• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Should Baldur's Gate 3 be turnbased or Real Time With Pause?

Should Baldur's Gate 3 be turnbased or Real Time With Pause?

  • Classic or Simultaneous Turn Based

    Votes: 46 52.9%
  • Something other then Turn Based or Real Time With Pause

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Real Time With Pause

    Votes: 25 28.7%
  • Hybrid between Turn Based and Real Time With Pause

    Votes: 15 17.2%

  • Total voters
    87

Xaelvaen

Explorer
PoE2 changed the spell system from the original PoE to all spells refreshing after each combat, so it wasn't a problem if the AI burned through spells in an encounter.

The original PoE had spells recover on a (long) rest like D&D, and there real time with AI was an issue - either you let the AI use them and would burn through them quickly, or you didn't in which case it was effectively turn based as you be pausing often to cast.

So PoE2 isn't a great analog for D&D combat where there's a lot of long rest recovery spells and class features. The original PoE was closer, and that did have issues with real time because of AI use of them.
I actually wouldn't know about the AI using spells, I always micromanage in games like that, be it pause or turn-based. I do see it as at least relevant, because regardless of when your spells come back, you're still dealing with constraints, and still dealing with rounds of nothing but basic attacks - at least with D&D, there are at-will cantrips. PoE2 didn't even have that while at least anything resembling 5e would. For me, I've had a ton more fun with turn-based combat since Divinity: Original Sin than I ever did with pause-based RPGS (like BG2), but I'd never want to encourage a company to only make turn-based, for those who prefer closer to live-action - thus my vote for both!
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
So get rid of the "only one reaction per turn" limitation. Let characters use as many reactions as they have different types of reaction available, but only let each category trigger once.

So, your basic Opportunity Attack triggers on the first enemy to leave your threat range. Your Shield spell triggers the first time you're hit by an attack that would have missed with Shield activated. Etc.
I would prefer that these are under the player's control. I would also prefer to have square by square movement as well. It is one of the things that bugs me the most with X-Com and other turn-based games is they don't let you use your movement to its fullest.

In fact the whole point of having a turn-based game is to allow fine control of movement and reactions.

-------------------------
The problem with RTwP is combat is either face-rolling your way through it or pausing so much that it becomes more tedious than turn-based.

For example, in Kingmaker one can face-roll though 90% of the combats in the game. The reason is that the nature of the encounters and the limited spells make only certain parties really viable. In the first part of the game, the most difficult encounter is with spider swarms since the party doesn't have a really good method of countering them. However, once you understand how to fight them, it also become fairly simple.

To faceroll through the game you build a party that is composed of: an elven druid with a bear companion, a rogue, and 4 fighters. Give everyone a bow. Have the bear companion tank all of the fights and everyone else just gun down the opposition. For the few times you get surrounded, make sure all of your fighters have maxed their AC and are using sword and shield. Have one or two start tanking if necessary. Target enemy spellcasters first with bows (obviously) as you can completely shut them down as they never cast protection from arrows. The rogue is for opening chests and handling traps -- plus sneak attack damage with the bow is awesome. The rogue provides the stealth while camping, the druid provides the hunting, one character (the main) should focus on world knowledge and the rest on perception.

In fact, to do the extended finale they completely nerf spell casters, so taking a wizard, sorcerer, magus, cleric, etc. is pointless. There is a ton of healing in the game, but if necessary, have one character multiclass into cleric to provide some minimal healing. There are a ton of condition removal potions in the game as well. And if that isn't enough, you still get the NPC clerics that can be swapped into the party just for that purpose.

--------------
This is pretty much how all RTwP games work anyway. The Baldur's Gate series didn't really reward character diversity either. Bows reigned supreme in the first game. They did become less useful in the second, but then you just dual classed your fighters into wizards for the second and took care of it that way.

----------------------

If someone wants a D&D inspired game I suggest the Neverwinter MMO. It is D&D inspired -- also boring AF. I made it to level 30 when you get your big bonus. What a yawn fest. Tactical options just about nil. Just spam the same three abilities over and over. Skyrim has way more tactical depth.

-------------

The other problem with these games is that the main character has to carry all of the dialogue so by definition also has to be a face character. The only game in which I think that was party based that this was done correctly, IMHO, was Neverwinter Nights 2: Storms of Zehir. In this game none of the characters was the "main". All characters were equal in the party. Unfortunately, by the time SoZ came out, I think most people had moved on and had stopped playing. However, SoZ should have been what they led with as it had a number of innovative systems that any game developer should take a hard look at.
 

MarkB

Hero
I would prefer that these are under the player's control. I would also prefer to have square by square movement as well. It is one of the things that bugs me the most with X-Com and other turn-based games is they don't let you use your movement to its fullest.

In fact the whole point of having a turn-based game is to allow fine control of movement and reactions.
XCOM's movement allowance is reasonably comparable to pre-5e D&D, which required separate movement and action phases within a character's turn.

