|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Hm, I don't think I've seen any multiplayer footage of this game before. Seeing as how a huge amount of this game is based on the decisions that the character makes, how does the game handle having multiple PCs at the same time?
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:Hm, I don't think I've seen any multiplayer footage of this game before. As far as I can tell, whichever player character initiates the conversation is the only one who counts. The other player can make a suggestion by clicking on a dialogue option but has no control, like a non-voting congressional delegate from Guam or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
You can do things by just left clicking. You don't need to right click everything or press the attack button on the bottom. The game will do the obvious basic action like opening a door or hitting a guy with left click. You should make sure to change your camera angles too. Lots of context in the environment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
I am surprised you did the exact same conversation about Mind Flayers with each other twice. Like you said the exact same thing to each other with minor word differences before and after character creation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
Githyanki and Githzerai were around with each other from the start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Oh boy. Being currently in the middle of a co-op playthrough of this, I can safely say you're in for a ride.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 09:24
|
|
|
Slaan posted:You can do things by just left clicking. You don't need to right click everything or press the attack button on the bottom. The game will do the obvious basic action like opening a door or hitting a guy with left click. Yeah absolutely to both of those. Also press alt sometimes. This playthrough seems fun. I'm looking forward to the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Yeah absolutely to both of those. Also press alt sometimes. Thanks for the tip! We learned about alt (and more about when it's safe or not safe to left click) in one of the upcoming videos. anilEhilated posted:Oh boy. Being currently in the middle of a co-op playthrough of this, I can safely say you're in for a ride. We're having a (mostly) very good time so far! MonsterEnvy posted:Githyanki and Githzerai were around with each other from the start. Not sure what you mean by that. At least as of the 3.X era lore, they started as a single people. Then they divided politically and philosophically, and started living in isolation from each other. And then over the 2000 or so years since then, their separation led to them diverging into 2 separate races Maybe that lore was retconned? Or maybe we're saying the same thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
Melth posted:Not sure what you mean by that. At least as of the 3.X era lore, they started as a single people. Then they divided politically and philosophically, and started living in isolation from each other. And then over the 2000 or so years since then, their separation led to them diverging into 2 separate races Sorry what I mean was when the Githyanki were first introduced back in the Fiend Folio in 1981, the Githzerai were introduced alongside them. The Githzerai were not published later than the Githyanki is all I was saying. Their lore of course was always they were once the same people, but split due to fundamental disagreements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Sorry what I mean was when the Githyanki were first introduced back in the Fiend Folio in 1981, the Githzerai were introduced alongside them. The Githzerai were not published later than the Githyanki is all I was saying. Their lore of course was always they were once the same people, but split due to fundamental disagreements. Ah, yes, sounds like we're talking about the same thing. Anyway, no idea if githzerai will appear in game somewhere. If not, it would have been cool to have them as a subrace option I think. 2: Our First Dungeon Although I had no idea at the time, it's since become clear that this was the wrong path to take and we're heading into a dungeon without meeting 2 powerful party members. Well actually one powerful one and one weak one, but whatever!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:Hm, I don't think I've seen any multiplayer footage of this game before. It is a beautiful disaster with 3 or 4 players. People are constantly running off on their own and getting into unexpected trouble in exactly the way that tends to happen in real D&D games. It is chaos. Everyone gets so mad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
worm girl posted:It is a beautiful disaster with 3 or 4 players. People are constantly running off on their own and getting into unexpected trouble in exactly the way that tends to happen in real D&D games. It is chaos. Everyone gets so mad. So far, the good moments are a very good video game, and the occasional bad moments are very much like bad ways some people DM games, so it does feel quite true to D&D that way!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
The new microphone set-up is way better! Love that this group of professional faithers completely fails at religion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:The new microphone set-up is way better! It's a pretty common thing in 5E in general. In 3.X or 4E intelligence was good or at least usable for various characters, but in 5E it's the most worthless stat in the game. Even wizards don't necessarily get that much use out of Intelligence! You can make an extremely strong wizard who has mediocre/bad Int by just focusing on buffs and utility and battlefield control that doesn't allow saving throws. Or ritual spells. In fact, I think I would go so far as to say that for the majority of powerful wizard spells, Intelligence is irrelevant. So now almost everyone, especially non-wizard casters, wants to have the minimum possible Int score. Decently built clerics are terrible at religion, druids are ignorant about nature, bards don't know any history, etc...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
On one hand kinda yes but on the other hand it was so extremely frustrating that most classes got almost no skill points and you HAD to pump intelligence to get any but of course you don't have infinite attribute points so you either got skill points or could be effective at your class. Unless of course your class was a full caster and only needed one single attribute...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 06:53
|
|
|
Yeah, to be quite frank, I have my grievances with 5e stats and leveling up. I was never a fan of the fact that only every even stat point matters either. And stat increase ls are so rare that you would rarely opt to take a cool feat instead. Also there are stupid meta tactics where physical warriors would actually dump strenght because they just assume that they'd get a Belt of Hillgiant strenght at some point. That item is so stupid. Edit: To clarify for the people who aren't D&D nerds: that silly belt gives you a flat strength stat of 21 unless you are already above that. So that thing helps you just as much if you are at 19 or at 6. There are also even stronger versions of that thing. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Sep 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
What kind of utterly moronically designed item is that?  I could accept an item that set a stat to 13 or something more reasonable but that's just stupid. If I was DM'ing I would NEVER allow it. I'd allow a +x to strength that could surpass 20 however I got the impression they wanted to do away with those so it'd have to be quite rare.
