D&D 5E New Baldur's Gate 3 Video

[Bill Zebub]

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.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Following the same rules does not make it the same game as sitting around a table with some players and a DM.

I don’t think I said it did.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nope. I am entirely serious. BG 1 and 2 also had some breaks from 2e D&D.

BG1 and 2 deviated massively from 2nd edition rules. And were better computer games because of it.

The Dark Sun games of a couple of years earlier where more faithful implementations of tabletop rules.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Sure, and the focus and USP of the Baldur's Gate games has always been story, not tabletop combat simulation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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 that's why there is a non-lethal combat toggle - so you don't have to kill anyone?

What I have noticed during this playtest is Larian don't comment on the forums and try to justify their decisions. What they do do is make substantive changes reflecting opinions expressed on the forums. Whatever you may think of Larian in the past, they are a massively expanded team now, and there are a lot of new people working there. 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. As I think you mentioned, it might be quite hard to break an Oath of Vengeance, even if the player wants to.

I mean, in my tabletop games, I leave paladin oaths up to the player to adjudicate, I wouldn't even try to go there.

One thing I have noticed is that although there are no alignments in BG3, the [Paladin] dialogue options tend to imply lawfulness.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For completeness, Larian's Oath of the Ancients reads "Kindle the Light. Shelter the Light. Preserve your own Light. Be the Light."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe that's why there is a non-lethal combat toggle - so you don't have to kill anyone?

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.

What I have noticed during this playtest is Larian don't comment on the forums and try to justify their decisions.

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.

One thing I have noticed is that although there are no alignments in BG3, the [Paladin] dialogue options tend to imply lawfulness.

Yes, which is bizarre, frankly, because only Devotion Paladins are even likely to be Lawful, of Devotion, Ancients, Vengeance and Oathbreaker.

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.

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).

If there were say, another two or three patches, I honestly wouldn't even be worried, because the feedback would sort it out. However there are zero.

BG1 and 2 deviated massively from 2nd edition rules. And were better computer games because of it.

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"?

My hazy memories are more that they:

A) Failed to implement some stuff which some classes kind of even crappier than they were in 2E.

B) Added a 2E version of 3E's Sorcerer, which was pretty awesome. I wouldn't call that a massive deviation myself, because it's nothing wilder than a sourcebook might add.

C) Had a bunch of FR-specific spells that some people thought they made up.

I'm probably forgetting tons of stuff though.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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"?

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.

The sorcerer wasn't actually in BG1 at first, it was added in BG2, and then backported into BG1 by Beamdog, along with kits and some other things that made it a little closer to PnP rules.

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).

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.

 

[Burnside]

I have yet to have any trouble with my Oath.

Me either. Literally zero issues at all. A lot of people seem shocked to learn that if you talk goblins down from a fight, and then immediately turn around and kill them once the dialogue is over, then you have in fact not been merciful or done the "most good."

Also, my Oath of Ancients paladin can lie as much as he wants with no issues, since honesty is not part of the Oath of the Ancients.