Just one thing i wanted to say that i hope Larian and others here are aware of regarding the massive influx of new voices here (mine included).

All it takes is a quick read through the forums, steam discussions, etc, to see there's clearly a massive pool of people that don't get the game, don't understand the concepts, don't understand what Early Access is, and don't understand Larians' vision for BG3.


I wrote a massive entry and then just decided to TLDR and keep it short and to-the-point.



TLDR:

Don't be so quick to make changes or take on feedback and make decisions on it this early on. Wait until the initial hype dies-down and the people that truly care about the game are able to not be drowned-out by the influx of new voices and streamer-clusters and people that don't really fully understand what's going on and feel like somehow just because they bought the game that they are owed changes based on how THEY want the game to be.

Don't think there is risk of that. There was an outcry about how awful the armor system was during DOS2 feedback and it changed nothing.

Larian's vision is a big reason for the feedback being so negative - it's not an interpretation of DnD, it's an adaptation with a lot of things included that might make a great game but do not make a great DnD game.

Take environmental damage - The constant fire damage sapping hit points because fire bolt sets things on fire is entirely Larian ideology - the fire does not set cobblestones on fire. It also got changed to 1d6 instead of 1d10 because it sets on fire, but that is not DnD that is Larian.

I can accept certain things need to change to fit into the game, but ultimately crafting from potatoes and eggplants is a Larian thing, not a DnD thing.

TLDR: Larian has taken DnD, spun it larian-style and has failed to hit overwhelmingly positive.

I'm actually more worried about the opposite, that everyone who is testing and voicing their opinion on how stuff works will be disregarded because they have committed to a design philosophy. So cantrips being overpowered, jumping disengage for everyone, etc. will stay despite pretty vocal opposition.

I'm just happy they changed their dialogue from the ridiculous past tense to in character dialogue. Past tense dialogue would've been a dealbreaker for me and since I got my wish and didn't sacrifice the goat in vain, I'll swallow any other camels.

Being real though, isn't that you having expectations of the game being something it's not (A DND clone), and being upset about that on the grounds that you had expectations and because they aren't met somehow it's taking something away from you or "What DND is" ?

I'm just trying to gain insight to the mentality here on these sorts of things.

Baldurs Gate is a DnD story. Larian made clear the mechanics are based on the 5e ruleset, the most popular version of the rulesets that exist.

Alot of people were or are exited because Larian is a great company when it comes to writing, characters, story but tend to have trouble with mechanics, but since they were adapting 5e which is a very solid system it was believed that weakness would be compensated.

In short alot of the negative feedback comes from the fact that the game doesn't feel at all like 5e, the ruleset its supposedly based on.

It plays more akin to DivOs 2 than 5e and thats simply not what a lot of people hoped for and I would argue its not an unfair expectation when the developer stressed that the game is based on the 5e ruleset.

Now a lot of the most basic mechanics of 5e are either missing, were replaced or were drastically changed. Missing would be acceptable, its EA. Replaced would have to have a damn good reason, outright adding new mechanics that are not part of 5e also has to have a good reason.

Speaking as someone who's fine with the changes they made to the system on principle even if there are some things I wish they'd kept the same, I don't think that was an unfair expectation to have. Larian devs talked a lot about trying to make this game feel like an authentic tabletop experience, so the degree of change that's been presented goes against the expectations they were creating.

Don't worry, they know how to handle this. They had plenty of training with DOS 1 & 2. We weren't much silent with those titles either.

Didn't work that much in those games tho, did it.

There are really so many people that dislike the bonus disengage for everyone? Because I vote for give shove and disengage as a bonus action for the tabletop too.

Do not remember the last time any player forfeit an attack to use the so-situational-that-is-nearly-useless shove action.

That change eliminates one of the class features of the rogue. Shove as a bonus action is usually only accessible for the shield master feat user, for a good reason.

I see a LOT of people that just don't understand DnD. It is frustrating, both as a player and a DM of 5e, to see people complaining about legitimate 5e systems. It is nice to finally have a 5e based game, and I personally will be upset if they change the 5e mechanics to suit the complaints of people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Dungeons and Dragons 5e.

What the hell are you talking about? DOS 2 is one of the most successful CRPGs of the last decade. Where do you live? In a cave?

IMHO it did: feedback was considered, reviewed and often incorporated but they didn't concede to everything, no matter how strongly expressed; the outcome of which can often result in something that nobody is really happy with.

It's a tricky one because often the self-styled hardcore gamers want something they genuinely believe will improve the game but which could alienate the majority of players (and no amount of calling them "casuals" will alter the fact that games developers have to eat) so they have to be careful to not go too niche; but then again there are conspicuous examples of Really Bad Ideas which have been impervious to feedback and excused with "artistic integrity" which have ruined not just games but reputations.

I'm also reminded of the likes of Oblivion which even now gets a lot of hostility on the basis that "Morrowind was better", but much of what is "wrong" with it was due to Bethsoft catering to all the feedback they got about stuff that was wrong with Morrowind. Fortunately most of its (largely subjective) failings can be addressed with mods, but it's interesting that the game that was trying to address the criticisms of its predecessor got infinitely more criticism because of it.

Please don't pass opinion off as fact.

I only thing I don't love about the game is the performance I'm getting, which I'm hoping will be worked out while it's optimized.
Everything else is great.

I think it will be harder for them to ignore the posts this time... Alienating a certain amount of people for your own IP is one thing but they probably don't want to alienate the D&D fanbase when creating a D&D game. Of course I guess the reality is they mainly have to please WOTC and Hasbro so they can alienate everybody as long as the game makes the right amount of money. :p

Shame. I grew to dislike the system a lot, after initial positive first impression.

