Leveling Up Is Lackluster

[osskssa17]

After playing through the Pathfinder games from Owlcat, levelling up in BG3 seems super underwhelming. On release will this feel better? More options maybe?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

There are a couple of 'dead levels' here and there (levels where you mske zero choices), but overall I find the leveling process in 5e/BG3 far superior to Bloatfinder: Wrath of the Accountants.

[Beck]

Leveling Is lackluster because the game uses 5E. The "people" who enjoy this ♥♥♥♥ system lack the mental capacity to handle a more complex system and their only exposure to RPGs is critical role or some other basic ♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.

5E resembles D&D with training wheels. A significant portion of the complexity and depth that make role-playing games fun has been eliminated in an effort to make the game simpler for a new, slow-minded audience. The game can feel dull, plain, and flat because the game is based on 5E. Don't get me wrong, though. Larian have created a fantastic game with excellent production values, dialogue, and voice acting, but it's unfortunate that they were compelled to use such a terrible gameplay system.

character development? non-existent. There is a certain satisfaction in considering all of your options, organising your abilities, feats, and class characteristics, and creating something. it's also fun to make mistakes and then to learn from them. In 5E, you do not experience this in the slightest. in 5E consequence doesn't exist.

In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, there are a tonne of options available at every turn. You can create a character that is exactly what you want by selecting from a broad selection of skills, spells, class features, and other options. Then in 5E? I'll just say that your character is a super cool dude who has no fear and is incredibly unique. you don't even need a stat sheet! it's so simple.

Feats are a significant component of character customisation in both Pathfinder and 3.5. They are numerous, and each one has the potential to significantly alter how your character performs. They play a significant role in what distinguishes each character. And in 5E? just ♥♥♥♥. 3.5: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm 5:https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats

Even though they went to great lengths to ensure that everything was balanced, it feels as though everybody is the same. In Pathfinder and 3.5, each class has its own unique feel, and you have a lot of leeway to develop your own approach.

3.5 and Pathfinder have been around for a while, as such there is a tonne of great content to explore. In contrast to that, 5E has nothing and is unlikely to get anything worthwhile unless wheelchair accessible dungeons are important to you.

I would advise switching to Pathfinder, but just like D&D, both games are becoming more and more sanitised and casual. WOTC is just doing it faster then Paizo.

[Necrosian]

Originally posted by Beck:

*snip*

And how many of those options are viable in the game(talking about kingmaker and WOTR)? Sure on table top you can roleplay and all that, but here options are limited by the programming.

Rather just not have 50+ things to choose from when only 2 or 3 are relevant.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by Necrosian:

And how many of those options are viable in the game(talking about kingmaker and WOTR)? Sure on table top you can roleplay and all that, but here options are limited by the programming.

True enough. For all the options that both Pathfinder games present, only a small fraction are viable because of the campaign content and Owlcat's questionable balancing. A good half of your build selections are basically made for you depending on whatever party role you fall into.

[.Master Jiren, The Strongest]

I think its only boring for characters like Rogue Fighter and Barbarian.
When you level up, you basically just hit next and confirm. Unless you chose the magical subclass.

But for the other classes, magic is the standard, so you'll be picking new spells every single level. Which means every level you get to choose a new optional ability for yourself, whereas if you were one of the 3 martial classes you're just literally getting whatever you get.

[Beck]

Originally posted by Necrosian:

Originally posted by Beck:

*snip*

And how many of those options are viable in the game(talking about kingmaker and WOTR)? Sure on table top you can roleplay and all that, but here options are limited by the programming.

Rather just not have 50+ things to choose from when only 2 or 3 are relevant.

I agree that the adaptability of tabletop RPGs isn't always perfectly replicated in video game adaptations like Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous. Yeah, programming constraints mean that not every option in the tabletop versions of Pathfinder and 3.5 is going to make the jump to the digital world or even be useful if they do.

But I think there's still value in having a broad range of choices, even if some of them aren't 'optimal.' Having options means you can really fine-tune your character and make them your own. You're not just choosing the most powerful ability or the best skill — you're choosing the one that fits your character and your playstyle.

