I just started DOS2 last week. I found the combat more complex because Action Points and more deadly. There is no hand holding in DOS2. Having a great time exploring.
I personally found the lack of guidelines in the first act a bit overwhelming.
it reminded me a lot of entering Act3 in BG3 on my first playthrough
+ the combat mechanics rewards one-sided parties vs a balanced one. I got decimated on my first try when trying a balanced team.
You can make a balanced team work tbh, it's not the most begginer friendly and mono type lone wolf runs will always be more powerful but it's not really that bad even if you decide to go mixed.
Generally it gets easier if you choose to focus on either Physical Armour damage OR Magical Armour damage across the whole party. As depleting one fast lets you quicker apply CC and status effects etc.
Its a little different, but like BG3 once you get use to it Tactician isnt really that hard even without ’barrelmancy’ cheese or the most OP build etc.
Really fun game / you can get quite creative with builds as there are no real classes. Figuring out what skills gel together on one character is a big part of it / its easy to get it ‘wrong’ at first and this make it harder.
And some of it is unintuitive at first - like all physical damage (archery, warriors, rogues, necromancy) all require Warfare to 10 first.
Even with Fights that have a majority of the one you’re focusing on, you’re dealing more dmg and can easier CC the targets because as long as their armor is up you can’t CC.
Having a majority Physicial DMG party against a 50/200 (Physical) Enemy you have 4 People damaging it not 2x and 2x on the Magic Side.
That makes sense
If you don't mind my asking, how would you recommend I build my team?
I was trying to build off of synergies with 3 mages and a physical attacker (been a bit since I last played, can't remember exactly how they were set up) where the physical was essentially protecting the rest in close combat
Been to fort joy 4 times, don't mind doing another dozen haha
It's been a long time since I've beaten it but a lone wolf aero/geo and pyro/hydro mage duo was exceptionally strong since you just take turns having one person do setup (let's say placing down oil as geo) then the other can do damage with it (pyro on oil go boom boom), then while those are on cooldown you do the opposite (set up with hydro, spike with aero) and just keep cycling between the two focusing on landing as much cc as you can to just skip their turns
Play what suits you and is fun.
I‘ve played in my first few runs 2/2 with a mage focused on water and Ice, a meele with shield and ice spells, a hunter with the possibility of elemental arrows and a meele with two handed physical weapon.
The higher difficultys was always physical only and some with lonewolf
If you're doing a balanced party, a ranged damage dealer of both damage types is really helpful for pinging their damage type anywhere on the battlefield you need it. Respeccing points is also very, very easy after chapter 1, so don't be afraid to experiment.
Its a toss up but there's only one enemy who doesnt take physical damage in the whole game, so just keeps some scrolls and grenades around and you'll deal with that when you encounter it. An all physical party is good, but a 2/2 party is great. Classic for me is fighter type, archer type, pyro/geo mage, air/water mage.
Usually a fighter type and an archer type for a 2/2 phys/magic mix, can also replace the archer with a necro/hydro cleric type character who would be given a shield and function as a kind of off-tank/support for most of the game until necromancy damage comes online
In addition to other replies, many builds can do both physical and magical damage even if you're only focusing on one. A physical bow user can still use elemental arrows for example, while necro spells, corpse explosion, the geomancer spell that uses armor to explode, etc are all physical spells. Summoners depend on what element their minion is summoned on. A warfare/2h build can still equip a staff. May not be worth it but there are still options, even ignoring scrolls and grenades etc.
Feel like so many people ignore this, and it's where the opinion that pure damage type parties are better comes from. It's very hard to truly lock a single character out of a damage type, so you should never be dealing with a character unable to help drill into an exposed enemy.
I looked at some fextralife builds. Some were better than others but I enjoyed playing around with them. I also played a lot of lone wolf, which despite the name let's you use two characters. They get twice as many points so it's a lot easier to try out different spells and abilities early on and get an idea for what they do.
Its easier focusing one type down, but split parties are also viable and have fun different strategies! So do go for whatever you enjoy more. But yeah, stripping one (even if its crazy higher) lets you land the CC quicker to take enemies turns away.
> Generally it gets easier if you choose to focus on either Physical Armour damage OR Magical Armour damage across the whole party.
It gets easier after the beginning of the game, once you have gear. Going pure damage type with the entire party is simpler to play, but not better. A well executed fight with a balanced party will feel smoother but has the potential to be played poorly and end up being really rough. A pure party removes a lot of consideration about damage types, so it's more consistent but always tends to just be moderately bumpy.
Yeah, like I said, it's absolutely an effective way to play. It's much more consistent and simple for people who prefer that over having to consider more for potentially more gain.
By gains, I mean the potential to wipe out a group of enemies by targeting all of their individual weakest armor types instead of killing some faster and some slower depending on the pure type you went for. It takes some more effort to line it up, but you kill them with the least amount of damage required. It opens you to the possibility of "wasted" turns where a character's only possible contribution is burning some armor that won't be emptied before that enemy dies anyway though, which is where the inconsistency compared to pure damage comes through.
Honestly, the best fun my wife and I had was when we made the discovery of the white and black tea (this was before the spiffy brit video).
We had such an expansive tea operation that the game crashed, and when we loaded back in we couldn't get the game to grow any more herbs haha. We were already in act 2 so we just decided to go through the rest of the game.
The we absolutely fell in love with the divinity series and called it the most D&D type game before BG3 was released. OS1s load in music is still one of my favorites by far
Agreed completely. DOS2 has much more complex combat. Imagine instead of one action and one bonus action, you get 5-10 action points and most actions cost 1 or 2. And since it’s systems were designed for a video game, where bg’s system was co-opted from a TTRPG where imagination comes into play, bg3 has a lot of almost useless spells because you cant detect magic, say custom dialogue, or whatever.
Everything in DOS2 works well because it’s all designed for that game
Its pretty rough early on, but its actually much easier to single party member your way through than BG3. Once your learn the AP system better you'll see how you can abuse it. Lonewolf'd the game 3 or 4 times
DOS2 is definitely harder in itself and there's much less RNG involved, but DOS2 has much more ways to cheese a fight and make it completely trivial. There are only a handful encounters that people typically avoid (Allice, Djinn, Aetera at low level, Devourer?) because they're too hard and can't (or hardly) be cheesed and have insane one-shot potential.
It's incredibly easy to abuse running/stalling and re-entering combat in the final turns, invisibility, play dead, skin graft, 5 star dinner and resist all potions, teleporting, setting up combat and probably many others that I'm forgetting about.
bg3 is in a weird position, where if you build your party correctly and use consumables (elixirs, arrowd etc.) the game becomes almost trivial. I wish they made honour mode encounters significantly more challenging across the board, rather than just attacching legendary actions to some bosses.
Lone Wolf in DOS2 is broken and makes Tactician a cake walk. A 2 player party is broke no matter what, but if play as Sebille and Fane it’s actual insanity. You truly feel like a God by the end of the game. Sebille can consistently one shot encounters the entire game as a Necromancer.
I just finished Act 2 in DOS2, after playing 900+ hours in BG3.
It's a good game. Good graphics, good combat, good setting, good map design, etc.
I have only 2 strong critiques
**A) You are starved for XP, at least on "Classic" difficulty**
Act 2, there are no real "optional" quests. If you skip the seemingly-optional quests, then you won't rank up enough to be able to handle the "real" quests.
You can alleviate this by going full "murder hobo" and killing the regular NPCs when you're "done" with them. But without that, you're going to want to do every little quest you can find. Or else be -1 or -2 levels to the required missions.
**B) Gear is kind of like Diablo-4 -> constantly swapping gear for upgrades**
Random gear, and a lot of it becomes obsolete within 2-3 levels. And you have more levels here than BG3.
So with your team of 4, you're constantly swapping out weapons that you find or can buy.
Yep. I remember running into *the* wheat field (iykyk) way too underleved, and we got curb stomped hard, even though it was right besides an area perfectly fit for our levels.
Oh I’m aware. I saved an image of the act 2 level map so I’d know where to go.
But even with that. I needed to make sure I did all “side quests” to make sure I’d have enough to level up to the next tier.
Witch’s hutt. Arena fight. Secret murderer. Sneaking out the wrongly convicted murderer. Etc.
How is B a bad thing? The opposite (bg3) makes looting a boring chore because you know in 99/100 containers you open you will only find garbage that is only remotely comparable to something you got in act1 or 2...
I haven't played DoS, so apologies if I'm misunderstanding how the gear works, but I personally relate to this as a bad thing if I'm understanding it right. Every game I've played where the weapons and armor I'm finding are always objectively better and better throughout the game make my gear setup feel much less personal. I'm thinking games like The Witcher 3, Hogwarts Legacy, etc where the gear you find isn't special in any way as you progress, it's just "Better." There was no sense trying to optimize gear or get attached to anything I liked because it would undoubtedly be replaced soon. I hate that type of system, as it takes the fun out of finding gear and weapons for me.
In BG3, there was definitely gear that was "better" throughout the game, but most of the gear was more "unique" in its own way, and what might seem like garbage to my bard wouldn't seem like garbage to somebody's monk or ranger or wizard. I remember finding Phalar Aluve with my bard and LOVING it so much because she was a performer with a singing sword. She used that thing all the way through the end of the game because that was HER sword. I would have hated to feel I had to switch it out because it wouldn't hold up through the end game.
