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!

 

[MarkB]

But how, without deviating significantly from 5e rules? Once shove is nerfed (I have little doubt it will be) there will be even less reason to go into melee range.

Most weapons in the game currently come with special attack abilities. One option would be to make the ones on melee weapons especially effective.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think what has triggered this reaction is the idea that it should be "ok" for melee to be completely useless and be better off shoving people or using bows. The game should be balanced in such a way that melee does make sense.

Yes, it doesn't play anything like my tabletop experience. Which, you know, ... it was supposed to be D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

Most weapons in the game currently come with special attack abilities. One option would be to make the ones on melee weapons especially effective.

I'd rather fix it by having more encounters start on smaller maps - tabletop encounters usually start on small maps, where melee can be joined already in the first round.

I would also like to see the computer act more like a real DM. Since 5th Edition doesn't have any "aggro" notion, it's up to the DM to have monsters attack the most dangerous-looking character, not the one with lowest AC.

The entire game is actually based on this unspoken agreement. In a game of D&D where the DM "maximizes" the monsters, it's miserable playing a fighter that's trying to defend his friends. I believe such games are very rare for this very reason.

If Larian won't realize that or can't program a more "humane" (literally!) AI, they need to add an actual aggro mechanism, so Fighters can make sure they can bear the brunt of any attack.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Most weapons in the game currently come with special attack abilities. One option would be to make the ones on melee weapons especially effective.

This is already the case. All ranged weapons get is "pin down", which makes it easier to melee the target. Melee weapons get increased damage (bludgeoning), an AoE (slashing) or extra movement (spears and pikes).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

, it's up to the DM to have monsters attack the most dangerous-looking character,

In D&D-land the most dangerous-looking character is the one wearing the pointy hat.

I'd rather fix it by having more encounters start on smaller maps - tabletop encounters usually start on small maps, where melee can be joined already in the first round.

That only works based on the conceit that no one retreats out of the room and down the corridor. Which only works when there is no corridor. As soon as you have a map of the whole dungeon that players and monsters can move about in there is no way to keep the fight confined to a single small room.

I believe such games are very rare for this very reason.

You are wrong. I have been playing D&D for 38 years, and in all that time intelligent monsters have always known to priority attack spellcasters and stay well out of reach of the big guy with the axe.

NB, you familiar with Lord of the Rings? You know Boromir, the big guy with the sword? How do the orcs take him out? They stay out of reach and shoot him full of arrows.

 

[Nymrod]

In D&D-land the most dangerous-looking character is the one wearing the pointy hat.

That only works based on the conceit that no one retreats out of the room and down the corridor. Which only works when there is no corridor. As soon as you have a map of the whole dungeon that players and monsters can move about in there is no way to keep the fight confined to a single small room.

You are wrong. I have been playing D&D for 38 years, and in all that time intelligent monsters have always known to priority attack spellcasters and stay well out of reach of the big guy with the axe.

NB, you familiar with Lord of the Rings? You know Boromir, the big guy with the sword? How do the orcs take him out? They stay out of reach and shoot him full of arrows.

I'd say the most dangerous character is the assassin you never even see. In BG2 at very high levels, melee was extremely effective since defense against melee was much easier to overcome. Sure casters had dozens of save or die spells to throw but an invisible melee character with the right equipment could often end the encounter before it ever begun.

 

[Nymrod]

That only works based on the conceit that no one retreats out of the room and down the corridor. Which only works when there is no corridor. As soon as you have a map of the whole dungeon that players and monsters can move about in there is no way to keep the fight confined to a single small room.

You can always block exits.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'd say the most dangerous character is the assassin you never even see.

True, but you can't target them at all.

Anyway @CapnZapp says there is no place for stealth in D&D.

 

[Nymrod]

True, but you can't target them at all.

Anyway @CapnZapp says there is no place for stealth in D&D.

I honestly disagree with BOTH of you There should be a place for all archetypes in D&D because playing fantasy archetypes is such a big part of fantasy RPGs. And that includes melee. And if any edition is balanced in such a way that melee makes no strategic sense, then for me, it's a failure. Personally I've been playing my own heavily houseruled system for so long that it doesn't matter anyway but at least that's my opinion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I honestly disagree with BOTH of you There should be a place for all archetypes in D&D because playing fantasy archetypes is such a big part of fantasy RPGs. And that includes melee. And if any edition is balanced in such a way that melee makes no strategic sense, then for me, it's a failure. Personally I've been playing my own heavily houseruled system for so long that it doesn't matter anyway but at least that's my opinion.

I agree with that, and to a degree I agree with @CapnZapp, the 5e ruleset fails to fully support the full range or archetypes. It's no coincidence that min-maxers use Eldritch Blast as a baseline for DPR maximisation. And D&D itself shows its tactical wargame roots.

And you certainly can play a melee character effectively in BG3 - make them fast and mobile, use a reach weapon - just not as a meat shield (although I think the addition of barbarians might change that).

But action games are more suited to a hack-and-slash playstyle than turn-based games.