Poil fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Sep 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
To be honest, that's a problem older then 5E. Famously, Baldur's Gate 2 (which ran on a modified version of 2E... I think) let you grab a ring that set your Charisma to 18 very early, making it an obvious dump stat for any non-imported character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
That at least is somewhat understandable since these video games often penalize you if you don't make your main character charisma based with all the talking skills. Still an absolutely terrible way to do it.
Poil fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Sep 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
Yeah, imagine if you get one of these in am actual campaign. You would either give it to your 18 strength fighter for a meager increase and a feeling that he wasted his time on upgrading that stat so far, or you would hand it to your spell focused cleric with a strength of 10 and suddenly have that guy smarter and stronger than the fighter. Alternatively, if the DM really hates the fighter , he lets them find that thing just after he climbed to STR 20. Flatly setting stats with equipment is such an awful game design, that I'd feel personally insulted if a DM dropped one of these in a game I'm involved in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Poil posted:On one hand kinda yes but on the other hand it was so extremely frustrating that most classes got almost no skill points and you HAD to pump intelligence to get any but of course you don't have infinite attribute points so you either got skill points or could be effective at your class. Unless of course your class was a full caster and only needed one single attribute... Yeah, it was a horrible design decision to give the already wretched 3.X Fighter and Paladin classes just 2 skillpoints. But most warrior classes did get more skillpoints than most caster classes at least. And I think I would argue that many warrior classes had an easier time putting a good score into Intelligence than most casters. Obviously wizards were an exception, and paladins and monks were an exception on the opposite end because they were horribly designed and needed a high score in every single attribute except Int. But most casters needed to invest hard in a non-intelligence mental stat and also maintain good Dex and Con before they could think about Int. This is not to say that casters weren't gamebreakingly strong overall, of course they were. But I do think the skillpoint system and Intelligence gave some warrior characters one aspect of the game where they might have a sliiiiight advantage over some casters. cant cook creole bream posted:Yeah, imagine if you get one of these in am actual campaign. You would either give it to your 18 strength fighter for a meager increase and a feeling that he wasted his time on upgrading that stat so far, or you would hand it to your spell focused cleric with a strength of 10 and suddenly have that guy smarter and stronger than the fighter. Oddly enough, I actually like the the 'set stat to X' items as a change of pace. Almost every other item in the game (including for increasing ability scores) is just 'big number go up', which is fairly boring and can make finding magic items just feel like a pointless treadmill of increasing your numbers to match increasing challenge numbers. Plus it usually made it a no-brainer who any given item should go to. With something like, say, an Amulet of Health setting Con to 19 and being valuable to every single character, one can at least think about questions like 'should we give this to the person whose natural Con is lowest to get the maximum number increase, or should we give it to the person who needs Con most overall but already has a pretty good one?' It also helps multi-ability-dependent characters a LOT. I think overall almost every aspect of the 5E system is garbage, so the 'Set stat to X' items can feel bad because they're stuck in a bad system which is making fighters choose between putting points in Str vs having interesting capabilities from feats to begin with. But I don't think the items themselves are a bad idea. Particularly because the assumption is that you are never able to shop for your own magic items in this edition, so the DM can give out those belts and whatnot to a party where they'll be interesting, but not have them in the game otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
I broadly really enjoy 5e, I think I'm the only person in the universe who seems to. But the set stat to x items are just very silly and should probably just be flat stat bonuses instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Set stats to number were a thing back in 1e and 2e, and 5e deliberately made some callbacks to those editions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 07:41
|
|
|
Natural 20 posted:I broadly really enjoy 5e, I think I'm the only person in the universe who seems to. But the set stat to x items are just very silly and should probably just be flat stat bonuses instead. On the contrary, it's a very popular edition so you might well be in the majority. I sometimes feel like the only person who despises it completely. Though I was eventually able to convince my D&D playing friends of my point of view, so our games are pretty much all modified 3.5 these days. MonsterEnvy posted:Set stats to number were a thing back in 1e and 2e, and 5e deliberately made some callbacks to those editions. That's a good point, 5E is full of callbacks to those editions. I think it would be fair to say though that ability scores are much more important now than they were in those older editions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
