Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set

That's fine. And I also don't have to prove anything with respect to my personal take on the game.

My point is that for months now people have been telling critics like me that we can't criticize the game because it isn't out yet. And I'm simply saying that even after the game is released, these people will find some excuse to continue to tell me I can't criticize the game.

In general I would agree. But in this case the context matters. And the context is a comparison of BG3 to BG2 versus D:OS2. And in that very limited and specific context, saying the combat system is more like D:OS2 than like BG2 is quite accurate.

Maybe system, but combat mechanics not exactly. Actions are different than both, bit armor, no cooldowns, saving throws, all of that is closer to bg2. Seeing how much dos2 relies on destroying armor and knocking people down, I think bg3 offers a nice change. Idk of that makes sense though lol

Okay, fair enough. I do agree that the mechanics of D&D 5e combat, assuming they are being implemented accurately (which I won't be entirely convinced is the case until I see the final game), are quite different from D:OS2 combat mechanics.

Also I'm hoping ability checks and saving throws give a very tangible difference from dos2

Me too. As I've said many times in past posts, my displeasure with BG3 is much less about the combat system and much more about wanting it to NOT be like D:OS. I did not like D:OS at all, considered it to be a rather silly game, and my dislike of it goes WAY beyond just my combat system preference.

Dos2 had it's flaws, like it's rather poor map exploration. But with a better stealth system and ability checks rather than a high persuasion to get non combat scenarios, I think there will be a lot more opportunities in this and ways to do things, which is fantastic.

We already know BG3 uses the D20 system for skllchecks and saving throws and do not have the "armor immunity" to debuffs so no, it´s not working the same as in DoS games.

Well I know that, but I mean I hope they give a good sense of chance in the game. Idk if over a long time and lots of checks if it will start to feel less random. If that makes any sense

Not really, Could you please elaborate, if I may ask? =)

So I'm hoping this also extends to combat, and that gives me a good comparison. In Dos2, even with only 75% accuracy, I got no joy from a hit. I just expected it. In XCOM however, even with 90% chance to hit, I got so happy when I would hit. It really felt like chance played a role in the game and it made it more fun. Plans would always get messed up, you'd have to adapt all the time and it was a lot of fun. I'm hoping bg3 has some of that feeling. It doesn't have to be as tough of course, but I want to feel the effects of the d20 gods. Even though dos2 had some chance to it, it never felt like it.

I do not know if that´s what you meant but in D20 systems you always have a 5% chance of a critical fail and a 5% chance of a critical success, no matter what is your proficiency, stat or ability/saving throw/ attack/spell attack expertise. The chances of getting a success or a failure in any check improves if you have a very high number of a particular attribute, skill etc in comparison with the difficulty of the thing you want to surpass, and in the same manner, even if you have abysmal scores in a particular action you want to make, there´s always a possibility that you can achieve it.

There are people that like it , there are people that don´t , but since this game is supervised by WOTC and the D20 is kind of the core of D&D I assume this is what´s the game is going to use yes or yes.

In my experience with D&D the % to hit or fail a saving throw oscilates to a great extent because it depends in several factors and the stats of the creatures and player characters change a lot.
Being a videogame, they can change the odds to favor the player or the monsters, of course... dunno if it´s going to be made in the game. I hope not.

Sorry I should have said I'm a d&d player lol. Yeah I know what you mean, but I want there to be enough fails that the dread is there. I don't want my critical fails to be sugar coated or anything.

I guess the best way to put it is I want a fail to mess up my plans but it doesn't mean I fail.

aaah ok, yeah, I gotcha.

If possible I want to have ingame those glorious moments when your 20dex rogue with expertise in stealth just rolls a nat 1 and messes up badly and your sorcerer just kills a minotaur with his rusty knife and a nat20 XDD
I hope they do not load the dice, or if it´s already made, I hope it´s optional.

Yeah that's exactly what I mean, those are the best moments. And I'm definitely not a fan of pre-loader dice

I think that the degree of tension/dread/excitement (delete as appropriate) in a game with randomised outcomes is directly related to how significant the outcome of an action might be.

My memory of XCOM is that both you and your opponents can do significant damage ( or almost none ), leading to potential 1 or 2 hit kills, which naturally leads to more riding on the randomised result of each action.

Compare this to something like DA:I where the health bars are generally significant ( and damage is not random ), needing many hits to whittle away; each individual action is less important, but they are more of them occuring. Such a game needs to find other ways to generate tension.

That's my pop-psychology analysis of what you are saying, anyway

Hey Larian if you're reading these, this etonbears guy knows what's up and he'd probably be a good systems designer.

Also that makes sense. I hope Larian can find a good balance where I won't die on just a couple bad rolls (most of the time) but still get that dread

Definitely. If win/loose has immediate impact each roll becomes tense.

I wouldn't also ommit the visual presentation. I think bringing camera to 3rd person in XCOMs, and having you wonder if you will hit or not, with satisfying zoom on kill controbutes to this effect. Honestly, I don't remember missing much in DoS2. Most of the hits tended to be guaranteed to hit, with armor being the main gameplay mechanic. Luckily, DnD doesn't do that.

Yeah hits were guaranteed basically, but even at 75% I didn't seem to miss a lot. Also I do think the camera in XCOM helped, I kind of forgot a out that.

As for the "dice rolling". I like that it will be a neat little visual and you have to click the dice to roll it. I'm so used to D&D so its wierd that the game straight up tells me "You need to roll 11" or whatever. I would prefer if the DC was visible aswell as your bonus to the die. So "You need to roll 11" may be exactly the same as "The DC is 25 and your bonus is +14" but not really, because as the game progress you will see your bonus increase and even if the DC also increase you feel like your character is becoming stronger.

A level 1 character "Needs to roll 11" but so does a level 10 character but if I have +27 to my check I see that my character has progressed from when he only had +10 to the check. Do I make sense? Feel like this was a bit of a ramble but whatever.