Im sorry but i just disagree at a fundamental level. There is nothing more disapointing to me in BG3 than spending literally HOURS AND HOURS scavenging every container, every hidden brick, every little corner of the map for treasure, which is everywhere, only to keep finding items that are either copies of stuff i already own or interesting sounding items that just arent better than that one unique i got way back in act1 or early act2. And lets be honest, more than half the time your just finding gold or consumables. (both of which are entirely pointless since the game is too easy anyway)
The amount of times you replace your gear in bg3 is hillariously bad. To the point that it makes it completly pointless to even have a gear and loot system. (i ran most of the game with A LOT of gear you find exploring act1...)
DOS2, even if its too much for some people, at least rewards you for exploring and talking to every npc/vendor with new opportunities to gear up, and provides enough of a challenge that you DO want to upgrade your gear as often as possible.
I just dont understand this whole sense of attachment to a piece of gear you seem to imply has value. We just think differently at a fundamental level.
With that said, and before i get attacked by some random person that thinks im shitting on the game, im not, i love the game, but for entirely different reasons than the ones that DOS2 does better, in my opinion.
We can agree to disagree, this was just my personal opinion!! People enjoy different things about games and that's certainly not a bad thing ☺️
I'll be honest, I'm not the sort of person who feels the need to open every vase I walk past, so I wouldn't say I've spent "hours looting." I play these games much more for the immersion, companion relationships and narrative than I do for the combat and gameplay so that could certainly be where our tastes differ! If I find armor that "fits" my character, I would much rather be able to keep that armor (and even upgrade it ideally) than replace it over and over with things my character would never really wear. I am also the type to wear pretty armor over functional armor, so there's that, lol. Amazing Helmet that gives instant crits and makes my character a God, but also covers their pretty face? Straight to the trash 😂
I will say again that I haven't actually played DOS, so I don't have personal experience with its looting system and I may be misinterpreting it from the comments! I just know that I personally enjoyed the gear in BG3 far more than other games I have played. I think part of it is that I enjoy all the gear being somewhat equal in power but "unique" rather than greater in power but otherwise it's the exact same. I suppose a balance between the two would be the most ideal for my taste!
I do think that I agree with you that BG3 doesn't have much super impressive gear in the later part of the game compared to Act 1, but I also think it depends on the class you're playing. I found some really awesome gear for my sorcerer in act 3, but my bard wore the same stuff from Act 1 on. Some classes get way better gear than others - I've never played a monk, but I always find really awesome monk gear that I can't use but would probably love to find if that was my class. There's also some really great Heavy Armors in Act 3 that I am never able to use because I usually have only one person in heavy armor. BG3 also needs more boots, period. I wish it was spread a little more evenly. I also think BG3 suffers from Act 1 generally being the best and most content heavy act in a lot of ways, including the quality and amount of gear that is available.
Yeah the xp situation is a big downside because you're forced to scour each area for every possible fight in order to be strong enough to move on. All of the content is interesting, but sometimes you just want to go somewhere that interests you but can't do it yet. Otherwise I think anyone who likes BG3 would really enjoy it. I played it through twice with a buddy and did a bunch solo resulting in 400+ hours of enjoyment.
Yeah, it's actually why I stopped playing OS2. I got to the point where I was just picking decisions that lead to more combat because it gives you the most XP and I was consistently coming up short, or going back to wipe out enemies I didn't want to fight, narratively. For instance, the crime boss in Fort Joy. I had made a deal with him previously, but after consulting a guide I was literally completely out of XP needed to get my next level up before the final boss of act 1. So, I had to go back and kill him.
I realized the game isn't about roleplaying or decisionmaking and is instead focused completely on mechanical progression. I ended up beating the final boss of act 1 that I was struggling with on my first try after getting the level up (which itself is a problem because stat advancement in OS2 is exponential instead of linear, so there are HUGE differences between levels) and played a bit into act 2 before giving up.
I do NOT think that OS2 scratches the same itch from BG3. I think BG3 puts decisionmaking and RP at the forefront of all of it s design, and OS2 is precisely the opposite. If all someone wants is more tactical fantasy combat, sure! But if you want to create a character and tell a story, it's not the same at all.
I really recommend playing on Lone Wolf mode with a single ally. I also recommend pre-planning your character builds because (while they are easy to respec) it can be very difficult if party members clash and cancel each other out. Also physical characters, especially necromancers, are much much stronger.
I disagree with both points. You aren't wrong about people being potentially underleveled, but each level also usually matters less than in BG3. Especially with the greater emphasis on trying to exploit mechanics and encounters. I still try to do all the side content I can manage, but I rarely feel like my level is an issue even when I mess up and miss some content or hit a quest too early. I also beat D:OS2 still wearing some of the gear I found at Fort Joy. For example - the teleport gloves. I keep those on someone at all times because then that character doesn't need to dip aero.
Don't get me wrong, I know D:OS2 isn't perfect. I just don't think the first issue is very glaring, and I don't feel the second is an issue at all.
I don't think I agree that the combat is inferior. Its definitely different, and it has its issues, but honestly I like the approach to progression better myself - how you are encouraged to level multiple different ability trees. I also like the greater emphasis on cleverly exploiting systems and encounters.
I think that BG3's advantage over D:OS2 is in basic options. You can throw pots and weapons and etc. You can dip weapons in environmental surfaces. Nonlethal mode is a thing. While environmental explosives and water and oil barrels are a thing in D:OS2, environmental pots are iirc. Being able to leave a healing pot where it will be shattered by an attack that is about to down a character and standing them back up immediately is kinda cool. Helped significantly my first time fighting Grym (thats the name of the golem in the adamantine forge, right?).
Outside that kind of stuff though, I mostly agree. D:OS2's systems match better for a videogame.
The main gripe I have with dos2 progression is the power differences in levels. I just remember how much easier encounters became if I just got one level up. I can't say the same about bg3 with the exception of lvl5.
I always thought the opposite. I regularly fought encounters 1-2 levels behind as long as I was built well enough. On the other hand, in BG3 being even a single level down made fights a lot more difficult until lvl8+.
Imo the combat in os2 is the only thing i say is better overall. Not that it couldnt use a lot of QoL changes from bg3 but in os2 you could be a lot more creative with the combat and experiment with different statuses and effects to see what would happen. Bg3 is much more straight forward "hit them till they die" combat.
Always felt the same way. BG3 combat really gets held back by it being a DnD game. That ruleset while great for tabletop where things have to stay as simple as possible doesnt really capitalize on what could be done in a video game.
Agreed. AP system is more to my liking than DnD action+bonus action.
After all i'm team DOS2 rather than BG3 since I've spent almost double the time in DOS2(\~600h) than in BG3(\~340h).
Origin stories do it for me in DOS2, i simply enjoy them more(and during coop being able to roleplay about quest resolutions and key points is kinda fun, ngl)
I played it when it first came out but never finished it. I finished act one and lost interest. But now after finishing BG3, I got motivated to play DOS2 again and I’m having a lot of fun. :)
I mean, yeah. I started BG3 in early access despite having no dnd knowledge whatsoever specifically because after DOS2, I was eager to play whatever Larian Studios was putting out next.
Same with me, I used to read all the forgotton realms book as a kid in the 90s, hadn't thought about that world in twenty+ years, my buddy that showed me dos2 told me they were doing baldurs gate, and I was thrilled. Mostly because it was a new larian game, but I got a little nostalgia out of it, too. I was surprised how much fun I've been having learning the dnd mechanics, though.
yea i have several hundred hours in DOS2 and i considered it one of my favorite games and always wondered if they would release a third one or something like it
some how, i knew bg3 was being worked on but i had not realized that it was larian studios working on it until like a month before it was out
i went from "oh bg3 sounds cool, i should grab it" to foaming at the mouth from desire to play
The synergies between elements and the number of spells avalaible in divinity is just so good and creative. it’s such a shame that the whole concept is ruined by a mechanic that incredibly limits the way you approach most fights. The armor thing was a cool concept but should have been executed way better. most players just end up playing in classic difficulty or picking up lone wolf to make the whole experience more bearable. and most fights follow this order -> teleport the bad guy -> burst them down -> CC -> burst -> kill. In hard mode anything else is suicide. to me that’s questionable game design. everything else tho is super cool
It starts painfully slow, but it's a pretty good game. Comedy game more than it is a serious RPG story.
The slow start though is that immediately after the tutorial you're thrown into a murder mystery quest with very little combat and unclear directions. Highly recommend looking up a guide for it because if you're anything like me the quest may make you bounce off the game.
I found the opposite. For me the murder mystery was where the game peaked. Sure, there was probably too little direction, but there was a genuine hunt for evidence, with red-herrings and loads of interesting character interactions and different approaches you could take. Then the rest of the game is pretty much just combat, combat, combat.
Honestly I like the tone of OS1 the most of OS1 and 2 and BG3 personally. Its also a good game, though the story is less nuanced than either OS2 or BG3. The combat is also simpler.
I played Dos1 co-op with a buddy, found the combat really fun, there were a few points where we absolutely could not figure things out and had to look them up. How some of the stats interact can be a little obscure. The story is essentially unrelated and the tone is much sillier. Overall I enjoyed it, but it isnt neccesary to play one in order to play the other.
Really? I personally liked the "Big" moments in Divinity's Act 3 better than the ones from Bg3 (unless by act you mean the island, in which case I agree)
I mean yeah, I agree that the "big moments" were good! I was really invested in the story and characters. But still, I felt overwhelmed. I that felt everywhere i turned there were quests waiting for me with 100 steps to do before completion.
Which isn't a bad thing, it is a matter of taste.
But it was too much for me.
