D&D General Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access

Baldur's Gate III is now available for early access on Steam and on Stadia.

I couldn't get the Steam version working on my Mac, but the Stadia version works just fine. The opening tutorial level is pretty gruesome (at one point I had to squish somebody's brain) and the mind flayer airship you're trying to escape from beings to mind the movie Aliens a lot.

Character creation is quick and easy, although options in the early access are limited. The gameplay is like Divinity Original Sin 2 with the 5E rules layered over it. I've only played an hour or so of the game, and as an early access game, it is occasionally a bit buggy, but nothing showstopping (yet).

This isn't a review (I haven't played enough of it to do that, and I don't think it's fair to review an early access version anyway); it's mainly just an alert to the few people who don't already know it's available. If any such person exists!

 

[Nymrod]

I've tried playing with six, but it does tend to make turns slow, and some players don't get much to do. I prefer four or five. I don't know how Gygax & co. manage with 8 or more.

A lot of planning and a group that cooperates.

 

[CapnZapp]

The difficulty slider is not turned on yet. If you look at the home screen is says Difficulty: Classic, with no way of changing it. We have no idea how they will implement other settings

Making a wild guess here: "like how difficulty works in DOS2".

Which is exactly what I was arguing against.

 

[CapnZapp]

3) The game doesn't play particularly differently to my experience of 5e - you should consider that your way of playing 5e is the non-standard version.

If you seriously want to make the readership believe that fighters aren't better off using their swords is anywhere close to standard D&D, you're way more off the mark than I could have thought.

I'm sorry, but there simply is no reason to continue the discussion. Obviously the melee fighter plays a large role in D&D, which is why I'm advocating to a change in BG3.

That is all.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not necessarily, you just need to balance damage appropriately. If melee combat is simply stronger in single target damage output than ranged combat then you have a reason to get in melee. It also helps if melee is reasonably able to impede enemies' attempts to move or use ranged combat.

Obviously, yes.

 

[Gradine]

I mean, I would think the hallmark of "more like tabletop and less like a video game" would the presence of alternative and useful actions to take in combat beyond "I swing my sword at the goblin"

 

[MarkB]

Making a wild guess here: "like how difficulty works in DOS2".

Which is exactly what I was arguing against.

Well, if nobody suggests to them to do it differently, then yes, it probably will be the same. But then, that's the whole point of Early Access - to gather feedback and make changes accordingly.

Which they can't do unless you actually give them feedback. Ideally before they actually implement difficulty levels.

 

[Nymrod]

I mean, I would think the hallmark of "more like tabletop and less like a video game" would the presence of alternative and useful actions to take in combat beyond "I swing my sword at the goblin"

At the same time, if there is not strategic value to melee combat in the fantasy setting, the presence of so many melee combatants breaks verisimilititude does it not. Ultimately the ruleset should match the worlds it tries to describe. If the rules ultimately give a clear advantage to range (even physical range) over melee in ever situation, why would melee be prevalent?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you seriously want to make the readership believe that fighters aren't better off using their swords is anywhere close to standard D&D, you're way more off the mark than I could have thought.

The enemy archers (or in the case of an Eberron campaign, wandslingers) just back away from any idiot waving a sword. 5e encourages that by not giving them any reason not to use their move to retreat.

In my current game, we have a bugbear fighter with a glaive, a ranger with a tentacle whip, and a rogue with a returning throwing dagger. No one uses a sword.

 

[Aldarc]

At the same time, if there is not strategic value to melee combat in the fantasy setting, the presence of so many melee combatants breaks verisimilititude does it not. Ultimately the ruleset should match the worlds it tries to describe. If the rules ultimately give a clear advantage to range (even physical range) over melee in ever situation, why would melee be prevalent?

To guard the archers from close quarters combat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Making a wild guess here: "like how difficulty works in DOS2".

Which is exactly what I was arguing against.

But what are you arguing for? How are you going going to code those goblins so they don't want to use their bows, and those spellcasters they don't want to cast their spells? And how are you going to convince the vast majority of players without sword fetishes that you haven't created a game with really really bad AI?