Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Surfaces and Combos ARE BACK :'(

https://jv.jeuxonline.info/actualit...rt-senior-designer-combats-baldur-gate-3

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

cant tell if youre joking or not.
literaly one of the best parts of the original sin games and something that people in dnd do anyway.

GO let a player play a dragonbron with lightning breath and have kobolds stand in water, i dare you. If you wanna deny them that this hits all of em, youre in for a very lenghty debate on physics.
happened in my last campaign

Electrifying water? OK.
Necrofire galore like in DOS? No thanks.

I dont speak French so i can not read the article, but i can not
Imagine they were talking about necrofire which is part of the
Curse/bless System of DOS. However it was a great System,
if not overused and made obsolet by magic Armor (which was
a bad System in my opinion).

Hopefully the armor system is gone for good.

Reprenez-vous certaines mécaniques telles quelles des Divinity : Original Sin ?
On a les surfaces, que tu as vues dans Divinity, et les combos élémentaires. Sinon, je pense qu’absolument tout a changé : le système d’armure, de magie, etc.

À ce sujet, la disparition du système d'armure représente un retour en arrière par rapport à Divinity : Original Sin 2. Pourquoi ce choix ?
Je pense que dans Divinity : Original Sin 1, on voulait être proche de Donjons et Dragons parce qu’on est tous des fans, donc dans DOS1 tu avais des jets de sauvegarde contre le fait de tomber, d’être bourré, etc. Je me souviens qu’il y avait la force et la sagesse. C’étaient deux compétences qui te permettaient de faire des jets de sauvegarde. Je pense que pour nous, cela semblait être la direction à suivre parce qu’on est tous fans de Donjons et Dragons.

Ensuite, dans Divinity: Original Sin 2, je pense qu’on a voulu simplifier. Donc on a enlevé, on a taillé dans le gras. On avait plus d’expérience donc on s’est dit qu'on n'avait pas forcément besoin de ça. On a voulu rendre le gameplay plus clair. Avoir un bouclier gris, un bouclier bleu, c’est un peu console.

Là, on est de retour à la source, mais il faut quand même le simplifier, il faut quand même que ce soit agréable pour le joueur, il ne faut pas que ce soit Donjons et Dragons tel quel parce que ce n’est pas fait pour ça. Je suis impatient de voir comment les joueurs réagiront aux modifications qu’on a faites. Je précise en outre que ces modifications, on les a faites avec Wizards of the Coast : on ne fait pas n’importe quoi. En revanche, il est important je crois de comprendre que Donjons et Dragons est conçu pour être un jeu de rôle sur table, mais que le jeu de rôle sur table est un format et que le jeu vidéo en est un autre, donc on doit faire des changements.

So yes . the idea of utilising surfaces and elemental attacks as used in Divinity is used here as well.

Armour saves in DOS1 were heavily influenced by D&D, simplified (read moved away from D&D&) for DOS2 and they have gone back to DOS1 idea but with simplification in line with WoTC feedback.

This is not about the thread, but I really LOVE the last sentence...

Edouard Imbert : "D&D is a tabletop game, tabletop game is a thing and video games is another, we have to change some things." (speaking about items)
Swen : "BG is TB because D&D is TB" (speaking about gameplay)

Please, do not answer my message

Total agreement to the OP

In DOS1 I managed this by focussing on abilities that hit targets, not the environment.
I quit DOS2 because in most battles the whole map is filled with crazy effects, sometimes its almost impossible to walk around and its almost impossible to avoid these crazy effects.

For BG3 I just hope for one thing: use the DnD 5E rules.
Most spells deal damage once, only when the description says they create a hazard zone (grease, web, stinking cloud, spike groth, . . .) they should influence the environment. These hazard zone effects should only be removed by stuff written in the description, such as clouds being removed by wind.

This means:
- A fireball causes an explosion that deals damage once to every char and object in the area. It does not leave behind a round area where the ground is burning, especially when the ground is rock or sand.
- A lightning spell cast on a target in a stinking cloud deals damage to the target. It does not electrify the whole cloud and does not stunn everyone standing in it.
- Holding a regular arrow into a fire does not create a flame arrow. In the best case nothing happens, in the worst case you destroy the arrow and the bow. Same thing for melee weapons, just in case.
- There is no teleport spell similar to DOS in DnD (some spells allow you to teleport yourself) and shove or jump should not be bonus actions any char can do every round. They are actions you can do instead of an attack (unless a feat or class ability says something else) and jump should not avoid attacks of opportunity (you have the disangage action for that)

Among other problems these issues reduce the value of some (sub) classes. Some classes or feats have the ability to do some moves at all, do some things as bonus action or reaction or influence the environment in unique ways. This would be meaningless if everyone can do it.