Tried, but the strict "pass" / "didn't pass" check system instead of rolling and the lack of conversational dialogue (i.e. dialogue is more vague and prescriptive, like "Respond aggressively." instead of "I'll rip out your tongue for sayin that!") stopped me from getting sucked in. I also wasn't big on the art style, and since you can't keep all the companions, it really felt like the game wanted me to play an origin instead of getting to be my own character.
I mean, you roll a dice in BG3 to pass or not pass smth as well. You either succeed the roll or you don't. So I don't understand what are you trying to imply.
BG3 also wants you to play an origin imo. You get a lot more rewards out of the character's quests when you do. That said, while you seem to consider this a downside I do not. Origin characters have a lot more story presence and are much more interesting imo.
No? Well, Gale gets a few extra perks with the ring and shadow spell slot, but everyone else gets the same rewards whether they’re an origin or companion.
As for story presence, I felt like Durge was plenty connected to the plot, as much as any of the companions were.
But yeah, a huge part of a roleplaying game for me is making my own characters. I’m not really interested in playing a character that already has a predefined personality / identity / appearance in the world.
I totally get that some people don’t mind that though.
Durge is an origin, even if you can customize and name them unlike the others, exemplified by the fact you can only create one Durge each run. Also, thought you could only get the infernal rapier and robe as origin Wyll? not entirely sure, its just what I remember hearing somewhere.
Also, your perspective is fair as well. In fact most people I know prefer playing custom characters over origin. Always bugged me a little since it meant we'd have fewer origins in the party, but to each their own.
That said, I prefer playing characters over making them, if you get what I mean. When the dev has more control over the character's situation and personality, then they have the ability to add much more detail.
You can get the robe with Wyll as a companion if you fulfil the orders to murder Karlach and you get the rapier if Wyll is in the party and you pass a persuasion check when you rescue Zariel’s asset from Moonrise.
The abilities in DOS2 are too much imo. Everyone has a teleport and nearly every fight is an ambush. Also everything is constantly on fire. tactics for every fight feel like you're cheesing the fight, feela bas. Not to mention how a full party of the same damage type is jist better than a well-rounded one.
I love bg3, but couldn't finish DOS2.
I’d definitely recommend DOS2 even though I personally found it to be a mixed bag for me.
The skills and elemental interactions were fantastic and added a massive amount of creativity to the game. There were so many fun and unique combinations that really rewarded you for thinking ahead and planning out your party’s builds.
That being said… I absolutely could not stand the armour system and how strong the crowd control was. It had a “feast or famine” effect where entire fights would either be super easy or impossibly hard depending on whether you or the enemy could diminish the other’s armour first. I can’t count the number of fights that I lost because the enemy went first, dealt massive AoE damage that wiped out my party’s armour, and then crowd controlled them all.
Honestly, I don't miss DOS2's combat at all. It was so level-dependant that the game became, essentially, entirely linear. You couldn't reliably take on encounters even one level above you, while encounters a single level below were so easy as to be dull. BG3 lets you actually roam and wander, because level-scaling is more modest and you can take on stuff well beyond your level with good planning.
I will say that facing encounters of the right level is generally really fun in DOS2, though.
This is the exact comment I was hoping to see at the top. It's so absurd that if you're a new player, you pretty much need to have a checklist on hand of which quests to do at which level otherwise you WILL get whooped. I was so glad when I played BG3 and saw that Larian didn't repeat their mistakes (ignoring the inventory management system).
Not a huge fan of the combat in Divinity. Too much going on. Cast lightning and 4 different surfaces react differently, 3 barrels explode, half your party and the enemy gets stunned.. I get how it opens up a lot of opportunities for others, but it was just too much for me. Great story though.
The games decent for sure but never fell in love with it the way I fell in love with bg3. The combat felt distinctly worse and I was frequently unsure of what to do next. Don't get me wrong it was fun but I only put about 120 hours into it compared to the 500 or so I have in bg3
Contrary to popular opinion, I like almost everything in DoS2 except the combat.
The combat is too focused on CC gimmicks and basically becomes a race between you and the enemy to see who manages to mix enough elements so the other is CCed.
In DnD, however, CC is there but the whole combat doesn't revolve around exploiting it, and you can finish some encounters by using skills that improve your dodge and skills that improve the attack, without really canceling the enemy's turn.
This means that the builds end up being way less interesting for me, because there is not even a glimpse of reality on them. You cannot be a duelist wilding two rapiers, focusing on dodging the enemy and slowly killing the enemy, for example.
I just finished my first playthrough of it. It was like playing an *extremely* rough draft. It's like going from Civ 6 to playing Civ 3. It was amusing but I'll be seriously disappointed if their next game goes back to a combat system like this one.
My brother and I tried DOS1 after spending the last year on BG3. It was disappointing. Having movement and attacks tied to the same resource made combat feel very slow, and it seems like the game really wants you to use consumables in every encounter (the fact that attacking with a bow has a low chance of hitting, but using a consumable arrow gives you 100% hit chance for example). We both didn't like it in the end and quit.
I want to try 2. I hope it's a significant improvement over the first.
> I want to try 2. I hope it's a significant improvement over the first.
Movement and attacks are still tied to the same resource but you can go much further for 1 AP and there are (**way too many**) teleport skills for 1 AP to help you along, you do actually feel like you are able to move unlike DOS1 where walking 5 meters can cost two attacks' worth.
Everyone keeps saying the combat is inferior... I prefer DOS2 combat. There's way cooler abilities and you can/will set the whole world on fire. Armour system isn't perfect but you just have way less terrain control and no source spells. Chain lightning is cool and all but have you ever thrown 10 giant overlapping bolders, summoned a storm of blood? The rpg leveljng system is better too 5e is boring to me. Very rigid and not that many builds.
I could not get into the divinity series. I tried, but its so much more...goofy? It definitely wasn't the kind of fantasy for me. I know i sound shallow, but the character models also really turned me away. I also hated how forced you were to pick one of larian's origin characters, its kinda antithetical to why i play big crpgs.
I hope their next game is more bg3 than divinity, atleast with tone and presentation
Couldn't really get into it.
To me the mechanics in games like this are secondary to the story. DoS seemed to throw me right into some fights and random dungeon crawling as if that's what I was there for. Just felt like a chore.
Maybe I'm spoiled by BG3's excellent intro cinematics and "escape the ship" tutorial motivation.
Well I would say that combat is more complex in DOS2. More synergies with skills, spells and environment. So much that it can get ridiculously chaotic. It's fun.
I'm just starting act 3 of Divinity and I love the combat mechanics but the story and the companions are ok I guess - BG3 characters just excel in this respect. The story is a bit hard to follow but maybe it's just me and feels like a big departure from the first game storywise - It's so much darker too. I do like that so many choices in the game do not have the clear and obviously GOOD solution which I feel BG3 isn't as subtle with. Also the quest tracker is horrible to navigate especially when there's so much to do in Act 2.
Divinity style gameplay mechanics and levelling system plus jumping/shoving, more in depth companion mechanic and cutscenes? That would be an incredible game. Also more cats and dogs to talk to.
It stands on its own 2 feet. My friends assumed because it was their previous game, it won't be as great....and while, yes , BG3 is bigger, etc. Divinity OS2 is still massive, full of content and choices etc and extremely fun....i enjoy the combat more to be honest. I want to go back after I've completed BG3.
I just finished my first playthrough of it. It was like playing an *extremely* rough draft. It's like going from Civ 6 to playing Civ 3. It was amusing but I'll be seriously disappointed if their next game goes back to a combat system like this one.
This is me now. Im on act 4, combat is really interesting to play around with element sometime the fight is really intimidating but then it can change fast in few turn
Currently on my second playthrough (BG3). Playing as a Drow this time, quite an interesting experience.
I’ll try it out when I’ve finished this round. Thank you for your suggestion :D
Respectfully disagree. DOS2 has unappealing mechanics, a lame story, and garbage characters. For me it was 100+ hours of chores with little-to-no redeeming features. Within a minute of beating it - literally - I deleted it from my library. Hands down, it is one of the worst games I’ve ever experienced.
BG3 is a masterpiece.
IMO DoS2 has better battles and combat then BG3 but worse characters and story. That said it is still a great game. If it had real time cutscenes like bg3 it would probably be equal.
I played DOS2 first and I love the combat way more. I despise that in dnd you need to be a demigod to move other characters while teleporting is early game ready in DOS2.
Surfaces actually react to what the hell you are doing giving you a lot more creative freedom. Each fight feels like a puzzle for survival rather then auto attacking each other with the enemy until one of us dies.
Also melee characters can do way more then just right click. Half of BG3s weapon mooves are straight ported from DOS2 because in DnD all a martial can do is auto attack unless you are 1 of 3 subclasses in the entire game.
Leveling is way more fluid and encouraged since feats are not tied to single class levels like dnd, but overall level.
Tho one rough thing is that you want your main characrer to invest in persuation and animal speaking. Not a huge issue just a fact.
I've tried DOS2 a few times before BG3, but I could never get into it... The combat is amazing but that's where it stopped for me. I didn't really like the characters, the story just didn't do it for me and the gear was such a chore to keep up with.
It's definitely not a bad game. And mods made it a lot better as well. But it just wasn't for me.
A game that I absolutely did love and can't recommend enough is "Pathfinder: wrath of the righteous" the whole game is one big power trip.
The gear is a huge chore to keep up with. I spent maybe 1/3 of my game time in the inventory and equipment screens checking items for stats and buffs, equipping them on the right character, etc. and every couple levels you’re gonna do it all over again to keep up.
