Baldur's Gate 3 - Gameplay and Impressions

TomRon said:

I don't want to watch the entire videos but I'm not a fan of what Chien mentions (your whole group goes at the same time?), I'd rather see it being based on individual initiatives, otherwise you lose one aspect of the character building. I suppose it doesn't have to be that much of an issue, lots of great games like Xcom do it that way, but still…sounds wrong to me.

Click to expand...

In the current iteration, every party member rolls initiative, then every enemy. The side with the highest roll acts first.

IE:
Character 1 rolls 25
Character 2 rolls 9
Character 3 rolls 16
Character 4 rolls 3

Enemy 1 rolls 15
Enemy 2 rolls 17
Enemy 3 rolls 22
Enemy 4 rolls 9

Result: Character party initiative roll counts as 25, Enemy party roll counts as 22, so the Character party as a whole acts first, then the whole enemy party acts, taking turns each.

I suppose that can still change, but it makes combat a bit more similar to X-Com and less as it was in DOS:2, where party members and enemies acted alternatively in initiative (aka Wits) order.

I'm not decided whether this is good or bad, I personally kind of liked better that every character and enemy acted according to their own initiative roll. In the other hand, I enjoy very much the idea of being able to set-up fun combos, and the playmaking potential that results from having a few characters to act before enemies can react is very high - and also the consequences of having someone in your party end their turn in a compromised position are greater as the enemy also gets many actions before you can do anything about it, and can easily pile up on your weak link and take them out. All of this potentially elevates the tactical weight of every decision you make.

Didn't DOS1 had a similar party based initiative system? They switched to initiative per character in DOS2 and now they are back to the first system.

Nereida said:

In the current iteration, every party member rolls initiative, then every enemy. The side with the highest roll acts first.

IE:
Character 1 rolls 25
Character 2 rolls 9
Character 3 rolls 16
Character 4 rolls 3

Enemy 1 rolls 15
Enemy 2 rolls 17
Enemy 3 rolls 22
Enemy 4 rolls 9

Result: Character party initiative roll counts as 25, Enemy party roll counts as 22, so the Character party as a whole acts first, then the whole enemy party acts, taking turns each.

I suppose that can still change, but it makes combat a bit more similar to X-Com and less as it was in DOS:2, where party members and enemies acted alternatively in initiative (aka Wits) order.

I'm not decided whether this is good or bad, I personally kind of liked better that every character and enemy acted according to their own initiative roll. In the other hand, I enjoy very much the idea of being able to set-up fun combos, and the playmaking potential that results from having a few characters to act before enemies can react is very high - and also the consequences of having someone in your party end their turn in a compromised position are greater as the enemy also gets many actions before you can do anything about it, and can easily pile up on your weak link and take them out. All of this potentially elevates the tactical weight of every decision you make.

Click to expand...

I still prefer individual initiative. The game should have delay turn which would allow you to set up combos.

I also hope they have 5-ft step. Being able to maneuver in tight quarters without incurring an AOO and preserving your full action is huge. I'm assuming they're are full actions. Didn't get a good idea of how movement, action and bonus actions worked.

Didn't notice a fog of war. I'm assuming there will be one. Being able to see in to the next room beyond a closed door is lame.

They will need to balance the turn based with real time per character I think. Otherwise initiating combat with one character and skirting the battlefield to put archers in high ground or positioning a mage or thief behind the battle is like free turns. It didn't seem to be much of a problem in DOS but the verticality may change things. for instance when he positioned his thief to push off the enemy. Not sure why they couldn't make that a bit more realistic rather than have the enemy fly across the area when pushed.

A little leary of the exploding barrels and overuse of environmental stuff, but we'll see on that.

I really hope they spend time on the little stuff that make D&D mechanics so cool imo. Stuff like the previously mentioned 5-ft step, grapple, etc. Also hope they take advantage of the monster manual and have a good variety and cool abilities. having a character get swallowed in TOEE remains one of my cooler experiences in any game.

I know it seems like a bunch of negative , but it's more of just a small wish list I'm actually pretty excited to dive in and will be playing as soon as it's released.

Cannot wait to play the overpriced hair dresser elf

Graphics look good and the opening cut scene has a nice plot hook. But yeah I can see what they mean about needing to retool it a little: there's too much visual association with D:OS2. I do like the vertical element; not so sure about that super jump though -- it seems a bit cartoony.

Very underwhelming so far from my perspective to be honest. I applaud the courage of Swen and Larian, but at the moment this is far too similar to DOS:2 for comfort.