Sure, maybe only a handful of those options are 'viable' in terms of game balance. But RPGs aren't just about winning — they're about creating a unique character and telling a story. And having a wide range of choices, even if some of them aren't the 'best', lets you do that.

The 'viability' or 'optimal' status of an option isn't always the be-all-end-all when it comes to RPGs. Sure, it can be fun to powergame and optimize your character to deal the most damage or be the most effective healer, but that's not the only way to play.

When you get caught up in metagaming — that is, playing the game 'optimally' based on outside knowledge of the game's mechanics, rather than what makes sense for your character — it can actually detract from the overall experience. RPGs, at their heart, are about role-playing. They're about creating a character and stepping into their shoes to experience a different world.

And you know what? Sometimes the most interesting characters are far from 'optimal.' Maybe your sorcerer is afraid of fire, so they never learned any fire spells. Maybe your barbarian has a soft spot for animals, so they always try to avoid fights with beasts. These aren't 'optimal' choices in terms of game mechanics, but they make for rich, interesting characters and stories.

When you focus too much on metagaming, you risk turning your character into a faceless avatar, a bundle of stats and abilities rather than a real person (or elf, or dwarf, or whatever you're playing!). And that can make the game feel more like a math problem than a storytelling experience.

That's why I love the broad range of options in systems like 3.5 and Pathfinder. Sure, not all of them are 'viable' in the strictest sense, but they give you the freedom to create a character that's truly your own, not just an optimized stat block.

So, in the end, 'viability' isn't everything. Sometimes the 'weaker' options can lead to the most rewarding gameplay."

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Beck:

5E resembles D&D with training wheels. A significant portion of the complexity and depth that make role-playing games fun has been eliminated in an effort to make the game simpler for a new, slow-minded audience. The game can feel dull, plain, and flat because the game is based on 5E. Don't get me wrong, though. Larian have created a fantastic game with excellent production values, dialogue, and voice acting, but it's unfortunate that they were compelled to use such a terrible gameplay system.

A game that was originally made for socially awkward nerds and geeks gets dumbed down after becoming more mainstream among the general public.

Go figure...

[Necrosian]

Originally posted by Beck:

*snip*

Of course roleplaying is well and good, but that character still has to finish the game. In WOTR case you could drop the difficulty to zero, but then what even the point of picking the stats, feats, spells if you can get through with the basic attack. If you don't drop difficulty your RP build just gets steamrolled if you don't pick the viable options.

So i personally would like less options if it means they are viable instead of 50+ traps.

[jedidiah]

Originally posted by Metallicus:

Originally posted by Cirrus:

No. This is d&d. That is the way D&D works.

It is how 5e DnD works. Older versions of the game had more substance.

I don't understand this one.

in 1e you chose a class and race, rolled abilities and you got what the class got as you leveled.

In 2e, you did the same with a few more classes and races. They added some optional skill rules.

In 3e, they changed the advancement and stacking rules, and added feats. So there were classes to choose from, with little choice once you chose the class. Skill points were added and what you got was based on class and int. Feats every 3 levels. This version had the most choices by far to this point. 3.5e was essentially the same, and that's what Pathfinder 1 started with.

In 4e, you had choices every level but the game mechanics and system were entirely changed. Essentially, each character was a deck of cards that you chose from within a broad menu set, and your ability to do the things you chose in your deck improved as you leveled. 4e's largest difference was ingrained tactical combat, best used on a grid due to positioning, marking, movement, etc. 4e had the most choice, but played differently vastly from the others, or at least best supported one specific way to play over the others. If 4e came out today with the VTT tools, it would likely have been immensely popular, as a lot of the "work" that goes into that style of play can be done by the VTT management systems.

In 5e, they went back closer to the 3e style of play, flattened the numbers to stop having a lot of +teens/+twenties to things, and added the subclass system. Skill choice, feats every 4 (optional rule), and some subclass choice exists. Its closest to 3e/3.5e over 1e and 2e. I think feats at 1, 3 and every 3rd level would help some of the specialization and depth some folks want to add. That said, all feats are are the same type so you can have a choice between combat feat or a non-combat feat for example, and many folks will default to the former. 3e/3.5e also did this.