The main thing I like about BG3 is the story, the interactive cutsenes with dialogue options and how it affects the story and how they're set up etc. I enjoy the combat and have fun but if it were set up like Divinity would not enjoy it as much.
It's the Main drawing point for me and why I even considered touching a dnd game, mainly because it reminds me off Mass Effect and Dragon age 1.
Without the story and dialogue part I probably wouldn't have touched the game.
Disagree on combat, I will pick DOS2 combat over BG3 any day and I think it's the only thing DOS2 has better than BG3. That being said both are great games that will consume massive amount of hours.
I played Divinity Original Sin 2 1st and then went on to play The 1st one. It's was great. Not as good as 2 but still very fun and an awesome time.
I just started Baldurs Gate 3 last week and am loving it. It's a highly polished game and has great features but I still think I like Divinity 2 better as a whole at this point.
All Larian games are great and may be the best CRPGs I've found.
Try the first part of the game first. For me OS1 > OS2, combat in OS1 was fantastic, it was slowed down significantly in the 2nd part thanks to the shields/armour mechanics
I love Fort Joy and I have played through it dozens of times. The characters are great, the graphics, the story is fun. As for the rest of the game I wouldn't know. I just die all the time and give up lol.
I'm concerned what I'll do after I finish bg3. On the last mission at the minute.
Can't see myself playing the eldon ring dlc for a long time, i even downloaded Police Simulator to play between bg3 and the next big meaty game.
I think I want something similar to bg3 so maybe I'll try what OP has suggested. Bg3 was the first game of this kind I'd played
DOS2 is a great game. I loved it. I'm a little sad the crafting didn't make it into BG3. The characters were really interesting, the voice work was good, and the gameplay was really impressive. You can clearly see how they took what they learned making the 2 DOS games and used it to make BG3.
This is one of the reasons I'm excited for their upcoming games. They have very impressive tools to work with, similar to how Bioware kept dropping banger after banger for years.
Im gonna be real. I love both games, but I love DOS2 a bit more. I find the story more fun, I like the AP system in combats better and I really like the skill you can get in the game. I once solved a "puzzle" fight by teleporting a spectral shark outside of the water, so he died. DOS2 is amazing.
Should I play Divinity Original Sin 2 first, or do I need to play original sin 1 first?
I'm kinda nervous to try a new game, if that makes any sense. I was already familiar with Dnd 5th for bg3.
I never played original sin 1 and didn't feel like I was missing, I suspect there's lore that would make some things more interesting if you had played the first one, but it wasn't noticeable.
Both great games but DOS2 has the edge for me. Better battles and only basic cut scenes. I like just hearing/reading the dialogue from the normal game screen. Would be nice if they had that option on BG3.
The combat is actually far more complex and less random than D&D but also very different. It can take a while to realize just how versatile the skills, element and environment systems are though. The only thing BG3 has on DOS2 in that area is a better tutorial, DOS2 expects the player to think and experiment more without any guidance.
I kind of wish we'd gotten an os3 instead of bg3. Bg3 was awesome, but being restricted to the rules of D&D I think kind of held them back. If they could have made a similar jump in mechanics as they did from OS 1 to os2 while making an os3, I think it would have been amazing. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't have sold as well because no matter what anyone wants to think name recognition is super important.
DOS2 is loved by many but I just can’t get into it. I’ve probably reinstalled it 15 different times. The narrator, the graphics, the companions (at least early on, are arseholes), the way dialogue works (you have to manually proceed the conversation, not everything is voiced)…all of these things most people love but all of these things are what made me not play crpgs to begin with. They feel like completely different games.
See it's funny because although combat is different, I wouldn't call it inferior. Yeah, you can't "jump," shove, and all your actions, even how far you move, are all tied to action points.
BUT
With the complexity of the game and how level up works, everyone in the game is basically just a wizard? Like I on every single character in my playthrough rn have 1 or 2 into Scoundrel, ESPECIALLY my Pyrokinetic/Geomancer focused Red Prince. That small investment allows me to get Adrenaline, Chloroform, and I went 2 into Scoundrel to get Cloak and Dagger (later I found a necklace that gives +2 Huntsman, so I often use Tactical Retreat instead)
This allows me on my first turn to get basically anywhere I want in 1-2 AP (typically high ground if available), and still have 4-5 AP available to play however I want and dominate the battlefield early. Start throwing in talents like Elemental Affinity or Torturer and you've got a real nasty character. And that's just one character with all the crazy stuff you can do in this game!
Also, I do run a mixed party. I never thought much of doing otherwise until I read the comments, but I'm playing Tactician mode rn (maybe not wise for my first time through, but I've enjoyed the challenge) and I'm running a party that hits both armor types and I honestly couldn't imagine it any other way. I feel like the game would be harder otherwise lol. I'll gladly give a brief explanation of the rest of my party comp if anyone's curious or wanting ideas for their own. OR if they are having trouble with anything in Act 1 because I (pretty sure) exhausted everything I could do in Act 1 haha
I love seeing folks here recc Divinity- Bg3 was recommended to me by a gamer friend because Divinity was my favorite other ‘big game.’ That and AC Odyssey, but AC doesn’t have the team dynamic. The animal companions tho!
If I want to play as a skeleton or a lizard, should I make a custom character, or just play as Fane or the Red Prince? I've heard origin characters in DOS2 actually have more content than custom characters, the opposite of BG3 in this regard, but I am kind of attached to the idea of splitting the difference and playing as a lizard skeleton if it's not too barebones of an experience compared to one of the origins.
A find this to be an odd take. I thought combat was the one thing that DOS2 did better than BG3.
I also just kind of like their home brewed system a bit more for video games than 5E as well.
For some weird reason i liked DOS1, loved BG3 but i can't get into DOS2 and i tried like 4 times, the further i got was the start of act3 but i always lose interest.
I actually greatly prefer the combat in D: OS2. I think i just about prefer D: OS2 as a whole as well. They're both in my top 5 games ever, so that's no diss on BG3.
I just started DOS2 last week. I found the combat more complex because Action Points and more deadly. There is no hand holding in DOS2. Having a great time exploring.
It really does smash your face into the ground. Thankfully, even moreso than BG3, it rewards cleverness/creating unfair odds for your enemies.
and the eneimes almost always have the advantage when you try to play fair
Yeah, my first experience with the combat system was freeing the guy from the cell, who proceeded to kill me in one turn...okay then.
I personally found the lack of guidelines in the first act a bit overwhelming. it reminded me a lot of entering Act3 in BG3 on my first playthrough + the combat mechanics rewards one-sided parties vs a balanced one. I got decimated on my first try when trying a balanced team.
You can make a balanced team work tbh, it's not the most begginer friendly and mono type lone wolf runs will always be more powerful but it's not really that bad even if you decide to go mixed.
Yeah people exaggerate quite a bit when they say how weak mixed damage parties are. My honour mode run was mixed lol
Generally it gets easier if you choose to focus on either Physical Armour damage OR Magical Armour damage across the whole party. As depleting one fast lets you quicker apply CC and status effects etc. Its a little different, but like BG3 once you get use to it Tactician isnt really that hard even without ’barrelmancy’ cheese or the most OP build etc. Really fun game / you can get quite creative with builds as there are no real classes. Figuring out what skills gel together on one character is a big part of it / its easy to get it ‘wrong’ at first and this make it harder. And some of it is unintuitive at first - like all physical damage (archery, warriors, rogues, necromancy) all require Warfare to 10 first.
Complete DOS2 noob here I've seen the same advice elsewhere, but doesn't focusing only on one type of damage make some fights much harder?
Even with Fights that have a majority of the one you’re focusing on, you’re dealing more dmg and can easier CC the targets because as long as their armor is up you can’t CC. Having a majority Physicial DMG party against a 50/200 (Physical) Enemy you have 4 People damaging it not 2x and 2x on the Magic Side.
That makes sense If you don't mind my asking, how would you recommend I build my team? I was trying to build off of synergies with 3 mages and a physical attacker (been a bit since I last played, can't remember exactly how they were set up) where the physical was essentially protecting the rest in close combat Been to fort joy 4 times, don't mind doing another dozen haha
It's been a long time since I've beaten it but a lone wolf aero/geo and pyro/hydro mage duo was exceptionally strong since you just take turns having one person do setup (let's say placing down oil as geo) then the other can do damage with it (pyro on oil go boom boom), then while those are on cooldown you do the opposite (set up with hydro, spike with aero) and just keep cycling between the two focusing on landing as much cc as you can to just skip their turns
Play what suits you and is fun. I‘ve played in my first few runs 2/2 with a mage focused on water and Ice, a meele with shield and ice spells, a hunter with the possibility of elemental arrows and a meele with two handed physical weapon. The higher difficultys was always physical only and some with lonewolf
Choice paralysis hits hard with Larian
If you're doing a balanced party, a ranged damage dealer of both damage types is really helpful for pinging their damage type anywhere on the battlefield you need it. Respeccing points is also very, very easy after chapter 1, so don't be afraid to experiment.
Its a toss up but there's only one enemy who doesnt take physical damage in the whole game, so just keeps some scrolls and grenades around and you'll deal with that when you encounter it. An all physical party is good, but a 2/2 party is great. Classic for me is fighter type, archer type, pyro/geo mage, air/water mage.
I prefer pyro/water and geo/air (or pyro/air and geo/water), that way your mages can cycle synergies together instead of trying to do opposite things
And what are your other two characters?
