DOS2 vs BG3

Haven't played DoS but I really liked BG3's boss and encounter design. Does DoS do that too?

BG3, absolutely. I like the concept of Divinity's combat more witht the way the elements and environments work but BG3 just has so many improvements it made to the feel of combat thanks to it adapting D&D albeit an already very simplified version of it already. Being to throw or shove everything that isn't nail down as well as having jump as an action that every character can do are just such fun systems to mess around with and had so many effects on the game design that made it better. I love that Larian games aren't just combat simulators and have so much more to interact with in the world.

For Combat and itemization

No it doesnt.
Combat is significantly worse and itemization is one of the big flaws of DOS2

DOS2 has the better combat by far

It really doesn't
give 5 reasons why! you cant
5e bad is not an argument
Yes it has great encounter design but not as good as BG3.
its good because most crpgs have shit encounter design thanks to rtwp so by default DOS2 is at the top just below BG3

Ego Draconis

I kind of agree. While I enjoy some aspects of the DnD rules and combat, I also find it fucking irritating that you're encouraged to apply 600 buffs before engaging in any combat against tougher enemies or bosses. Every major encounter becomes this process of making sure you have everything set up and you have all your bullshit ready.

Is it necessary to do this? Of course not. But why would I willingly nerf myself against a strong enemy like that? DnD bosses love their bullshit, so I have to hit them with bullshit back. Which is fine and all, it just takes a full five minutes of fucking buffing before I can do that.

PoE Deadfire

BG3 easy. The AP economy in DoS2 felt horrible for melee, and the armor system coupled with the magic puddle shit made CC a nightmare to deal with. Hope nobody in your party is running water/lightning if you want to play melee because if they are you're basically unable to play the game because you'll be stunned for even thinking about touching that lightning water. Gear is also worse because it's like a diablo loot system with shops updating every level, and witn no way to view other people's gear in game multiplayer becomes a horrendously tedious task of comparing new gear to old by asking the other person what they have

xoti is in love with your bro from the first game who is in this game too

ydwin is a crowdfunded, unfinished character with nothing going on

maia rua is... i dont even fucking remember, who knows, yellow ass fish bitch fuck her

Where's Karlach for BG3? Why Astarion? And imagine comparing PoE II to ANYTHING. Put that shit in the trash, maybe add the aggressively gay as fuck furball butt pirate to your image the next time since you added Astarion. You know, the faggot furball who puts all of BG3's overly gay characters to shame?

I enjoyed BG3, but it did not do archery as well as DOS2.
The wayfarer and ranger are very much unlike the BG3 fighter, ranger, wizard holding a crossbow, etc. I still enjoyed those to varying degrees, but the environment surface spam of dos2 led to a very different type of archer. I also think shoehorning the pure archer into fighter made it very underwhelming when they do basically the same skills as a melee fighter, but with fewer options of equipment.
Still think it is a better game overall, but I wish bg3 had more to offer in that facet that I personally enjoyed.

Here is TEN reasons why combat in BG3 is better than DOS2

1) More depth in strategy: DOS2 winning strat is the exact same with different tactics, in BG3 you have multiple winning strats while also allowing different tactics.
2)Bigger amount of spells: BG3 has more unique spells and more different amount of spells and abilities that even have more than 1 use.
3)Better enemy variety: DOS2 has a low amount of enemies and all the magisters use the same spells, in BG3 you have an insane amount of enemy types and they all have different attacks.
4)Itemization role in the combat: in DOS2 itemization is a fat stat check element, whereas in BG3 it directly plays into combat with unique features (e.g Nyrluna)
5)Better stealth implementation: stealth in DOS2 is weird and doesnt feel rewarding, it costs too much AP and isn't as useful, BG3 has too many things that impact stealth such as lighting, line of sight and invisibility
6)Better boss fights: the encounter design of BG3 allows for better bosses with many different unique gimmicks, something that you rarely may see in DOS2
7) More variety in classes and playstyles: wildshape, stealth, twin magic, support, actual tanks, multiclassing and much more, when in DOS2 its magic vs physical only. all the types of magic play similarly, you either do dmg or cc and its just a different elements like ice or fire
8)Better summons: BG3 offers a wide variety of summonable creatures, something DOS2 is lacking in
9)Better combat animations and sound effects
10)More balanced: thanks to dnd its more balanced than ever, in DOS2 you can break the game and beat every boss with a single hit if you know how to exploit the game, also later in the game dmg numbers get absurdly high, see the doctor boss fight with people hitting crazy amount of dmg

