You get an achievement for killing him though. Did it first attempt on Balanced difficulty without cheese starts or scum saving during the fight. Definitely harder to do on full-release vs early access.

Only way that's gonna work is if you daze him or The Mind Flayer stuns him

​@@xrhin0x895true, plus it gives good exp at early stage

Dude why couldn’t I have seen this comment yesterday when I finally got to start playing? I managed to kill him, but couldn’t stick around to loot the body, I wish I’d known this!!

@@odasengoku7314 I got lucky on my first attempt and the mind flayer stunned him. Haven't had that luck on subsequent playthroughs

Worldwide, like a novel corona virus.

There is 12 hirelings one of each class on top of the other characters that can join you. But they don't have any quests on their own to achive in the game. They are pure mercenaries. So you don't have to worry about party compellation. Also all your companions can respec into what ever class you want. PS: bg3.wiki/wiki/Main_Page

Does Natural 1 not fail skill checks anyway?

Believe me I was worried about that too, but the game is so diverse that it’s not as important as you think. For example, being a monk with low charisma I was still able to use wisdom to talk down people and get my way out of fights the same way you would with charisma

@@Timlagor it fails attack rolls, but not skill checks. Same for nat 20 and succeeding. Many people play with a house rule that changes this though.

It took me 10 hours to download

Technically, that only goes for attack rolls, not skill checks. If it counts for both in your games, that‘s a house rule.

@@janniszimbalski6652 Ahh, thanks for the clarification. Yeah, we always use that rule. Makes for more memorable moments when it does happen

@@DrasticSkuba Personally I find critical successes create unrealistic scenarios, and crit-failures make characters feel unecessarily incompetent. Crits on skill checks basically mean that for *any* check, there is always at least a 5% chance of failure and a 5% chance of success. I feel like for things characters are actually supposed to be experts at, a 5% failure rate is *way* too high. I don't think a 5th-level Thief rogue should have a 1 in 20 chance of failing to pick a simple DC 5 lock. If you have Expertise in sleight of hand and your entire character is built around breaking into things, you should be at least as good as the LockPickingLawyer, and I *highly* doubt there's a single simple padlock that man can't open in a matter of seconds. Likewise, a crit-success means that if the DM allows you to roll for something, you always have at least a 5% chance of making it happen. Some DMs counter this by saying if there's no chance of failure (or no chance of success) you just shouldn't roll, but I don't like this either for four reasons: 1. Sometimes the players don't *know* that it's super easy (or impossible) before they make the check, and it's fun for them to roll low, think they've failed, only to realize it was super easy (or conversely, roll high, get excited, only to watch the results and realize they're in over their heads). 2. There are other bonuses to consider. Sometimes there might be a challenge that no character could naturally complete on their own (such as a DC 30-35). With critical success, those challenges still have a 5% chance of success at all times. Without it, the only way to pass these challenges is with *both* a really good roll, and something like Guidance or Bardic Inspiration giving you a supernatural edge. These moments of parties working together and collectively getting insane luck, to me, are far more memorable and earned than random critical successes. Likewise, there's situational debuffs: no rogue with a +10 should ever fail on a DC 11 lock. Even if they roll a 1, they get an 11. *Unless* they've been cursed by the Bane spell, and subtract a d4 from their roll. In this case, the only way to lose is not random chance, but extenuating circumstance. 3. Seeing a player roll a natural one, panic, then add up their bonuses and realize they passed *anyway* is super satisfying and fun because it's a moment of sheer badassery. It makes them feel invincible, because their character is just so good at this thing that even with the odds against them they *cannot fail.* 4. Rolling for impossible challenges (or impossible-to-fail challenges) is still fun, because it gives flavor to the events. Even if failure is certain (or impossible), the dice can inform the result nonetheless. The classic example is that no roll, even a Natural 20, should allow a bard to just walk into a dragon's lair and "seduce it." But if you don't let them roll at all, the scene just ends. The player obviously isn't going to do it if you tell them "no, you can't roll for that," and that's just no fun. If instead you say "you may certainly try," and you let them roll, the natural 20 means the dragon finds them amusing, while a lower roll might lead to incineration. Likewise, sticking with the lock-picking rogue, a good high roll means in a second you pick the lock with almost supernatural ease, while a natural 1 means it might take several seconds and be much more noticeable.

Why female? Does it give more dialogue? I always play male characters because it fits me more. Have I missed stuff?

@@starsited529 In Drow culture the males are much 'below' the females, and there are some interesting dialogue options (at least in the Underdark) if you're a female Drow. I usually only play male characters, but Drow is the exception.

@@ryanz486 ooohh I did not know this time to play sexy drow then but if my female drow romances a male character am I gay?!

This game is not like divinity really. They share the same bones but more streamlined and accessible.