In XCOM it's a deliberate tactical choice that enhances the game's tension - the fact that you can't move step-by-step means that you have to balance the benefit of maximising your movement against the risk of over-extending and leaving a soldier exposed.

And the fact that most units can't move after firing enhances the use of cover - basically, you don't get to do the 5e cheese of jumping out of cover, taking a shot, and then retreating back out of sight, so you need to make best use of cover because your units will be in the line of fire on the opposition's turn.

You may find it frustrating, but it's what keeps the combats tense and interesting.

That sort of thing isn't as big a factor outside of a cover-based combat system, and Larian's most recent offerings do indeed allow fine control over movement during a character's turn, so there's no particular reason to expect them to do otherwise in a new game.
 

GreenTengu

Villager
I enjoyed the system that was used in Neverwinter Nights and wish that game series had continued. Also, it would have been nice in those games to have more than 1 party member besides the main character at a time. (I recall I modded the game to allow that, but it just made everything such a cake walk that I can't recommend it.)

Doing everything real-time can be unbelievably tedious and would only be desirable in the most challenging of situations.
Furthermore, I don't want to have to micromanage every action. After all-- when playing D&D, you only ever play as one character anyway.

So the Rogue should know to pick any locks and disable any traps they find so long as we aren't in the middle of a fight, the Cleric should know to heal the party, turn undead and bless when appropriate, the fighter should automatically try to pull enemies off of the party members with lower AC and fewer hit points, and the wizard should generally know when and where to cast their spells.

In fact-- when paused, it might be nice if instead of assigning one action and then having to pause the game once they do that one action to assign the next, if instead each party member could be given a set of perhaps 5 step instructions, just like you might make a plan at a table, and then when unpaused, the party members would set forth to accomplish those tasks before reverting to their usual AI behavior.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
XCOM's movement allowance is reasonably comparable to pre-5e D&D, which required separate movement and action phases within a character's turn.

In XCOM it's a deliberate tactical choice that enhances the game's tension - the fact that you can't move step-by-step means that you have to balance the benefit of maximising your movement against the risk of over-extending and leaving a soldier exposed.

And the fact that most units can't move after firing enhances the use of cover - basically, you don't get to do the 5e cheese of jumping out of cover, taking a shot, and then retreating back out of sight, so you need to make best use of cover because your units will be in the line of fire on the opposition's turn.

You may find it frustrating, but it's what keeps the combats tense and interesting.

That sort of thing isn't as big a factor outside of a cover-based combat system, and Larian's most recent offerings do indeed allow fine control over movement during a character's turn, so there's no particular reason to expect them to do otherwise in a new game.
That is not in fact, what is frustrating about it. What is frustrating is that you cannot select the path to your chosen location, so the game wants to crash the soldier through a window instead of going around it. Both paths use more than a single move but less than a double move. The fact you cannot choose your path also makes it difficult to stay out of enemy LOS, again the total moves are less than a single move.

The other thing the game needs it the ability to rotate the map. This is the norm for X-Com, but it is a big irritation in PF:Kingmaker.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
I enjoyed the system that was used in Neverwinter Nights and wish that game series had continued. Also, it would have been nice in those games to have more than 1 party member besides the main character at a time. (I recall I modded the game to allow that, but it just made everything such a cake walk that I can't recommend it.)

Doing everything real-time can be unbelievably tedious and would only be desirable in the most challenging of situations.
Furthermore, I don't want to have to micromanage every action. After all-- when playing D&D, you only ever play as one character anyway.

So the Rogue should know to pick any locks and disable any traps they find so long as we aren't in the middle of a fight, the Cleric should know to heal the party, turn undead and bless when appropriate, the fighter should automatically try to pull enemies off of the party members with lower AC and fewer hit points, and the wizard should generally know when and where to cast their spells.

In fact-- when paused, it might be nice if instead of assigning one action and then having to pause the game once they do that one action to assign the next, if instead each party member could be given a set of perhaps 5 step instructions, just like you might make a plan at a table, and then when unpaused, the party members would set forth to accomplish those tasks before reverting to their usual AI behavior.
What you are looking for it the ability to create good AI behavior. It is amazing that AI behavior is still no better than it was 20 years ago. At least in PoE they tried to make the AI more useful than 20 years ago.
 

MarkB

Hero
That is not in fact, what is frustrating about it. What is frustrating is that you cannot select the path to your chosen location, so the game wants to crash the soldier through a window instead of going around it. Both paths use more than a single move but less than a double move. The fact you cannot choose your path also makes it difficult to stay out of enemy LOS, again the total moves are less than a single move.
I don't recall if it was ever introduced in the first XCOM, but in XCOM2 you can hold down CTRL to set waypoints for your move action, allowing you to ensure that your soldier chooses to quietly leap through the open window instead of crashing through the adjacent closed one.
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
What you are looking for it the ability to create good AI behavior. It is amazing that AI behavior is still no better than it was 20 years ago. At least in PoE they tried to make the AI more useful than 20 years ago.
I like the Dragon Age : Origins ai/scripting, that worked well for this kind of thing.
 

Advertisement

Top