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

[Ruin Explorer]

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

I mean, under the hood it's still turn-based, so I guess I don't really see that as a big deviation myself.

You never saw TPK by repeatedly bouncing lightning bolt in a tabletop game.

Honestly not being difficult when I say you absolutely did in some games. I've never seen a full TPK with one myself but with a mean DM I used to know in my teens, I saw two party members eat a lighting bolt that bounced back to them. There was quite a kerfuffle about whether the DM was doing the angles right - but he was VERY good at maths so it was eventually accepted. No-one died, they just lost a lot of HP, and with better damage rolls on the LB or if it had been the less sturdy PCs they might have died. I then had to heal it all up on my Speciality Priest of course (Oghma I think that time).

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.

Yeah I remember they changed weapon proficiencies a bit. Material components being not used and weapon speed etc. being used for me is a wash in terms of "deviation".

So I guess it's all perspective. I think they were slightly closer to 2E than BG3 is shaping up to be to 5E, for better or worse.

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.

I am aware, but I loathed BG1. I still have a hilariously negative review of it up on the internet somewhere. Basically I thought it was tripe next to Fallout 2, which came out slightly before it (I went straight from one to the other). BG2 was kind of amazing though.

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."

I haven't seen a single complaint about that on the subreddit or Discord so far. What I have seen is people who get attacked by the goblins without making peace with them get oathbroken if they personally kill certain goblins (who aggro on the party, note). There's no indication which those goblins are, and if another party member does it, it doesn't count.

There's no question that's bad flagging.

I suspect people who "have had no problems" have either been avoiding all the fights or just lucking out and not getting the killing blows on the ones with issues (which includes the torturer goblin). At best what we're seeing is inconsistency and without any logging or indication of what exactly causes the oathbreaker flag to appear it's all guesswork to some extent (esp. as some people are also lying in both directions).

 

[Burnside]

Mis-flagged creatures definitely sounds like a bug, and hopefully people report that, but it’s EA and that’s what it’s for. In the last patch, for the first week just picking (Bard) dialogue choices froze the whole game - I didn’t automatically assume that was a design choice.

I am definitely seeing posts on Reddit from folks who have decided that goblins deserve genocide and are shocked to learn that’s not in keeping with Oath of Devotion.

I think the Oathbreaker is a great solution for the “I want Paladin abilities, but also want to just behave however I choose” player. There’s nothing inherently evil about the Oathbreaker, and the game makes that clear - they just don’t abide by specific behavioral restrictions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the Oathbreaker is a great solution for the “I want Paladin abilities, but also want to just behave however I choose” player. There’s nothing inherently evil about the Oathbreaker, and the game makes that clear - they just don’t abide by specific behavioral restrictions.

It's not a solution for people who want to play Ancients Paladin but not have to follow Devotion Paladin rules.

I'm honestly concerned about Vengeance Paladin at this point, too.

I didn’t automatically assume that was a design choice.

It literally doesn't matter if it's a design choice or not if they don't fix it. Especially as flagging likely to be a huge issue in Act 2 and Act 3, which will have like 1/10000th (literally) as much testing as Act 1.

I think even if they pick up every bad flag in Act 1 it'll take them months, at best, to pick up those in Act 2/3. Quite possibly years.

This is why it's bad to have this sort of mechanic work this way, especially if you don't even introduce it until the last patch.

I am definitely seeing posts on Reddit from folks who have decided that goblins deserve genocide and are shocked to learn that’s not in keeping with Oath of Devotion.

I can't see any right now on the subreddit. I can see multiple smug-posts on the reddit from denialists who think everything is working as intended even the obviously-bugged stuff like the goblin who patrols into you and attacks you and causes an oathbreak regardless of anything you've done. It's very notable that those people have absolutely insane interpretations of Devotion (mostly that it's basically Redemption) and there's a lot of lying that Ancients is "the same" as Devotion lol.

What's particularly funny is that there are loads of situations with the goblins which will oathbreak you, but if you start a fight with the entire Druid Grove, and kill them all, you can walk away with your Devotion oath intact. "Working as intended", sure, right.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

That's great. But it's not D&D. D&D is not scripted.

So I could see an argument that it's not intended to support my desire to customize my whole party; that's not the intent of the designers. They want me to experience their (cheesy) story, not support my desire to have a combat simulator. But "because in real D&D you would only get to play one character" is not a very persuasive supporting argument. Playing the BG series is not playing D&D, even if the mechanics are derived from D&D rules.

 

[Demetrios1453]

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.

That's my main issue with the real time with pause - that offensive spell casting ability is massively nerfed compared to typical D&D turned based play. Regrettable friendly fire happens even in turned based, but it's all but inevitable with real time with pause. And you can miss everything entirely with what you thought was a well-aimed fireball! The old Gold Box games were turned based, and really shone in the tactical possibilities of spell casting by comparison.

(And you're right about TPK lightning bolts. There's one NPC in BG1 in the Firewine Ruins dungeon that if things go right will TPK himself with a lightning bolt!)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's great. But it's not D&D.