i can probably list 10 more

I had Serafen in my party the entire time I played PoE2 recently and he wasn't very aggressively gay, but you guys usually shit your pants at the sight of a rainbow so maybe you're just trained to be hyperbolic about these kinds of things

I also think shoehorning the pure archer into fighter made it very underwhelming

huh? I played my pure archer as a sword college bard and had a great time. you can also do gloomstalker/assassin

Mechanically PoE2 is a much more interesting game and significantly more engaging if you play it on the highest difficulty setting. BG3's semi-homebrewed system makes the game incredibly easy and boring to anyone familiar with 5e.

Ah yes this is one i forgot.
so number 11

The way AP works is worse, in DOS2 they have AP for everything, walking and fighting and healing, its all used by AP, this presents two issues, first it makes poistioning less important since every enemy in DOS2 has teleport for some reason and becuase of extremely spell overlap you have more than one spell to use, this renders positioning useless since whereever you go enemies will follow you, so why spend AP on movement when you can just deal damage instead.

BG3 separates movement from action, so this way you get to strategically and tactically place your units and then execute your action or bonus action how you see fit, this creates a bigger window for creative problem solving and makes combat and action economy more multilayered.

also if you crouch during combat you lose all AP, so you cant even fight, you waste one turn trying to pray your sneaking attacks will work, this is another problem that i already mentioned, but its a problem because AP is directly used by movement resource.
BG3 gets that bonus action for rogue so you can actually be stealthy. A strong crit build with rogue will have you sneak attacking then crouching back to hide a viable and strong playstyle that cant be found in divnity

This is the only thing those bland mediocre crpgs are good for.
Portraits

First tell other crpg devs to beat DOS2 gameplay then we can talk about BG3 because as far as i see it, those devs are actual talentless shitters

I preferred dos2. I liked the characters, combat and world of dos2 better than bg3's. bg3 had a way better presentation though with its fully animated cutscenes vs everything being narrated to you while the character models just stand around. I'm guessing I'm probably in the minority on this one

Yeah, I don't know what that guy is smoking. Astarion is much more outwardly flamboyant if you want to make that kind of comparison.

gloomstalker ranger is more rogue than archer
sword college bard is definitely fun, but by no means pure ranger. I spent just as much time poking people with rapiers and casting bard spells as I did shooting the little one-handed crossbows, of which there are like 3 in the whole game.
battlemaster fighter was definitely the closest to a direct arrow delivery system, but again most of the bows and crossbows themselves are pretty boring for most of the game.
Extremely situational magic bows I rarely got use of or bow +1.
I later had some success with the strength longbow on my barbarian, but it still felt kind of stupid to do instead of just leaping and bashing their heads in directly.

Based list and you’re 100% right to keep going because honestly, DOS2 fanboys consistently overrate that combat system just because it looks flashy on the surface. Here's number 12 for you:

12) Better action economy variety: DOS2 locks everyone into the same 4 AP per turn and a rigid action cost structure. BG3, by following 5e's economy (Action/Bonus Action/Movement), gives every class a unique rhythm — martials play wildly different from casters, which play wildly different from utility/support builds. DOS2’s characters all start feeling samey after a while, especially once you’ve min-maxed for damage/CC. BG3’s classes actually *feel* like different roles.

BG3 is flawed, sure, but it actually rewards creative play instead of just encouraging you to stun-lock everything while standing in an electrified oil puddle. DOS2 is sick on a first run but the illusion cracks super fast once you see through its gimmicks.