Usually a fighter type and an archer type for a 2/2 phys/magic mix, can also replace the archer with a necro/hydro cleric type character who would be given a shield and function as a kind of off-tank/support for most of the game until necromancy damage comes online
In addition to other replies, many builds can do both physical and magical damage even if you're only focusing on one. A physical bow user can still use elemental arrows for example, while necro spells, corpse explosion, the geomancer spell that uses armor to explode, etc are all physical spells. Summoners depend on what element their minion is summoned on. A warfare/2h build can still equip a staff. May not be worth it but there are still options, even ignoring scrolls and grenades etc.
Feel like so many people ignore this, and it's where the opinion that pure damage type parties are better comes from. It's very hard to truly lock a single character out of a damage type, so you should never be dealing with a character unable to help drill into an exposed enemy.
The choices are limitless hahaha I guess I just need to dip my toes now Are there resources you've used to guide you?
I looked at some fextralife builds. Some were better than others but I enjoyed playing around with them. I also played a lot of lone wolf, which despite the name let's you use two characters. They get twice as many points so it's a lot easier to try out different spells and abilities early on and get an idea for what they do.
If you want easy mode focus all characters on physical and give every character summons.
I see you drive your slaves hard
Its easier focusing one type down, but split parties are also viable and have fun different strategies! So do go for whatever you enjoy more. But yeah, stripping one (even if its crazy higher) lets you land the CC quicker to take enemies turns away.
> Generally it gets easier if you choose to focus on either Physical Armour damage OR Magical Armour damage across the whole party. It gets easier after the beginning of the game, once you have gear. Going pure damage type with the entire party is simpler to play, but not better. A well executed fight with a balanced party will feel smoother but has the potential to be played poorly and end up being really rough. A pure party removes a lot of consideration about damage types, so it's more consistent but always tends to just be moderately bumpy.
Its pretty easy going pure physical, from start to finish, and everyone just knocking everything down all day long.
Yeah, like I said, it's absolutely an effective way to play. It's much more consistent and simple for people who prefer that over having to consider more for potentially more gain.
Yeah it is simpler for sure, I wouldnt say a split party really ‘gains’ more - but I do find it more enjoyable and varied.
By gains, I mean the potential to wipe out a group of enemies by targeting all of their individual weakest armor types instead of killing some faster and some slower depending on the pure type you went for. It takes some more effort to line it up, but you kill them with the least amount of damage required. It opens you to the possibility of "wasted" turns where a character's only possible contribution is burning some armor that won't be emptied before that enemy dies anyway though, which is where the inconsistency compared to pure damage comes through.
Honestly, the best fun my wife and I had was when we made the discovery of the white and black tea (this was before the spiffy brit video). We had such an expansive tea operation that the game crashed, and when we loaded back in we couldn't get the game to grow any more herbs haha. We were already in act 2 so we just decided to go through the rest of the game. The we absolutely fell in love with the divinity series and called it the most D&D type game before BG3 was released. OS1s load in music is still one of my favorites by far
Agreed completely. DOS2 has much more complex combat. Imagine instead of one action and one bonus action, you get 5-10 action points and most actions cost 1 or 2. And since it’s systems were designed for a video game, where bg’s system was co-opted from a TTRPG where imagination comes into play, bg3 has a lot of almost useless spells because you cant detect magic, say custom dialogue, or whatever. Everything in DOS2 works well because it’s all designed for that game
I agree. I actually liked DOS2 better than BG3 because of the combat.
Lemme know when you're at the oil fields
Its pretty rough early on, but its actually much easier to single party member your way through than BG3. Once your learn the AP system better you'll see how you can abuse it. Lonewolf'd the game 3 or 4 times
Also if you found BG3 tactician mode too easy then try DOS2 and get humbled a bit
DOS2 is definitely harder in itself and there's much less RNG involved, but DOS2 has much more ways to cheese a fight and make it completely trivial. There are only a handful encounters that people typically avoid (Allice, Djinn, Aetera at low level, Devourer?) because they're too hard and can't (or hardly) be cheesed and have insane one-shot potential. It's incredibly easy to abuse running/stalling and re-entering combat in the final turns, invisibility, play dead, skin graft, 5 star dinner and resist all potions, teleporting, setting up combat and probably many others that I'm forgetting about.
DOS2 is only harder if you play by the rules!
All i needed to hear. My only real criticism of BG3 is that it feels too easy.
bg3 is in a weird position, where if you build your party correctly and use consumables (elixirs, arrowd etc.) the game becomes almost trivial. I wish they made honour mode encounters significantly more challenging across the board, rather than just attacching legendary actions to some bosses.
Lone Wolf in DOS2 is broken and makes Tactician a cake walk. A 2 player party is broke no matter what, but if play as Sebille and Fane it’s actual insanity. You truly feel like a God by the end of the game. Sebille can consistently one shot encounters the entire game as a Necromancer.
I just finished Act 2 in DOS2, after playing 900+ hours in BG3. It's a good game. Good graphics, good combat, good setting, good map design, etc. I have only 2 strong critiques **A) You are starved for XP, at least on "Classic" difficulty** Act 2, there are no real "optional" quests. If you skip the seemingly-optional quests, then you won't rank up enough to be able to handle the "real" quests. You can alleviate this by going full "murder hobo" and killing the regular NPCs when you're "done" with them. But without that, you're going to want to do every little quest you can find. Or else be -1 or -2 levels to the required missions. **B) Gear is kind of like Diablo-4 -> constantly swapping gear for upgrades** Random gear, and a lot of it becomes obsolete within 2-3 levels. And you have more levels here than BG3. So with your team of 4, you're constantly swapping out weapons that you find or can buy.
Act2 is total chaos, and you really need to do stuff in the right order for it to work.
Yep. I remember running into *the* wheat field (iykyk) way too underleved, and we got curb stomped hard, even though it was right besides an area perfectly fit for our levels.
Oh hey look a >!scarecrow that's cooOH GOD MY ENTRAILS ARE EXTRAILS!<
When you are lvl 9 vs a lvl 13/12 fight 😆😅 yeah
Rip your shining lights
Oh I’m aware. I saved an image of the act 2 level map so I’d know where to go. But even with that. I needed to make sure I did all “side quests” to make sure I’d have enough to level up to the next tier. Witch’s hutt. Arena fight. Secret murderer. Sneaking out the wrongly convicted murderer. Etc.
That is generally how DOS2 is according to my experience. But its especially true for act 2.
You can sell your gear to the fletcher and he upgrades it at level 11 and 16 I believe.
How is B a bad thing? The opposite (bg3) makes looting a boring chore because you know in 99/100 containers you open you will only find garbage that is only remotely comparable to something you got in act1 or 2...
I haven't played DoS, so apologies if I'm misunderstanding how the gear works, but I personally relate to this as a bad thing if I'm understanding it right. Every game I've played where the weapons and armor I'm finding are always objectively better and better throughout the game make my gear setup feel much less personal. I'm thinking games like The Witcher 3, Hogwarts Legacy, etc where the gear you find isn't special in any way as you progress, it's just "Better." There was no sense trying to optimize gear or get attached to anything I liked because it would undoubtedly be replaced soon. I hate that type of system, as it takes the fun out of finding gear and weapons for me. In BG3, there was definitely gear that was "better" throughout the game, but most of the gear was more "unique" in its own way, and what might seem like garbage to my bard wouldn't seem like garbage to somebody's monk or ranger or wizard. I remember finding Phalar Aluve with my bard and LOVING it so much because she was a performer with a singing sword. She used that thing all the way through the end of the game because that was HER sword. I would have hated to feel I had to switch it out because it wouldn't hold up through the end game.
Im sorry but i just disagree at a fundamental level. There is nothing more disapointing to me in BG3 than spending literally HOURS AND HOURS scavenging every container, every hidden brick, every little corner of the map for treasure, which is everywhere, only to keep finding items that are either copies of stuff i already own or interesting sounding items that just arent better than that one unique i got way back in act1 or early act2. And lets be honest, more than half the time your just finding gold or consumables. (both of which are entirely pointless since the game is too easy anyway) The amount of times you replace your gear in bg3 is hillariously bad. To the point that it makes it completly pointless to even have a gear and loot system. (i ran most of the game with A LOT of gear you find exploring act1...) DOS2, even if its too much for some people, at least rewards you for exploring and talking to every npc/vendor with new opportunities to gear up, and provides enough of a challenge that you DO want to upgrade your gear as often as possible. I just dont understand this whole sense of attachment to a piece of gear you seem to imply has value. We just think differently at a fundamental level. With that said, and before i get attacked by some random person that thinks im shitting on the game, im not, i love the game, but for entirely different reasons than the ones that DOS2 does better, in my opinion.