I feel DOS 2 is vastly overrated. But a lot of that is my dislike of the lore of Rivvian (I think that's the name of the world) and the character class system. I wasn't a big fan of the art style either, unfortunately BG3 uses the same exact art style. But the game had some good qualities too. But BG3 looks to be better in every single way, and most importantly, a better game world and class system.

@@Grunttamer I hate D&D system, to be honest. While it is one of the most well known for RPGs, it is a 40 year old system, updated over time yes, but the core remaining the same. A single throw of the dice requires a lot of calculation with various modifiers, saving throws etc. And, in my opinion, the absolutely worst spellcaster system of any setting. The "balance" from the game comes only in a sense that you need all the main classes to actually play it, with some classes being completely optional while some are basically 70% of the game, like Cleric. Highly restrictive to any thematic play (for instance, a squad of Rangers going on a quest... good luck with that party composition) and heavily skewed towards a few classes. Pathfinder, which is a spin-off of D&D rules, has fixed some issues with the mechanics, but is still basically unplayable without a Cleric. Pure D&D playthroughs though, even worse in that regard. And the whole rest mechanics to replenish the spells or change the spells available in the book, absolutely terrible. Which is why more modern systems don't use it. Your spellcaster, what ever class they are, learn their spells over time and depending on their arcane prowess/intelligence/willpower, they can cast a certain number of spells of a certain level, before needing rest. In D&D, let us say that you are 20th level Cleric, and you are in a dungeon with creatures that throw a lot of spells that restrict movement and actions. A simple freedom of movement buff on lvl 3 spell will work, but guess what, you can throw only X of them before needing rest. There is your max level Cleric, with his book full of spells, who can't cast a simple freedom of movement spell after two encounters but is perfectly capable of summoning demigods to fight for you because it is a spell you haven't used yet. And while an encounter without a certain class in your party should be maybe harder to deal with, it shouldn't be impossible. Because then you are basically forced to play with one base composition of classes. And in D&D it ALWAYS includes Cleric/Mage, without whom you can't really play anything. You don't have a Rogue? Sure, you might need to go around some doors and therefore face more critters, or miss on some loot. But you can still play decently. You don't have a Paladin? Haha, who ever needed a Paladin in D&D?! Damage dealer? Sure, pick from any number of classes that can specialize in doing high damage - what ever floats your boat. Don't have a Ranger? Eh, good class, but not essential. To the point where you don't even see it in BG3. But if you don't have a Mage/Cleric, why bother playing at all? And when you make classes like that absolutely indispensable, while also having the worst mechanic for spellcasting - it is just a hard pass for me. Even if story and characters are absolutely amazing, I skip the game/campaign. In the same way that turning Cyberpunk 2077 into a Looter-Shooter destroyed the franchise for me. Went for a completionist run just so that I don't have to touch that game ever again.

@@Wustenfuchs109 I can totally see where you come from: Up to 3.5/ Pathfinder 1E, most party comps without a Cleric/Oracle are rather difficult to pull off. In 5E, you can easily replace the Cleric with either a Druid or a Bard, though; - in-combat healing outside of Healing Word, maybe Lay on Hands, is at an all-time low. However, you are overall correct: WotC's idea of class imbalance takes a massive part of joy out of the game: Everybody wants to be that multi-classed caster of sorts, basically true ever since ADnD. I really like Pathfinder 2E's approach: You need healers in the party, but those are not neccessarily Divine Casters ( Paizo actually actively dislikes those) , but rather often PCs with a high Medicine proficiency. And, the system also has a pretty heavy Melee Brawler and teamwork focus, flanking being a central mechanic, with Fighter being probably the strongest class in the game. Casters are still very useful after level 5, but heavily nerfed from God status who win fights on their own to support/debuff roles. - So much even that many previous DnD players complain that their OP caster classes have lost their Mojo. Edit: While the "standard " party setups still work in PF2E, there is still leeway: For most combats, a full melee party actually works. And: Classes like the Rogue, problematic in all DnD editions, are finally allowed to truly shine.

Who cares? It’s all fiction.

The D&D druid is pretty heavily based on shamanic religions, yes.

No, but you'll quickly become one, as the game is Dungeons and Dragons.

@@offcenterideas cool man, sounds good

Update: got this today and I'm loving it so far, is this playthrough spoiler free? As in will he tell me something will happen far in advanced? I want to play and watch at the same time

I'm guessing he released it immediately and didn't wait for the processing to finish. Time to wait, I guess.

Videos normally don't reach full quality when they immediately uploaded. If you give it an hour 720p plus should be available.

KZfaq is still processing the video. Might be a few hours before full quality is available

@@JLogg444 yea only people who upload know this

Try saying that out loud

Lay is bae

So you’re very wrong - wildly wrong, actually - it’s been a while since I’ve seen someone so wrong Hopefully if you’re actually playing the game you’ve realized that by now

Cry harder retard gay people aren't going anywhere