No, it isn't, it's a computer game. It's no more D&D than the D&D novels and movies.

They want me to experience their (cheesy) story

Yes, they do, and in that respect BG3 is very definitely a sequel to BG1 and 2. Of course the story is cheesy, it wouldn't be heroic fantasy otherwise.

not support my desire to have a combat simulator.

Indeed. This isn't the game you are looking for.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm honestly concerned about Vengeance Paladin at this point, too.

That's assuming they implement the Oath of Vengeance. I don't think the their expressed desire to implement "everything in the PHB" should be treated as an oath. Alignment is in the PHB, and not in the game, the Totem barbarian got a rename and do-over, they clearly hate the champion fighter, and they have included a fair bit of stuff that is not in the PHB.

It's going to be easier for them, and closer to how they see paladins, to just do oaths that equate to "lawful good". The Oathbreaker patron guy's backstory implies he was Oath of the Crown (SCAG).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think the their expressed desire to implement "everything in the PHB" should be treated as an oath.

Well, I disagree. I think that if they say that, they need to do that, certainly in terms of classes and races. Because it's not something they idly said once, it's a claim they've repeated and used as a reason people should buy the game. They shouldn't have said it if they didn't mean it. It's very clear that the people who have purchased the game believe it if you go on the subreddit, Discord, or the like.

If they treat Paladins as "Lawful Good" in 5E, they've screwed up on a profound level, and they shouldn't have included any oaths except Devotion. It's just dishonest to say, include Ancients but treat it as Lawful Good. When Owlcat are doing a better job with Paladins than you, you know you've screwed up.

But I'll give them time to get to release. If they don't include Dragonborn, the missing subclasses, Monks, and so on, then yeah I'll be pretty angry, because this game was purchased on the repeated claim that they'd include "everything in the PHB", and whilst I'm willing to let some spells and Feats and so on slip, or see some changes, entire subclasses and stuff? No.

Also re: Totem Barbs they're slightly renamed but they're a pretty good implementation - all the animals are there and most of them work the same way, so I'm not really seeing the problem. Nor do I see them "hating" Champion Fighters. Why do you say that?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, I disagree. I think that if they say that, they need to do that, certainly in terms of classes and races.

It sounded like an aspiration to me, rather than a promise. No plan survives contact with reality.

If they treat Paladins as "Lawful Good" in 5E, they've screwed up on a profound level

It would be consistent with BG1 and 2.

they shouldn't have included any oaths except Devotion. It's just dishonest to say, include Ancients but treat it as Lawful Good.

The text for the oath of the ancients is so vague it could mean anything.

When Owlcat are doing a better job with Paladins than you, you know you've screwed up.

Owlcat has alignments, and requires paladins to be lawful good. And in order to keep a lawful alignment you have to espouse classist (and worse) ideals. It's pretty had to do "what I think is right" and not shift to neutral good (and therefore be de-paladined) in an Owlcat game.

Nor do I see them "hating" Champion Fighters. Why do you say that?

It's the only core rules/SRD subclass not implemented (apart from monk obviously), and it goes against Larian's principle of trying to give everyone something to do each round apart from spam attack. If it makes it in I expect it to be significantly altered. And there are loads of other non-PHB fighter subclasses that are more suited.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It sounded like an aspiration to me, rather than a promise. No plan survives contact with reality.

They said it repeatedly. They've made huge numbers of sales on that basis. And like I said, it's very clear almost everyone who heard it understood it to a statement of serious intent, not some airy-fairy aspiration.

As for "no plan survives contact with reality", this is simple matter of doing the work. It's not impossible. It's not even hard. It's just a matter of them actually doing it. Vengeance Paladin wouldn't be hard to implement at all - and to be honest I expect they will.

It would be consistent with BG1 and 2.

That's a pretty funny justification given how little else (particularly tone and Forgotten Realms-ness) is "consistent with BG1/2". I mean, obviously that's a nonsensical justification and even you don't believe it.

The text for the oath of the ancients is so vague it could mean anything.

No. There's loads of stuff that's clear about it, and what's not in it is important, too. It's certainly not Lawful Good and wasn't it you who pointed out that earlier? Someone did. It's NG if anything.

It's pretty had to do "what I think is right" and not shift to neutral good (and therefore be de-paladined) in an Owlcat game.

I could agree with that sentiment in Kingmaker, but not in Wrath of the Righteous. They both use slightly different ways of handling alignment, note.

It's the only core rules/SRD subclass not implemented (apart from monk obviously), and it goes against Larian's principle of trying to give everyone something to do each round apart from spam attack. If it makes it in I expect it to be significantly altered. And there are loads of other non-PHB fighter subclasses that are more suited.

You've praised them for adapting stuff to make it better for a videogame, why would it be a problem if they adapted Champion? And to be clear that's what I expect to see - them adapting it. I don't think it means they "hate" it though, that's quite a leap of logic.