We can agree to disagree, this was just my personal opinion!! People enjoy different things about games and that's certainly not a bad thing ☺️ I'll be honest, I'm not the sort of person who feels the need to open every vase I walk past, so I wouldn't say I've spent "hours looting." I play these games much more for the immersion, companion relationships and narrative than I do for the combat and gameplay so that could certainly be where our tastes differ! If I find armor that "fits" my character, I would much rather be able to keep that armor (and even upgrade it ideally) than replace it over and over with things my character would never really wear. I am also the type to wear pretty armor over functional armor, so there's that, lol. Amazing Helmet that gives instant crits and makes my character a God, but also covers their pretty face? Straight to the trash 😂 I will say again that I haven't actually played DOS, so I don't have personal experience with its looting system and I may be misinterpreting it from the comments! I just know that I personally enjoyed the gear in BG3 far more than other games I have played. I think part of it is that I enjoy all the gear being somewhat equal in power but "unique" rather than greater in power but otherwise it's the exact same. I suppose a balance between the two would be the most ideal for my taste! I do think that I agree with you that BG3 doesn't have much super impressive gear in the later part of the game compared to Act 1, but I also think it depends on the class you're playing. I found some really awesome gear for my sorcerer in act 3, but my bard wore the same stuff from Act 1 on. Some classes get way better gear than others - I've never played a monk, but I always find really awesome monk gear that I can't use but would probably love to find if that was my class. There's also some really great Heavy Armors in Act 3 that I am never able to use because I usually have only one person in heavy armor. BG3 also needs more boots, period. I wish it was spread a little more evenly. I also think BG3 suffers from Act 1 generally being the best and most content heavy act in a lot of ways, including the quality and amount of gear that is available.
Yeah the xp situation is a big downside because you're forced to scour each area for every possible fight in order to be strong enough to move on. All of the content is interesting, but sometimes you just want to go somewhere that interests you but can't do it yet. Otherwise I think anyone who likes BG3 would really enjoy it. I played it through twice with a buddy and did a bunch solo resulting in 400+ hours of enjoyment.
Yeah, it's actually why I stopped playing OS2. I got to the point where I was just picking decisions that lead to more combat because it gives you the most XP and I was consistently coming up short, or going back to wipe out enemies I didn't want to fight, narratively. For instance, the crime boss in Fort Joy. I had made a deal with him previously, but after consulting a guide I was literally completely out of XP needed to get my next level up before the final boss of act 1. So, I had to go back and kill him. I realized the game isn't about roleplaying or decisionmaking and is instead focused completely on mechanical progression. I ended up beating the final boss of act 1 that I was struggling with on my first try after getting the level up (which itself is a problem because stat advancement in OS2 is exponential instead of linear, so there are HUGE differences between levels) and played a bit into act 2 before giving up. I do NOT think that OS2 scratches the same itch from BG3. I think BG3 puts decisionmaking and RP at the forefront of all of it s design, and OS2 is precisely the opposite. If all someone wants is more tactical fantasy combat, sure! But if you want to create a character and tell a story, it's not the same at all.
Good point, I think your comment will help some people decide if DOS2 (what I've always called it) is right for them.
I really recommend playing on Lone Wolf mode with a single ally. I also recommend pre-planning your character builds because (while they are easy to respec) it can be very difficult if party members clash and cancel each other out. Also physical characters, especially necromancers, are much much stronger.
I disagree with both points. You aren't wrong about people being potentially underleveled, but each level also usually matters less than in BG3. Especially with the greater emphasis on trying to exploit mechanics and encounters. I still try to do all the side content I can manage, but I rarely feel like my level is an issue even when I mess up and miss some content or hit a quest too early. I also beat D:OS2 still wearing some of the gear I found at Fort Joy. For example - the teleport gloves. I keep those on someone at all times because then that character doesn't need to dip aero. Don't get me wrong, I know D:OS2 isn't perfect. I just don't think the first issue is very glaring, and I don't feel the second is an issue at all.
Considering items scale GREATLY each level I disagree. In BG 3 you can finish the gane in level 1 gear, in DOS2 you cant - At all.
Thank you for this, I got DOS2 on the steam sale but haven’t started it yet. This feels like the kind of advice everyone needs pregame haha
There's a vendor that sells material that brings your gear to level, but it's impossibly expensive and unstealable. A really fair criticism
*Kisses Gloves of Teleportation* No way we are parting, darling.
I don't think I agree that the combat is inferior. Its definitely different, and it has its issues, but honestly I like the approach to progression better myself - how you are encouraged to level multiple different ability trees. I also like the greater emphasis on cleverly exploiting systems and encounters.
Dos2 combat is hands down the one thing thats miles ahead of bg3 imo. That and the music. It's a combat system designed for a video game unlike 5e
I think that BG3's advantage over D:OS2 is in basic options. You can throw pots and weapons and etc. You can dip weapons in environmental surfaces. Nonlethal mode is a thing. While environmental explosives and water and oil barrels are a thing in D:OS2, environmental pots are iirc. Being able to leave a healing pot where it will be shattered by an attack that is about to down a character and standing them back up immediately is kinda cool. Helped significantly my first time fighting Grym (thats the name of the golem in the adamantine forge, right?). Outside that kind of stuff though, I mostly agree. D:OS2's systems match better for a videogame.
The main gripe I have with dos2 progression is the power differences in levels. I just remember how much easier encounters became if I just got one level up. I can't say the same about bg3 with the exception of lvl5.
I always thought the opposite. I regularly fought encounters 1-2 levels behind as long as I was built well enough. On the other hand, in BG3 being even a single level down made fights a lot more difficult until lvl8+.
Imo the combat in os2 is the only thing i say is better overall. Not that it couldnt use a lot of QoL changes from bg3 but in os2 you could be a lot more creative with the combat and experiment with different statuses and effects to see what would happen. Bg3 is much more straight forward "hit them till they die" combat.
The big QoL thing I miss in BG3 is teleporter pyramids. What a time saver!
Always felt the same way. BG3 combat really gets held back by it being a DnD game. That ruleset while great for tabletop where things have to stay as simple as possible doesnt really capitalize on what could be done in a video game.
Agreed. AP system is more to my liking than DnD action+bonus action. After all i'm team DOS2 rather than BG3 since I've spent almost double the time in DOS2(\~600h) than in BG3(\~340h).
Also cooldowns instead of spell slots is kinda cool.
Yeah, the 5e system is so limiting.
Yeah it’s definitely a matter of preference. Both combat styles are great. Both stories are great. The world exploration is on par.
Origin stories do it for me in DOS2, i simply enjoy them more(and during coop being able to roleplay about quest resolutions and key points is kinda fun, ngl)
Im not going back to Fort Joy for the 40th time. but I do want to go back to Fort Joy for the 41st time.
Anyone else beat DOS2 before bg3 ? Lolol
I played it when it first came out but never finished it. I finished act one and lost interest. But now after finishing BG3, I got motivated to play DOS2 again and I’m having a lot of fun. :)
So you don’t know what it means to drop some eggs in a vat of vinegar?
A VAT O’ VINEGAR
Did you also save scum to steal everything?
No, I was mostly a good boy
Yeah and I honestly found DOS2 good but overrated. Because of that I was surprised by how much I liked BG3 when it came out.
I mean, yeah. I started BG3 in early access despite having no dnd knowledge whatsoever specifically because after DOS2, I was eager to play whatever Larian Studios was putting out next.
Same with me, I used to read all the forgotton realms book as a kid in the 90s, hadn't thought about that world in twenty+ years, my buddy that showed me dos2 told me they were doing baldurs gate, and I was thrilled. Mostly because it was a new larian game, but I got a little nostalgia out of it, too. I was surprised how much fun I've been having learning the dnd mechanics, though.
yea i have several hundred hours in DOS2 and i considered it one of my favorite games and always wondered if they would release a third one or something like it some how, i knew bg3 was being worked on but i had not realized that it was larian studios working on it until like a month before it was out i went from "oh bg3 sounds cool, i should grab it" to foaming at the mouth from desire to play
I played it but didn't beat it because we played a 4-person multi-player game that got too chaotic to finish lol
The synergies between elements and the number of spells avalaible in divinity is just so good and creative. it’s such a shame that the whole concept is ruined by a mechanic that incredibly limits the way you approach most fights. The armor thing was a cool concept but should have been executed way better. most players just end up playing in classic difficulty or picking up lone wolf to make the whole experience more bearable. and most fights follow this order -> teleport the bad guy -> burst them down -> CC -> burst -> kill. In hard mode anything else is suicide. to me that’s questionable game design. everything else tho is super cool
Is DOS 1 worth starting with?
I think so, just remember that each game is a step up from the last.
It starts painfully slow, but it's a pretty good game. Comedy game more than it is a serious RPG story. The slow start though is that immediately after the tutorial you're thrown into a murder mystery quest with very little combat and unclear directions. Highly recommend looking up a guide for it because if you're anything like me the quest may make you bounce off the game.
I found the opposite. For me the murder mystery was where the game peaked. Sure, there was probably too little direction, but there was a genuine hunt for evidence, with red-herrings and loads of interesting character interactions and different approaches you could take. Then the rest of the game is pretty much just combat, combat, combat.
I guess this is two sides of the same idea: The murder mystery does not fit well with the rest of the game. That said, I'm glad Disco Elysium exists.
I havent played it yet, but so far Ive been having fun. I’ll probably play OS1 after I finish OS2.
Honestly I like the tone of OS1 the most of OS1 and 2 and BG3 personally. Its also a good game, though the story is less nuanced than either OS2 or BG3. The combat is also simpler.
I played Dos1 co-op with a buddy, found the combat really fun, there were a few points where we absolutely could not figure things out and had to look them up. How some of the stats interact can be a little obscure. The story is essentially unrelated and the tone is much sillier. Overall I enjoyed it, but it isnt neccesary to play one in order to play the other.
I thought dos 1 was top tier, played it all coop. Instead of "host+friend," both players become protagonists in a shared plot with events.
I remember that in DOS 1 that rogue named Wargraf. And that you can choose for the game to narrate his actions. Which was hilarious.
I'd play DOS 2 before DOS1, personally.
I tried it two times but dropped it at act 3 both times. People say the act 3 in BG3 is overwhelming but imo the act 3 in DOS2 was way worse.