There's nothing Baldur's Gate like yet at all to get excited about artistically or aesthetically in what we've seen so far. The Dragon Age Origins similarities are also striking as others have remarked. The cinematic approach will need more going for it to adequately immerse me.

The apparent maximum party of 4 is greatly disappointing for me as experimenting with a variety of parties is one of the great staple virtues of the original games. What is it with modern cRPGs being quite weak on this front? None have really touched BG or BG2 for this element.
Confirmation: https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784?s=20

The turn based decision doesn't bother me at all; I predicted it actually. It makes sense to return D&D combat to its historical roots stylistically. But in the meantime, I'm going to need a much stronger connection to Baldurs Gate itself before I invest in this.

Pessimeister said:

The apparent maximum party of 4 is greatly disappointing for me as experimenting with a variety of parties is one of the great staple virtues of the original games. What is it with modern cRPGs being quite weak on this front? None have really touched BG or BG2 for this element.
Confirmation: https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1233431915274870784?s=20

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is indeed disappointing imo. I wasn't even aware of it until you posted that, but it doesn't surprise me.

I wonder if being turn-based influenced that. I've seen quite a few complaints about how long some of the battles took in D:OS 2, and I think there's a good chance that Larian was afraid of combat being even more bloated if they went with a larger party.

And I agree about modern crpgs being weak in that aspect. Other than PoE and Pathfinder, I can't think of any recent RPGs that allow for a party larger than 4. When you look at turn-based only, there are zero. The last turn-based game I can remember having more than 4 party members was ToEE.

JDR13 said:

I wonder if being turn-based influenced that. I've seen quite a few complaints about how long some of the battles took in D:OS 2, and I think there's a good chance that Larian was afraid of combat being even more bloated if they went with a larger party.

Click to expand...

I suspect you're probably right here. That'd be the major reason. I also wonder if there's anything inherent about the nature of 5e as well that would tend to focus on smaller parties? I've not played tabletop D&D since 3.5 though, so I don't really know a great deal about it. In any case, it's going to be fascinating to see how the Baldurs Gate and D&D connections are made over time before release.

"You must gather your little group before venturing forth" just doesn't sound right.

In all honesty, I've yet to finish D:OS 2. I got significantly distracted over half way through act 2 where the grinding itemisation (continual need to upgrade) and the massive scale fights on tactician simply took their toll. Still, I'll get back to it when I can as I hate abandoning games at the best of times.

Pessimeister said:

I also wonder if there's anything inherent about the nature of 5e as well that would tend to focus on smaller parties? I've not played tabletop D&D since 3.5 though, so I don't really know a great deal about it. In any case, it's going to be fascinating to see how the Baldurs Gate and D&D connections are made over time before release.

Click to expand...

I don't know a lot about 5e myself, but I think the battle length issue probably has a lot to do with Larian's style when it comes to designing combat. Lots of flashy animations, environmental interaction, and HP/armor bloat all contribute to the battles often feeling too long.

And that's just my impressions from D:OS 1. I haven't even played OS 2 yet, and everyone tells me the battles are even longer in that game.

JDR13 said:

I don't know a lot about 5e myself, but I think the battle length issue probably has a lot to do with Larian's style when it comes to designing combat. Lots of flashy animations, environmental interaction, and HP/armor bloat all contribute to the battles often feeling too long.

And that's just my impressions from D:OS 1. I haven't even played OS 2 yet, and everyone tells me the battles are even longer in that game.

Click to expand...

I have the feeling they were similarly long, with the exception of some boss battles. And the animations had a lot to do with that as well as the enviornmental interaction. D&D, especially low level d&d tends to be deadlier and I hope the enviornmental interaction will be reduced.
I liked DOS2 in terms of its story, its character backgrounds, and its noncombat interactivity. If we get less one liners and exploding barrels, I think a D&D themed orginal sin type game is promising, even if it doesn't the same Baldur's Gate feel the Pathfinder games do.

sakichop said:

That’s my point. It’s a joke.

Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. I guess I read past your smiley.

I personally don't mind a lot whether it's 4 or 6 party members, though being 4 is probably best at dealing with one of the concerns that those that don't like turn-based have - battle length. If some people complained that DOS2 had one 30 minute battle after another, just imagine having an increased 50% in the number of characters you control (and potentially the same increase on the opposition to keep battles balanced).

Something I do like about being 4 party members is the potential for the game to be soloed at the highest difficulty. To me, this is a major incentive, I just have way too much fun challenging myself in a way that's not meant to be, and if the number of default party members was 6 or more, the encounter balance would possibly be mathematically impossible to tackle for a solo character.

