Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
It’s a good game that follows the systems pretty faithfully, like BG1 and 2 did.
Following the same rules does not make it the same game as sitting around a table with some players and a DM.
It’s a good game that follows the systems pretty faithfully, like BG1 and 2 did.
I don’t think I said it did.Following the same rules does not make it the same game as sitting around a table with some players and a DM.
True that, and I've nothing against "create your party" CRPGs. Despite it's flaws I think Solasta is great, and Icewind Dale. I'm just pointing out that they are no more "authentically D&D" than CRPGs where you create one player character.
BG1 and 2 deviated massively from 2nd edition rules. And were better computer games because of it.Nope. I am entirely serious. BG 1 and 2 also had some breaks from 2e D&D.
Sure, and the focus and USP of the Baldur's Gate games has always been story, not tabletop combat simulation.Right. I’m not claiming any of them are authentic. Far from it. It’s basically a D&D combat simulator with some cheesy storytelling attached. I play for the simulator part.
Maybe that's why there is a non-lethal combat toggle - so you don't have to kill anyone?loads of hostile NPCs are flagged as innocents, including the goblin who is actively torturing a gnome (!!!) - and Ancients Paladins seem to be held, bizarrely, to Devotion Paladin standards.
Maybe, but it's nonsensical as an approach. There's nothing about the doctrines of Devotion or Ancients (let alone Vengeance!) Paladins that suggests they should do that. It's certainly not how home games play it and we shouldn't pretend they do. That's Redemption Paladin nonsense.Maybe that's why there is a non-lethal combat toggle - so you don't have to kill anyone?
Maybe that's true on their official forums, but on the subreddit and Discord they fairly often comment, and tend to acknowledge when things aren't working as intended. It's a little concerning, thus, that they haven't made any comment I can find on Paladin oaths, especially not on that it seems like Ancients and Devotion are being treated as if they're the same thing for the most part.What I have noticed during this playtest is Larian don't comment on the forums and try to justify their decisions.
Yes, which is bizarre, frankly, because only Devotion Paladins are even likely to be Lawful, of Devotion, Ancients, Vengeance and Oathbreaker.One thing I have noticed is that although there are no alignments in BG3, the [Paladin] dialogue options tend to imply lawfulness.
It didn't have to be.As for making the oaths substantially different, whilst still being fair, and leaving the path to oathbreaker open to those who want it, is inevitably going to be a difficult needle to thread.
Did they? I'm not denying it, but it's been 20+ years and I've forgotten. What sort of stuff amounts to "massive deviation"?BG1 and 2 deviated massively from 2nd edition rules. And were better computer games because of it.
Real time with pause was a fairly massive deviation from D&D-as-it-is-played, and a lot of things happened as a consequence of that, for example AoE spells become difficult to aim and hazardous to your own party. You never saw TPK by repeatedly bouncing lightning bolt in a tabletop game. Then there where a whole lot of rules simply left out, things that where changed like weapon proficiencies, material components and cleric domains and the inclusion of things which where largely ignored in the tabletop game because they where too difficult to track if you weren't a computer, such as weapon speed factors and spell casting times. All in all, it was very different, but for the right reasons.Did they? I'm not denying it, but it's been 20+ years and I've forgotten. What sort of stuff amounts to "massive deviation"?
This is fair enough comment, I certainly agree with "I would have done it differently"! But then BG1 and 2 where quite bad about paladins too. Kill a few corrupt cops and it's no powers for you ever again. In some ways Larian seem quite old-school in their attitude. Whilst there is no alignment in BG3 (I assume at WotC's request), their Oath of Devotion boils down to "be lawful good" and their Oath of the Ancients boils down to "be good". And the clerics have to choose from the list of gods, druids need to be nature loving, balance serving hippies, and warlocks have to deal with a patron. I play a much looser game myself.It didn't have to be.
It would have been very easy to give a few simple, straightforward options in dialogue (particularly early in the game) labelled "Oathbreaker" or "Break Paladin Oath" or the like, and mostly left the rest to player judgement.
Larian did a total Larian though and tried to make it so it's "organic" even though that was hard to implement, but what they seem to have done is ended up with a weirdly inconsistent system and zero warnings about what an oathbreak is.
I will say one thing for Larian, they have substantively improved the game for the most part, but they have a long history of doing that throughout EA, then completely failing to build on on those improvements for release, until an Enhanced Edition a couple of years later. Paladins are my 2nd-favourite class in 5E and I'm kind of concerned they may just be stuffed until said Enhanced Edition unless they're Oathbreakers (who are cool, but it's like, that's a bit off from what I want from a Paladin).
I have yet to have any trouble with my Oath.