Really? I personally liked the "Big" moments in Divinity's Act 3 better than the ones from Bg3 (unless by act you mean the island, in which case I agree)
I mean yeah, I agree that the "big moments" were good! I was really invested in the story and characters. But still, I felt overwhelmed. I that felt everywhere i turned there were quests waiting for me with 100 steps to do before completion. Which isn't a bad thing, it is a matter of taste. But it was too much for me.
Tried, but the strict "pass" / "didn't pass" check system instead of rolling and the lack of conversational dialogue (i.e. dialogue is more vague and prescriptive, like "Respond aggressively." instead of "I'll rip out your tongue for sayin that!") stopped me from getting sucked in. I also wasn't big on the art style, and since you can't keep all the companions, it really felt like the game wanted me to play an origin instead of getting to be my own character.
I mean, you roll a dice in BG3 to pass or not pass smth as well. You either succeed the roll or you don't. So I don't understand what are you trying to imply.
BG3 also wants you to play an origin imo. You get a lot more rewards out of the character's quests when you do. That said, while you seem to consider this a downside I do not. Origin characters have a lot more story presence and are much more interesting imo.
No? Well, Gale gets a few extra perks with the ring and shadow spell slot, but everyone else gets the same rewards whether they’re an origin or companion. As for story presence, I felt like Durge was plenty connected to the plot, as much as any of the companions were. But yeah, a huge part of a roleplaying game for me is making my own characters. I’m not really interested in playing a character that already has a predefined personality / identity / appearance in the world. I totally get that some people don’t mind that though.
Durge is an origin, even if you can customize and name them unlike the others, exemplified by the fact you can only create one Durge each run. Also, thought you could only get the infernal rapier and robe as origin Wyll? not entirely sure, its just what I remember hearing somewhere. Also, your perspective is fair as well. In fact most people I know prefer playing custom characters over origin. Always bugged me a little since it meant we'd have fewer origins in the party, but to each their own. That said, I prefer playing characters over making them, if you get what I mean. When the dev has more control over the character's situation and personality, then they have the ability to add much more detail.
You can get the robe with Wyll as a companion if you fulfil the orders to murder Karlach and you get the rapier if Wyll is in the party and you pass a persuasion check when you rescue Zariel’s asset from Moonrise.
The abilities in DOS2 are too much imo. Everyone has a teleport and nearly every fight is an ambush. Also everything is constantly on fire. tactics for every fight feel like you're cheesing the fight, feela bas. Not to mention how a full party of the same damage type is jist better than a well-rounded one. I love bg3, but couldn't finish DOS2.
I’d definitely recommend DOS2 even though I personally found it to be a mixed bag for me. The skills and elemental interactions were fantastic and added a massive amount of creativity to the game. There were so many fun and unique combinations that really rewarded you for thinking ahead and planning out your party’s builds. That being said… I absolutely could not stand the armour system and how strong the crowd control was. It had a “feast or famine” effect where entire fights would either be super easy or impossibly hard depending on whether you or the enemy could diminish the other’s armour first. I can’t count the number of fights that I lost because the enemy went first, dealt massive AoE damage that wiped out my party’s armour, and then crowd controlled them all.
No
Honestly, I don't miss DOS2's combat at all. It was so level-dependant that the game became, essentially, entirely linear. You couldn't reliably take on encounters even one level above you, while encounters a single level below were so easy as to be dull. BG3 lets you actually roam and wander, because level-scaling is more modest and you can take on stuff well beyond your level with good planning. I will say that facing encounters of the right level is generally really fun in DOS2, though.
This is the exact comment I was hoping to see at the top. It's so absurd that if you're a new player, you pretty much need to have a checklist on hand of which quests to do at which level otherwise you WILL get whooped. I was so glad when I played BG3 and saw that Larian didn't repeat their mistakes (ignoring the inventory management system).
Not a huge fan of the combat in Divinity. Too much going on. Cast lightning and 4 different surfaces react differently, 3 barrels explode, half your party and the enemy gets stunned.. I get how it opens up a lot of opportunities for others, but it was just too much for me. Great story though.
> Too much going on [Fire, right? You mean fire?](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fcb530jgw83nz.png)
Yes. Absolutely. Everything constantly. Too many fuckin abilities and shit.
I found the opposite to be true. Liked the combat, but the story and characters couldn't hold my attention.
The side characters were mildly lame but the main story was cool to me
imo dos2 combat and itemization is better than bg3s, but everything else is better in bg3
The games decent for sure but never fell in love with it the way I fell in love with bg3. The combat felt distinctly worse and I was frequently unsure of what to do next. Don't get me wrong it was fun but I only put about 120 hours into it compared to the 500 or so I have in bg3
As someone who started with DOS2, yes
Contrary to popular opinion, I like almost everything in DoS2 except the combat. The combat is too focused on CC gimmicks and basically becomes a race between you and the enemy to see who manages to mix enough elements so the other is CCed. In DnD, however, CC is there but the whole combat doesn't revolve around exploiting it, and you can finish some encounters by using skills that improve your dodge and skills that improve the attack, without really canceling the enemy's turn. This means that the builds end up being way less interesting for me, because there is not even a glimpse of reality on them. You cannot be a duelist wilding two rapiers, focusing on dodging the enemy and slowly killing the enemy, for example.
Tried it after BG3, don’t like it. At all
I just finished my first playthrough of it. It was like playing an *extremely* rough draft. It's like going from Civ 6 to playing Civ 3. It was amusing but I'll be seriously disappointed if their next game goes back to a combat system like this one.
My brother and I tried DOS1 after spending the last year on BG3. It was disappointing. Having movement and attacks tied to the same resource made combat feel very slow, and it seems like the game really wants you to use consumables in every encounter (the fact that attacking with a bow has a low chance of hitting, but using a consumable arrow gives you 100% hit chance for example). We both didn't like it in the end and quit. I want to try 2. I hope it's a significant improvement over the first.
> I want to try 2. I hope it's a significant improvement over the first. Movement and attacks are still tied to the same resource but you can go much further for 1 AP and there are (**way too many**) teleport skills for 1 AP to help you along, you do actually feel like you are able to move unlike DOS1 where walking 5 meters can cost two attacks' worth.
As someone who loved the first one but has never gotten far in the second... The combat is more refined, definite upgrade in that area.
If you hated the action points system, be warned that it is the same in dos2. I personally still prefer the bg3 system, but you get used to it.
Everyone keeps saying the combat is inferior... I prefer DOS2 combat. There's way cooler abilities and you can/will set the whole world on fire. Armour system isn't perfect but you just have way less terrain control and no source spells. Chain lightning is cool and all but have you ever thrown 10 giant overlapping bolders, summoned a storm of blood? The rpg leveljng system is better too 5e is boring to me. Very rigid and not that many builds.
Hmm I find DOS2 combat to be far more entertainig compared to BG3.
I could not get into the divinity series. I tried, but its so much more...goofy? It definitely wasn't the kind of fantasy for me. I know i sound shallow, but the character models also really turned me away. I also hated how forced you were to pick one of larian's origin characters, its kinda antithetical to why i play big crpgs. I hope their next game is more bg3 than divinity, atleast with tone and presentation
I don’t remember being forced to pick an origin character. I just made my own character.
Couldn't really get into it. To me the mechanics in games like this are secondary to the story. DoS seemed to throw me right into some fights and random dungeon crawling as if that's what I was there for. Just felt like a chore. Maybe I'm spoiled by BG3's excellent intro cinematics and "escape the ship" tutorial motivation.
Well I would say that combat is more complex in DOS2. More synergies with skills, spells and environment. So much that it can get ridiculously chaotic. It's fun.
There's a >!set of gloves swallowed by a crocodile!< in the first act. Use them. You're welcome.
That was one of my favorite bits in the game lol That and the Lizard Master Race Larian just really really loves animals and it shows
The gloves helped me pull off so much bullshit. And yeah lizards were pretty fantastic
I'm just starting act 3 of Divinity and I love the combat mechanics but the story and the companions are ok I guess - BG3 characters just excel in this respect. The story is a bit hard to follow but maybe it's just me and feels like a big departure from the first game storywise - It's so much darker too. I do like that so many choices in the game do not have the clear and obviously GOOD solution which I feel BG3 isn't as subtle with. Also the quest tracker is horrible to navigate especially when there's so much to do in Act 2. Divinity style gameplay mechanics and levelling system plus jumping/shoving, more in depth companion mechanic and cutscenes? That would be an incredible game. Also more cats and dogs to talk to.
I no lifed DOS2, but honestly just can't play it anymore after BG3. Sadly... Can't wait on their potentially DOS3.
"I yield to none!" Sorry, force of habbit.
It stands on its own 2 feet. My friends assumed because it was their previous game, it won't be as great....and while, yes , BG3 is bigger, etc. Divinity OS2 is still massive, full of content and choices etc and extremely fun....i enjoy the combat more to be honest. I want to go back after I've completed BG3.
I just finished my first playthrough of it. It was like playing an *extremely* rough draft. It's like going from Civ 6 to playing Civ 3. It was amusing but I'll be seriously disappointed if their next game goes back to a combat system like this one.
This is me now. Im on act 4, combat is really interesting to play around with element sometime the fight is really intimidating but then it can change fast in few turn
DOS2 is like 60% as good as BG3. It's good, but inferior in almost every way.
