Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Hey!
... I mean, you're right, but hey!
Remember the game is licensed.
because pathfinder is really good, thats why accept it or keep living ind denial and jealous. learn to appreciate good things and stop being a fanboi, Larian ain't bringing bread to your home.
You do realize you can like game A without bashing it by comparing it with B. You tell me who's living in denial and being jealous, kiddo. On top of that, D&D and Pathfinder are two different beasts.
Next time, think first before you speak your mind, narrow-minded fool. You're clearly the "fanboi" here, so, there's that too.
unless you meant the pathfinder tabletop.
which is crunchy garbage
What does this even mean???
The OP is correct and it's a valid criticism.
I agree that the teeflings look tacky. For one, their 'devilish' traits are described as being much more subtle, and they don't all have the tail, the horns, the eyes. Every teefling should be somewhat different from the others, instead the teeflings in BG3 all look the same - horned, tailed, glowing eyes, red skin. They're a cliche. They need more variety, and their 'devilish' traits need to be more subtle in most cases.