This game is based on D&D 5e. It adds a few more things to it that Larian believes help play, mostly options in combat from what I;ve seen, but it's D&D 5e through and through.

For comparison, and in no way championing one over the other:
Pathfinder 1e (as noted above) started with 3.5e but added more choices. The system eventually boated for too much, imo, but the options were near limitless and supported by official and 3rd party content. The archetype system, while not originated here, added a lot of flavor to the classes, by layering a theme of sorts, over a class. Its a nice touch and something DnD should use. Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Wrath both use this system.

Pathfinder 2e claws a little more closely to the strict balance of 4e, and again imo, the preference to play on VTT/grid. However, there's a choice every level up. Whether or not you value that will be up to you. They have archetypes, race feats, class feats, skill feats, and overall support a little bit better model for diving into something not intrinsic to class. It's a system very suited to online and game play and I expect any series of PCRPGs based on it will be very successful as long as the story and character content are solid. No PCRPGs exist for this system yet.

[Lepakko]

For me in pathfinder games you get lots of perks and skills, but they are very minor and still there isnt many options even thought you got like 50 to pick. Most of them wont help or are just fun things. In DnD 5th you get less perks but they are much more meaningful most of time. Like 1 perk give same amount effects as 3 perks in pathfinder. I feel there isnt wrong or right system. They are just different. But one thing i wish there was. You separate stats and perk gains in DnD 5th edition. But they would need to balance perks after that.

[Beck]

Originally posted by Necrosian:

Originally posted by Beck:

*snip*

Of course roleplaying is well and good, but that character still has to finish the game. In WOTR case you could drop the difficulty to zero, but then what even the point of picking the stats, feats, spells if you can get through with the basic attack. If you don't drop difficulty your RP build just gets steamrolled if you don't pick the viable options.

So i personally would like less options if it means they are viable instead of 50+ traps.

Even if you choose badly for every member of the party, you could still beat WOTR on core difficulty. You can also respec if you really need to, if your decisions are so poor that you can't get by.

The rules and mechanics in 3.5 or Pathfinder have a depth that feels really rewarding to delve into. The rulebooks can keep you occupied for hours as you learn how various mechanics work together. It's similar to a puzzle that you can keep on solving. But with 5E, the mechanics are so straightforward that you’ll feel as though you've seen everything after just one session.

In 5E You aren't learning a system because you figured everything out in less than an hour.

And when you say "50+ traps," you'll probably say next, "Quality over quantity." and I can get that, but the quality in 5E isn't any higher than it is in Pathfinder or 3.5. So, the issue is merely one of quantity. And if the issue is feeling overwhelmed by choice or whatever when you're presented with a screen with more than picking two spells on levelling up and you don't want to learn how to properly navigate the game's mechanics, perhaps RPGs or CRPGs aren't for you, and you should play Action RPGs where you only have three or so skill trees to choose from. Because a Baldur’s Gate 3 should feel somewhat close gameplay wise to Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2. Also don’t get me wrong I’m not saying Action RPGs are bad or one is worse off for liking them as I quite enjoy mass effect 1 but not every game needs to be simplified for a larger market.

[Metallicus]

Bottom line is I am going to enjoy both DnD and Pathfinder games. I don’t need to choose. Just because I have a preference doesn’t mean I can’t occasionally play 5e stuff and vice versa.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing ever happened to D&D.

Pathfinder can git rekt.

[Metallicus]

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing ever happened to D&D.

Pathfinder can git rekt.

It’s interesting that the very thing I most despise about 5e is the thing you most like! 😆

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by Beck:

Leveling Is lackluster because the game uses 5E. The "people" who enjoy this ♥♥♥♥ system lack the mental capacity to handle a more complex system and their only exposure to RPGs is critical role or some other basic ♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.

Or you know people who spend more time playing a role rather then min maxing their char...
It's exactly why I like 5e on the table top. I can spend more time thinking about the situation and my character and don't have to spend a whole lot of time thinking about the stats.
If I wanted to do spreadsheets, I'd go and play excel :P