This is everything I expected of BG3 and unfortunately everything that doesn't interest me.

Thankfully, there are diverse D&D/Pathfinder titles coming out within 1-2 years. I look forward to playing WotR and Solasta but will give this one a pass.

Fire emblem had up to a 15 character party, but the battles became so long my son quit midway though.

I have no doubts they’ll be a mod for 6 characters just as there was for DOS2.

Party size limited to 4 is pretty terrible for a D&D game and probably the single worst thing I’ve heard about BG3 so far. Unless “followers” (mentioned in the linked tweet) can also act as real party members...

TomRon said:

I don't want to watch the entire videos but I'm not a fan of what Chien mentions (your whole group goes at the same time?),

Click to expand...

Players may be already fans of it, might grow fans of it or even turn addicted to it

I suppose it doesn't have to be that much of an issue, lots of great games like Xcom do it that way, but still…sounds wrong to me.

Click to expand...

XCOM (the fireaxis interpretation) introduces other factors which lead to changes to the battlefield configuration. Like FoW, re inforcement etc And the impact on initiative is different.

BG3 is a different take. The presentation was staged: from the moment the showcaser spoke about a broken save system, it was expected that the run would be lost.
First run was meant to showcase consequences of what happens when dismissing the initiative relative feature
The second to showcase what happens when taking advantage of it. The right way to play or something like that as stated by the showcaser.
What not to do and what to do.

It is boxed around players taking initiative and being provided a powerful round.
Players who dismiss the box (and there will be) will struggle.

Encounters will be designed around that structure: players who accept the pact, who think within the box, are meant to get initiative in most encounters (not managing it might be unproperly depicted as thinking outside the box)
Encounters will not solve all of them in one round and there will be encounters for which players will not be given initiative. They will be described as the most difficult.

It is no longer about RTwP, that train left the station long ago. It is now about UgoIgo and the expectation about it.

Initiative is a fundamental core feature in a UgoIgo game. So far.
In games involving human players, especially head to head, granting the insurance of initiative to one player is uncommon. Usually, it is meant to switch from one player to another player.

The expectation is that players must be proficient when having the initiative and when they have not.

BG3 dispels the necessity of knowing what to do when not having the initiative.
Players will no longer have to bother about being efficient when not having the initiative as not gaining initiative mostly is the result of poor play.

Usually, in UgoIgo, initiative has a large weight, it is central to decision making, players might work to go first as they might work to go second.

In BG3, it is about milking numbers so to start first.

Just as it was time to liberate gaming from RTwP, it is now time to liberate UgoIgo gaming from decision making relatively to initiative.

It is an empowerishment in gameplay as gameplay related to all sequences happening when not having the initiative are considered now abnormal. They will be some but the normality is about having the initiative.

Usually in UgoIgo having the initiative is as normal as not having it.

BG3 is a different deal: do not get initiative as it is expected then troubles. Get initiative and then things go smoothly.

One main consequence: the more players get used to it, the more painful it is going to be to return to UgoIgo that does not secure initiative for a player.

This is the next stage of elimination, of crippling gaming: removing anything related to not having initiative.
Conceding initiative used to be a strategical option. Now it is going to a failed strategical option.

UgoIgo products are going to be those products initiative is no longer meant to be conceded. Big change.

purpleblob said:

This is everything I expected of BG3 and unfortunately everything that doesn't interest me.

Thankfully, there are diverse D&D/Pathfinder titles coming out within 1-2 years. I look forward to playing WotR and Solasta but will give this one a pass.

Click to expand...

Hi PurpleBlob!

This post of yours means you're back? I mean, actively back?

Hi Purple, so is it the only four characters and the the simplified initiate that bothers you? What else?
And how many characters added would change your mind? One? Or does it have to be six minimum?

I will def play this, since I enjoyed D:OS1/2...but I do hope it will morph into something that looks more like BG3 as time progresses, and less like a D:OS game. I'd play D:OS3 too of course (mayeb this is it, but I really want to rekindle the magic of BG1/2. And given gfx and tech we have now, it should be posisble to make an amazing game.

redman5427 said:

Hi Purple, so is it the only four characters and the the simplified initiate that bothers you? What else?
And how many characters added would change your mind? One? Or does it have to be six minimum?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I hope they allow more characters...but I think it is still early days, and if the community objects enough to aspects they may change? They want to capitalize on the success/nostalgia of BG, so they may end up having to rethink certain elements.