Some environmental effects do make sense. It is OK if a fire spell blows up a gunpowder barrel ( why do I find gunpowder barrels in a middle age fantasy world anyway). But such environmental effects should be the exception in places where it makes sense. It should not be the standart in every fight.

I just realized that I like PoE2.
There are several places where you can blow up enemies or walls with gunpowder barrels ( they do make sense in this setting). This feels even more rewarding if you lure enemies to these barrels by sneaking and throwing items that make some noise.
The game also has a tag system, so a fire effect cancels a water effect and vice versa.
But the game does not fill the whole area with necrofire when you cast fireball at a necromancer.

I think we can agree we don't want anything over the top or that diverges from 5th Edition simply to look cool, but if there is oil on the gorund and I blast it with fire, then I expect it to burn for more than a single instance.

By the same token I don't want strategically placed oil etc all over the world so that I can repeat this trick ad infinitum.

This is what it looks according to the gameplay video and this really sucks.
There are spells in D&D that can bring it (grease + fireball / tidal wave + lightning bolt) and this is very cool

limited surfaces are fine. The insanity of DOS2 no thanks

WOW, finally something most people agree on.
I wish most other threads were so friendly.

They also already confirmed that while interactive surfaces are back, they are working to tone down them considerably.
SO,best of both worlds, I guess?

Because the feature itself was never bad.

I hope that elemental combos are toned down and do not dominate the game.


I have never played a D&D game where your bow turns into a magic flaming bow when you throw it into the fire.
When you use a shocking grasp cantrip that does 1d8 lighting damage single target it does not suddenly turn into 10d8 damage when 10 lizardmen stand in a puddle or pool.

I am not one of the BG3 is DOS3 complainers but I still hope we get some hardcore difficulty modus where all those are disabled.

They did?

Hurray, agreement!

This will be one of things that we will see later on I guess. For now I am treating everything in that Demo as precisely that, a DEMO of what can be done, what things can look like. Not how things will remain.

I have read the whole article, translated with google, so some things might be lost in translation.

- The made shove and jump a bonus action, so that every char can have a bonus action each turn (personal opinion: This is bad, it makes some feats and class abilities useless)
- Surfaces and surface interactions are in the game (personal opinion: D:OS1 was still OK, D:OS2 went way too far)
- Armor system of D:OS2 is gone (personal opinion: YEAH )
- They changes some other things to make things easier to understand. No details, he waits how players react to it. (personal opinion: Just stick to the DnD rules. DnD 5E is already easier to understand than the old games. Players are not idiots, at least I hope so.)
- You can avoid (almost?) every combat if you want by talking, sneaking and so on. (personal opinion: nice )
- There is a reputation system, but no details yet.
- Game could take longer than divinity, partly because there are movie scenes and change of view during dialogue.
- You lose nothing if you do not select an origin char, because you can select a background for your custom char and characters will react to it.
- Tons of things will still change. They hope for lots of player feedback in early access.
- Game will collect data, like how much gold you spend and where do you die? (personal opinion: I hope you can turn it off)

I do not understand why devs want to make everything more simple. Are most players really so dumb that they do not understand the difference between an action and a bonus action, for example?
The UI must be clear about what you can do and what each stat, skill and ability does, thats it.
There needs to be a manual where the basics are explained. It should also mention the differences to the PnP rules.
If players do not want to read, why do they buy an RPG?

When stuff gets more complicated people complain, when it gets more simple people complain.
Complaining about surfaces is something i fundamentally do not understand.

One of the biggest complaints about other DnD games was that they were too gamey and dont represent an actual world beeing simulated, so now when you actually simulate stuff thats bad?
what?

Not everything in a ruleset designed for one medium works perfectly when transferred to a different one.


D&D being turn based is one of multiple factors that went into the decision to make BG3 turn based.


I think I will, though do not want to sidetrack the topic.
I fail to see the conflict in those quotes, unless you are trying to imply that Swen was saying tabletop games and computers are identical.