3: Fellow Adventurers Our first very tough fight, injured and outnumbered against a party of other adventurers who apparently managed to meet their teammates before going into the dungeon!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
3.5: Reloading after a crash We've learned that the game doesn't auto-save as often as one would expect, so we'll be manually saving more often from now on! Still, I had fun redoing that fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
F5 is your best friend at all times. Unless you are the sort of person who savescums because they can't deal with failing a diceroll way about their stat level, I guess. That would be tedious and pointless. I actually finished the game today. Man, it's a big one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
4: Reaching a town! Sort of...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
Some small shopping tips to streamline your experience: You can use ctrl + click or shift + click to select several things. At the lower end of the screen, there are scales, that adds the exact gold value difference. You can also click at the top to change it into a straight up buy/sell view. On the lower left you can also switch the current shopping character without re-initiatiating dialog. Don't sell your thieves tools. They're super useful and barely worth anything. They get used up on a failed lockpicking roll, so you can quickly end up empty if you find a hard lock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 07:11
|
|
|
Neat! Hope to keep up on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 08:10
|
|
|
5: Grin and Bear It Even a grove of warlocks would probably have been more reasonable, but at least we've been pointed to another person who almost certainly can't actually cure us!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
The reason you hated Shadowheart and suddenly don't anymore and can't even remember why you did in the first place: (not a real spoiler) The Bangs. She looks so much better with a hat on. Also that strange ox really sucks. I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 07:31
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:The reason you hated Shadowheart and suddenly don't anymore and can't even remember why you did in the first place: (not a real spoiler) The Bangs. She looks so much better with a hat on. The bangs are certainly a contributing factor! It seems like Lae'Zel and Shadowheart both had a huge personality change after the ship though. Lae'Zel went from intelligent and pragmatic to a blithering, bloodthirsty moron. And Shadowheart went from being aggressively stupid and obnoxious to being the sensible one I'm quite curious about the strange ox. We recently (but not for several videos) found Speak with Animals and are going to use that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
I have had it with the bangs slander in the bg3 community
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 06:33
|
|
|
Melth posted:I'm quite curious about the strange ox. We recently (but not for several videos) found Speak with Animals and are going to use that. That spell (or potion) is the absolute best and should be applied generously. Larian is really great at giving those animals voices. Just don't kill that ox! It breaks some mostly unrelated scripting if you do. This in turn ruins a sidestory. I was really annoyed when I found that out like 20 hours later and don't get why they did it this way...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 07:12
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:That spell (or potion) is the absolute best and should be applied generously. Some of my friends who've gotten to the lategame have said it has a lot of bugs and a lot of weird things that can ruin or hide swaths of the story. Possibly patches will fix that before I get there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
The thing is, I don't even think that particular causality is actually a bug. Just a really weird progression flag decission. During my playthrough I was mostly free of actual bugs. Just small stuff like the map markers of a particular completed quest not going away. But I think it gers weirder if you take the less conventional paths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
6: Getting the Band Back Together We finally found out we were missing multiple characters we were supposed to meet hours ago!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Natural 20 posted:I broadly really enjoy 5e, I think I'm the only person in the universe who seems to. But the set stat to x items are just very silly and should probably just be flat stat bonuses instead. SA has a real hate for it for a range of complicated and slightly muddled reasons, but yeah i don't think you're the only person to like the most popular ttrpg in the world. i've played them all and I think 5e captures the essence of d&D really well, which ipso facto makes it kind of mediocre, but (e.g.) advantage is genius and concentration is a very clever way to address spell caster supremacy, and the compressed stat spread is a good way of avoiding some of the 3.5 pitfalls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 22:06
|
|
