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!

 

[CapnZapp]

fighters are still going to be better using bows or pushing people of ledges than using a sword.

A very good way of summarizing the problem. If a fighter isn't better off using her sword, it ain't the fantasy we love.

 

[CapnZapp]

The size limit is to stop turns dragging on (if you have more on one side you have more on the other as well) and because of the modern expectation that companions be highly detailed and fully voiced. It's not technical.

Yeah. I imagine the party size being limited the same way most groups feature 4-5 players in real life too.

 

[Nymrod]

The size limit is to stop turns dragging on (if you have more on one side you have more on the other as well) and because of the modern expectation that companions be highly detailed and fully voiced. It's not technical.

In this game. In many CRPGs it very much is technical and hard to change.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Currently Larian is forcing it on players.

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, but it's a lot easier to write code to make something attack the best target than to attack some other target. You need some kind of MMO-like aggro/taunt system. In which case it could be used against the players.

But a story mode, with combat that is impossible to lose, is a foregone conclusion.

There's a difference. Remember 5E is a huge success in no small part thanks to how it accommodates a wide range of players and playing styles. As is BG3 plays far too much like DOS2 and competitive video games, and far too little like D&D and cooperative table-top games.

But I'm tired explaining these things to you and won't respond further. To return to more constructive discussion, let me repeat that I'd rather see a more tabletop-like AI setting than just crude damage adjustments ("On Easy mode you have twice the hit points and deal double damage").

That is because the difficulty is the symptom, not the problem. The real problem is that the game doesn't play like the tabletop experience.

1) BG3 is a video game. Many of the people who buy it (and this is obvious from the forums) do not play D&D. First and foremost, it has to be a fun game on it's own merits.

2) DOS2 is not what I would call a "competitive" video game. It's most definitely a co-op game. It's worth noting that DOS2 uses action points, which are shared between attacking and moving. So it gives players more reason to stand still and trade blows than 5e does.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In this game. In many CRPGs it very much is technical and hard to change.

True, BG3 has been designed to be easily moddable from the start.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A very good way of summarizing the problem. If a fighter isn't better off using her sword, it ain't the fantasy we love.

Unless you have some way to force people to stand still whilst they hit each other swords are always going to suck. That's true for CRPGs, tabletop RPGs, and real life.

 

[Nymrod]

Unless you have some way to force people to stand still whilst they hit each other swords are always going to suck. That's true for CRPGs, tabletop RPGs, and real life.

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. As things are now, disengage is perhaps too powerful

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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. As things are now, disengage is perhaps too powerful

I don't think disengage is a big issue - archers shouldn't become engaged in the first place since nearly everyone moves at the same speed.

In BG3 the Mobility feat and the wood elf extra speed are very strong abilities. Monk and Barbarian fast movement will be too when those classes make it in. It really shows up those white room DPS calculations that neglect movement for the garbage they are. Great Weapon Master and Mobility are both in BG3, and Mobility is the stronger feat, even though it's currently bugged.

 

[Aldarc]

Currently Larian is forcing it on players. There's a difference. Remember 5E is a huge success in no small part thanks to how it accommodates a wide range of players and playing styles. As is BG3 plays far too much like DOS2 and competitive video games, and far too little like D&D and cooperative table-top games.

Remember that DOS2 is a huge success as well, and there will be a fair deal of people who will be playing BG3 due to the great work of Larian Studios in DOS1 and DOS2. And TTRPGs are chump change compared to the video game market.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah. I imagine the party size being limited the same way most groups feature 4-5 players in real life too.

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.