I haven't finished either game but for different reasons. I enjoyed DOS2 more.

I didn't swing a single melee weapon with my bard, I played exclusively at range abusing the power of the double shot attack, slashing flourish I think it was? and yeah using the STR bow and not just throwing shit is silly considering how good throwzerker+tavern brawler is

Most people that start playing Larian games never finish them. Larian is a "we made half of a game" company. I backed DOS1 and it pretty much fell apart after the 2nd area. Same with the DOS2. Didnt even bother with BG3 after that.

BG3 kind of has the same problem but generally it's a pretty good time regardless. Act 3 is the weakest of the acts but still has some fun encounters, especially if you're doing an evil run and are willing to engage with the game's immersive sim elements when doing hits to join the bhaal murder cult

I backed DOS1

Based

Didnt even bother with BG3 after that.

Cringe

Combat is significantly worse and itemization is one of the big flaws of DOS2

Don't agree

DoS 2 is shit, some good features buried under a lot of garbage like the combat armor and all the ground effects.

you see, DOS2 was made with DnD systems in mind but is primarily a videogame THAT is a RPG, this is essential because if you want to play a pure RPG that is fun and translates well to a video game system, you play DOS2

but BG3 is a DnD game primarily AND THEN a video game, that is way your actions have more meaning but most of the time you do calculations and other things to hold yourself against enemies, in DOS2 you simple do cool stuff with a well made RPG system

which one is better depends on how you like your games

That infernal cursed hellfire really taints dos2.
No idea what they were thinking making bless completely ineffective while still using a limited (in battle anyway) resource.
Also, making you trudge over to the source dispenser every time you need to refill was annoying.
Having such a stupid thing sitting around in the world instead of just refreshing on rest makes one wonder why they couldn't bottle it and drink it in the middle of battle to refill anyway.

5e OGL has magical items with resources like arcane acuity, heat, lightning charges, etc.?
Also original 5e has the terrible attunement system. I played solasta and the gear in that was nothing special

BG3 is a natural evolution of DOS2. Beyond that it depends on if you prefer abilities to be infinite use but on cool downs or finite but more powerful.

I would love to see Larian collab with Bethesda to make an Elder Scrolls game in this style.

give 5 reasons why!

1. AP system is objectively better than action bonus action. It allows for more freedom in how you approach a turn, there’s knowledge checks where you can optimize the most AP per turn, it’s both more complex and easier to understand than 5e’s system.
2. Cooldown based combat encourages cycling between different abilities with different effects to maximize your damage instead of spamming. This is more fun, and more engaging because each skill has great diversity in moves meaning that even specialists get a satisfying combat loop.
3. CC is easier to understand than in BG3
4. The effective removal of hit chance as a mechanic in DOS2 makes the combat more rewarding (as the effects of an action are more easily understood) without sacrificing in complexity.
5. Talents, like The Pawn and Glass Cannon, completely change how you approach fights. (Granted this is more of a character building feature)

Separating movement from other actions is inherently less interesting than tying it all to a single resource.
It’s like having a separate currency system, it’s objectively more interesting to have only one currency that you can buy most things with. It increases the possibility space.

I would love to see Larian collab with Bethesda to make an Elder Scrolls game in this style.

this is an interesting comparison because i was just thinking the other day how the core appeal of a larian game (a large sandbox with a focus on systems for engagement) is the same as morrowind. the difference is that bethesda could not recognize that, so they proceeded to remove all the overlapping systems with each game they made. larian meanwhile improves their engine with each game. regardless with how you feel about 5e combat, turn based mode, jumping, and improvements to bartering are objective evolutions to what larian is trying to achieve

Having such a stupid thing sitting around in the world instead of just refreshing on rest

this is a giftbag option/feature.

Divinity didnt have so much faggots so it wins easy.

but every game you play has the biggest faggot of all, you

Both are shit.

Enjoy your slop, faggot.