteland 2 was an odd duck, since the companions add so much colorful dialog that you basically want to play 1 Charismatic person and 6 NPCs. DOS2 had the same thing going on where you totally could create custom characters, but the origin story characters were the ones with commentary and unique dialog. So there was no reason NOT to take the origin characters unless you just didn't like them.

That's the problem with DOS2 - if I'm playing a PC, I want it to have my origin story, not the developer's vision for that particular character that gets lost in translation if I change the race or class... For companions, no problem. For the main PC I want to be in control of every aspect.

As to Wasteland 2, I agree that the companions were great - but you had 4 PCs that you create how you see fit. The challenge there is the same challenge in BG2 and in the Pillars of Eternity games - juggling who is in the party at any one time to go through any companion quests, or making sure you have the right mix to open up different dialogue or skill options. I didn't really get that sense in DOS2 - I always felt like I needed to permanently pick and choose which companions not expecting to be able to go back and get the others later.

What would I would really love in future CRPGs is to take the same tack as old-school OD&D - the party often consisted of 10 or more PCs and NPCs - a mix of henchmen and hirelings - and modify the number of opponents or level of challenge to match. That way you could choose to either keep adding party members, or juggle them. Nothing more frustrating, for example, in keeping the party imbalanced in order to complete a companion quest.

 

[pukunui]

Am I the only one who finds the past tense dialogue options to be off-putting? I feel like they should be in the present tense, since you’re choosing what your character is going to do / say. It hasn’t happened yet, so why is it written as though it already has?

 

[Beleriphon]

Am I the only one who finds the past tense dialogue options to be off-putting? I feel like they should be in the present tense, since you’re choosing what your character is going to do / say. It hasn’t happened yet, so why is it written as though it already has?

I expect it could be a framing reference. For example if the protagonist is relaying the story to a third party. It may also only be part of it.

Also, opening cinematic? Is that awesome or what? Nautoloid spelljammer getting roasted by githyanki riding red dragons!

 

[MNblockhead]

I wasn't excited about, or planning to get, this game but I'm changing my mind.

I went a long period of my live not playing TTRPGs or CRPGs, basically missing most of the 90s, 2000s, and the first half of the 2010s.

When I got back into gaming, I started with The Quest on iOS which I enjoyed. I loved Skyrim and the Witcher games. I then started playing Planescape:Torment, but lot interest. I liked the story but disliked the game play. I also tried the original Balders Gate and lots interest even sooner. Managing a group of characters by pausing constantly was a slow.

The first multi-character CPRG I enjoyed was Saga on iOS and Switch and the turn-based game play was a big part of the appeal.

Having a top-tier, lore-rich, and beautiful game that is turn based AND based on 5e mechanics, sounds great to me.

I really wish I didn't have to play it on a computer though. I would much prefer to have it on a console, esp. Switch. But I'd buy and XBOX or Playstation if it were released on it.

It may upset some fans of the prior Baldurs Gate games, but it it fills an underserved niche and I'll bet that it will do very well.

 

[Azzy]

And then make Divinity Original Sin III with a D&D label...