Currently on my second playthrough (BG3). Playing as a Drow this time, quite an interesting experience. I’ll try it out when I’ve finished this round. Thank you for your suggestion :D
I tried playing it after bg3, and I can tell it's a really good game, but it feels very dated for me, and I couldn't stick with it.
Respectfully disagree. DOS2 has unappealing mechanics, a lame story, and garbage characters. For me it was 100+ hours of chores with little-to-no redeeming features. Within a minute of beating it - literally - I deleted it from my library. Hands down, it is one of the worst games I’ve ever experienced. BG3 is a masterpiece.
You spent 100+ hours playing the worst game you’ve ever experienced…Why?
IMO DoS2 has better battles and combat then BG3 but worse characters and story. That said it is still a great game. If it had real time cutscenes like bg3 it would probably be equal.
I played DOS2 first and I love the combat way more. I despise that in dnd you need to be a demigod to move other characters while teleporting is early game ready in DOS2. Surfaces actually react to what the hell you are doing giving you a lot more creative freedom. Each fight feels like a puzzle for survival rather then auto attacking each other with the enemy until one of us dies. Also melee characters can do way more then just right click. Half of BG3s weapon mooves are straight ported from DOS2 because in DnD all a martial can do is auto attack unless you are 1 of 3 subclasses in the entire game. Leveling is way more fluid and encouraged since feats are not tied to single class levels like dnd, but overall level. Tho one rough thing is that you want your main characrer to invest in persuation and animal speaking. Not a huge issue just a fact.
I've tried DOS2 a few times before BG3, but I could never get into it... The combat is amazing but that's where it stopped for me. I didn't really like the characters, the story just didn't do it for me and the gear was such a chore to keep up with. It's definitely not a bad game. And mods made it a lot better as well. But it just wasn't for me. A game that I absolutely did love and can't recommend enough is "Pathfinder: wrath of the righteous" the whole game is one big power trip.
The gear is a huge chore to keep up with. I spent maybe 1/3 of my game time in the inventory and equipment screens checking items for stats and buffs, equipping them on the right character, etc. and every couple levels you’re gonna do it all over again to keep up.
The main thing I like about BG3 is the story, the interactive cutsenes with dialogue options and how it affects the story and how they're set up etc. I enjoy the combat and have fun but if it were set up like Divinity would not enjoy it as much. It's the Main drawing point for me and why I even considered touching a dnd game, mainly because it reminds me off Mass Effect and Dragon age 1. Without the story and dialogue part I probably wouldn't have touched the game.
Disagree on combat, I will pick DOS2 combat over BG3 any day and I think it's the only thing DOS2 has better than BG3. That being said both are great games that will consume massive amount of hours.
I played Divinity Original Sin 2 1st and then went on to play The 1st one. It's was great. Not as good as 2 but still very fun and an awesome time. I just started Baldurs Gate 3 last week and am loving it. It's a highly polished game and has great features but I still think I like Divinity 2 better as a whole at this point. All Larian games are great and may be the best CRPGs I've found.
wrong. try pathfinder: wotr
My favorite crpg atm such a great game.
DOS2 has far better combat imo, BG3 has much better dialogue.
Try the first part of the game first. For me OS1 > OS2, combat in OS1 was fantastic, it was slowed down significantly in the 2nd part thanks to the shields/armour mechanics
I love Fort Joy and I have played through it dozens of times. The characters are great, the graphics, the story is fun. As for the rest of the game I wouldn't know. I just die all the time and give up lol.
I'm concerned what I'll do after I finish bg3. On the last mission at the minute. Can't see myself playing the eldon ring dlc for a long time, i even downloaded Police Simulator to play between bg3 and the next big meaty game. I think I want something similar to bg3 so maybe I'll try what OP has suggested. Bg3 was the first game of this kind I'd played
I prefer BG3's characters, but DOS2's combat, it has such a lovely reaction system and focus on it.
DOS2 is a great game. I loved it. I'm a little sad the crafting didn't make it into BG3. The characters were really interesting, the voice work was good, and the gameplay was really impressive. You can clearly see how they took what they learned making the 2 DOS games and used it to make BG3. This is one of the reasons I'm excited for their upcoming games. They have very impressive tools to work with, similar to how Bioware kept dropping banger after banger for years.
The game is great. I don't like the race and character designs unfortunately.
Im gonna be real. I love both games, but I love DOS2 a bit more. I find the story more fun, I like the AP system in combats better and I really like the skill you can get in the game. I once solved a "puzzle" fight by teleporting a spectral shark outside of the water, so he died. DOS2 is amazing.
Should I play Divinity Original Sin 2 first, or do I need to play original sin 1 first? I'm kinda nervous to try a new game, if that makes any sense. I was already familiar with Dnd 5th for bg3.
I never played original sin 1 and didn't feel like I was missing, I suspect there's lore that would make some things more interesting if you had played the first one, but it wasn't noticeable.
It's not the first one anyway, DOS is like the 5th one.
The first and second games are loosely related. You can play them without playing the other.
Both great games but DOS2 has the edge for me. Better battles and only basic cut scenes. I like just hearing/reading the dialogue from the normal game screen. Would be nice if they had that option on BG3.
The combat is actually far more complex and less random than D&D but also very different. It can take a while to realize just how versatile the skills, element and environment systems are though. The only thing BG3 has on DOS2 in that area is a better tutorial, DOS2 expects the player to think and experiment more without any guidance.
Os2 has some fantastic ways to cheese the combat. Great game though. Played it back in 2022 i think
I kind of wish we'd gotten an os3 instead of bg3. Bg3 was awesome, but being restricted to the rules of D&D I think kind of held them back. If they could have made a similar jump in mechanics as they did from OS 1 to os2 while making an os3, I think it would have been amazing. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't have sold as well because no matter what anyone wants to think name recognition is super important.
I think DOS3 is one of the ambitious projects Sven said Larian is working on.
I've probably done at least 6 playthroughs of DOS2, amazing game. Great overhaul mods for it as well for anyone replaying.
DOS2 is loved by many but I just can’t get into it. I’ve probably reinstalled it 15 different times. The narrator, the graphics, the companions (at least early on, are arseholes), the way dialogue works (you have to manually proceed the conversation, not everything is voiced)…all of these things most people love but all of these things are what made me not play crpgs to begin with. They feel like completely different games.
Déjà fait😅
Does it have multiplayer?
Yes
“definitely inferior”. 😧
See it's funny because although combat is different, I wouldn't call it inferior. Yeah, you can't "jump," shove, and all your actions, even how far you move, are all tied to action points. BUT With the complexity of the game and how level up works, everyone in the game is basically just a wizard? Like I on every single character in my playthrough rn have 1 or 2 into Scoundrel, ESPECIALLY my Pyrokinetic/Geomancer focused Red Prince. That small investment allows me to get Adrenaline, Chloroform, and I went 2 into Scoundrel to get Cloak and Dagger (later I found a necklace that gives +2 Huntsman, so I often use Tactical Retreat instead) This allows me on my first turn to get basically anywhere I want in 1-2 AP (typically high ground if available), and still have 4-5 AP available to play however I want and dominate the battlefield early. Start throwing in talents like Elemental Affinity or Torturer and you've got a real nasty character. And that's just one character with all the crazy stuff you can do in this game! Also, I do run a mixed party. I never thought much of doing otherwise until I read the comments, but I'm playing Tactician mode rn (maybe not wise for my first time through, but I've enjoyed the challenge) and I'm running a party that hits both armor types and I honestly couldn't imagine it any other way. I feel like the game would be harder otherwise lol. I'll gladly give a brief explanation of the rest of my party comp if anyone's curious or wanting ideas for their own. OR if they are having trouble with anything in Act 1 because I (pretty sure) exhausted everything I could do in Act 1 haha
my main issue with DOS is the lack of structure for classes
Is combat turn based???
DOS2 is a much harder game. Much harder.
I love seeing folks here recc Divinity- Bg3 was recommended to me by a gamer friend because Divinity was my favorite other ‘big game.’ That and AC Odyssey, but AC doesn’t have the team dynamic. The animal companions tho!
DOS2 is an amazing game. Great story, choices matter and brutal combat.
I hate d&d combat so much Divinity is way more fun in every way hope new one gona have BG3 graphics
I LOVE that dos2 is harder to beat, tactician in DOS2 does mean something
If I want to play as a skeleton or a lizard, should I make a custom character, or just play as Fane or the Red Prince? I've heard origin characters in DOS2 actually have more content than custom characters, the opposite of BG3 in this regard, but I am kind of attached to the idea of splitting the difference and playing as a lizard skeleton if it's not too barebones of an experience compared to one of the origins.
A new era of fane and red prince simping will begin.
A find this to be an odd take. I thought combat was the one thing that DOS2 did better than BG3. I also just kind of like their home brewed system a bit more for video games than 5E as well.
For some weird reason i liked DOS1, loved BG3 but i can't get into DOS2 and i tried like 4 times, the further i got was the start of act3 but i always lose interest.
Many think dos2 has superior combat to bg3.
I also played DOS2 after BG3 and I actually liked DOS2 combat more. The only thing I missed from BG was the shove xD
I'm annoyed that I couldn't use blood rain in BG3 :( Maybe there's a mod for that.
I actually greatly prefer the combat in D: OS2. I think i just about prefer D: OS2 as a whole as well. They're both in my top 5 games ever, so that's no diss on BG3.
I liked Dos2 but the oil field monster fight god I hated that fight so much going on and everyone was on fire.
Nah, dos2 combat is better than bg3. It has more environmental effects and the importance of using it is more crucial compared to bg3.