It's for co-op, same as Divinity.
Your friend could be in turn based combat while your somewhere else on the map doing stuff.
The alternative is having tethers which everyone hates. Or real time combat which Larian didn't want.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
51 points (96.4% liked)
Baldur's Gate 3
6340 readers
86 users here now
All things BG3!
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a story-rich, party-based RPG set in the universe of Dungeons & Dragons, where your choices shape a tale of fellowship and betrayal, survival and sacrifice, and the lure of absolute power. (Website)
Spoilers
If your post contains any possible spoilers, please:
- Use the text [SPOILER] at the beginning of your title, do not include any spoilers in the title.
- Use the appropriate spoiler markup to conceal that content in the body of your post.
Thank you!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I figured co-op would be the primary reason. I'd prefer to have to wait while others are in combat, but I might be the minority there.
What are tethers?
I imagine tethering players to each other. Preventing them from straying too far from each other.
Basically prevent players from moving too far apart. Far Cry coop is notorious for this and a few other games. State of Decay 2, etc.
Couldn't they pause the immediate vicinity and if another player approaches they get notified that they're about to enter the pause zone? Or a visual cue
Idk. I remember way back with the DivOS1 Kickstarter they did a video on their channel showing off how turn based worked in co-op and kinda explained why. Though I don't know which video, sometime like 6+ years ago.
It sounds like one solution to this would be having the entire party enter turn-based mode, with members either being in or out of combat. It seems like that would be a very easy change to make, because turn-based mode can already trigger automatically, but the question would be how well that all blends together while you’re playing. I think that should be tied to difficulty; in Story you can cheese like you do now, while in hardcore (or whatever it’s called) you always enter turn-based.
I this is partly the consequence of adapting a tabletop system to a video game. In DND your DM obviously wouldn’t pause combat indefinitely while the rest of the party messes around, but a DM can account for out-of-combat shenanigans much better than a game that must use pre-defined systems.
Yeah, my personal preference would be for everyone to enter turn-based mode, but I might be the minority. Interesting idea tying it to difficulty--I imagine the hardcore players might be the ones that prefer it that way too.
At the bare minimum when you have your whole party in turn based mode and initiative is rolled it shouldn't dump folks not in initiative out of turn based mode.
adapting a tabletop system to a video game. In DND your DM obviously wouldn’t pause combat indefinitely while the rest of the party messes around
Another related thing that annoys me is that free attack you get before you are added to combat. In DnD rules everyone is combat as soon as one player take the decision to attack, but nobody is allowed to actually do their attack until their own initiative. The way it is in BG3 you can potentially do 4+ extra attacks at turn 1, and it feels cheap and clumsy.
Of course if BG3 changed it this way, some people wouldnt get why when they clicked the attack button first but they still have to wait their turn. Even in DnD some newbies ask about that. Maybe thats why Larian did it the way they did?
It seems like Larian actually came to a half measure on this. I find that when I attack and initiate combat, when it gets to my character's turn, their action is already used. So you don't get an extra attack, but you get to take yours earlier than you otherwise would. Which is actually sort of intuitive--taking the first shot gives you that brief moment ahead.
Problem is, combat isn't always started with that first hit. If you attack at range, they might come over to confront you, which means all four characters can attack before combat starts.
Actually in my current run (on Balanced) I’ve found that I can’t really do that. If I group sneak towards enemies I can attack with one of my characters, they leave hiding to make the attack, and then typically get spotted and start combat (unless it’s from far enough away that they can re-hide and attack again before the target gets within sight). Then all the involved characters roll initiative, and my character that attacked doesn’t have an action for that turn. Any other members of my party that are hidden can still attack out of combat, but the same situation occurs; they leave hiding to make the attack, get spotted, roll initiative, and then when their turn comes around they don’t have an action (haven’t had the chance to see how this works with extra attack). This could probably be cheesed with super favourable terrain and some pre-planning, but I think at that point you’ve more or less set up an ambush and it’s ok to get some extra benefit out of that.
IMO this is a pretty good way to handle it within a video game context, because it limits the cheese while not totally removing player agency by possibly undoing your attack. Like you said it’s different to how that’s handled in tabletop, but as a DM I’m able to explain how initiative is literally a skill check to see how quick on the draw you are, so my players hopefully don’t feel as cheated if they want to attack first but can’t act before the enemy. I do enjoy how the player urge to get as many free attacks in as possible at the start of combat is the same in both games hahaha.