I mean the game is designed for fans of DnD, that is why they got the rights to make BG3 and call it DnD. If they change the DnD 5e ruleset for one, it will piss off the very fanbase the game is designed for. For two, it could potentially piss off WotC who own DnD and could yank any future DnD titles.

This game is designed for a specific audience. It's okay to not be the person the game was designed to please. What is NOT okay, is expecting the devs to change it and then piss off the very people the game was made for!

Isn't 3.5e still more popular than 5e?

Maybe to the 3.5e fanboys it is, but in reality no

Why you even think something so selfish? Every developer tries to sell their game for as many people as possible. Especially with big and expensive title. Not for some specific community.

How is that selfish? Every game has a target audience. FPS games are obviously aimed (haha pun intended) at those who enjoy FPS games. Do you go play COD and whine about there being guns in the game or having to shoot people?

Fighting games are aimed at competitive gamers primarily; they balance and design their games for those gamers.

Sim style games are aimed at those who enjoy simulations--ie, flight sim. You wouldn't go to flight sim and whine because it's too realistic, would you?

Historical games are aimed at history buffs. Would you go to the Kingdom Come: Deliverance website and cry that the combat is too realistic?

Racing games are aimed at those who enjoy racing. Would you go play Grand Turismo and cry about the fact that there are cars in the game?


And yet, when I point out that BG3 is aimed towards those that enjoy DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, I am the selfish one? How about those crying about the core mechanics are the selfish ones, demanding the game studio change core mechanics that theydon't like, when the majority of the playerbase the game was DESIGNED FOR, like the mechanic they are whining about?

Tell me again how it is selfish to want to keep the game mechanics what A, was advertised, and B, is what the target audience enjoys?

That not the answer that I wanted. Maybe some statistics or like that. Not "it's true, believe me!" I stopped following DnD after 4e, so it's interesting.

No, not by a longshot. 5E is the most popular edition since the red box based on sales.

3.5 was designed for people who love spreadsheets more than role playing. Better tally up those 52 stacking bonuses that make the die roll irrelevant. Don't forget to multiply the result by 1.07 for eating a balanced breakfast! /barf.

The downside of Larian taking this advice as the influx of voices may be legitimate criticism or input. Just because people might not come back to the forums does not make their voices any less important.

" there's clearly a massive pool of people that don't get the game, don't understand the concepts, "

Could that not mean that its not explained well enough in game? without examples im not sure what you referring to. If its people complaining about real 5e mechanics its one thing. But if they are generally confused its worth looking at. The who Early Access confusion tho is on them and not Larian.


"Don't be so quick to make changes or take on feedback and make decisions on it this early on"
First impressions are most important, and i can imagine if people are feeling like their voices are not being heard, even if its for Larian to say they wont change something, these people will leave. That doesn't make the latter comments made weeks from now any more valid then these peoples imo.

that being said their is nothing wrong with showing your verbal support like you have here. I get what your saying but we shouldn't be ignored just because its just came out recently.

I would be suprised if Larian blindly took all feedback to heart immediately since that's like game development principle #1: Players usually don't know what is best for them, so look at every piece of feedback through a lens.

It does seem like many of the changes in the various editions since AD&D focused more on number crunching ... instead of the old way where 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, in the new version we are going to say (1 + 1) + 1 = 3! Then people could get into arguments over whether their 26th level fighter could dish more damage than a 22nd leve mage, etc. But the heart of the game is still there, whether you are playing 5E rules or even the old Basic Set with Keep on the Borderlands. It was still fun when all weapons did 1d6 damage. Fun and fairness do not come from the rules, they come from way the adventures are set up where the characters use their skills.

3.0/3.5 have so many books, and so many copycats like PF, and so many people who loved it and still do, that whatever butthurting is irrelevant. Pathfinder Kingmaker is proof enough, there was so much thirst for it that it sold even while being broken and full of bugs. Also badly optimized.

5E is massively popular, thanks in no small part to the huge boom in Actual Play podcasts and shows. Just take a look at the game listings on a site like Roll20.

Anyway, back to OP. This isn't Larian's first rodeo. I do hope they change their minds about a few design choices I personally disagree with, like party size, and I hope they take a few ideas from the feedback that they may not have considered. But they've definitely got an excellent game at its core, and I think they realize that--and they aren't going to radically change direction when that distinct Larian style is what got them this gig in the first place.

5e is the most watched version of D&D, not the most played. "Popularity" is a slippery metric.

I really REALLY hope they listen to all of the 5e fans about mechanics. Please adhere to 5e rules as much as possible. Especially in regards to how surfaces work in 5e. Please.

Yeah right. Haha. In moving to 5e, the one big thing WotC removed from D&D was an emphasis on role-playing. 5e tolerates role-playing, but it does not encourage it all (as 2e and 3.5e surely did). 5e's hallmark, and the main reason for its popularity, is oversimplification of everything to make combat -- and that too hack 'n' slash combat -- the heart and soul of the system. 5e D&D is a tactical combat game with some role-playing elements mixed in.

Oh bull. 1000000% bull. 5e is HUGELY encouraging of role-play, far more than I've seen skimming through the other editions rulebooks. I mean my god, the earlier editions are so bogged down with needless crap. Without 10 hours of number crunching to do every little thing, there is a lot more room for role-play and 5e offers a lot in terms of player and DM agency. So yes, yes it does heavily encourage role play.

I dont think it will be an issue, like their own work team have personal opinions over the game so dont think will become a chaotic blob of feedback.

As for 3.5 and 5E discussion, as much I loved 3.5, what brought to mainstream is 5E, is a very simplified (not in a negative way to say) system to introduce new players and have their fun with. Of course the downside is the customization of your character in combat due to being a very constraint system in order to avoid people having confusion understanding it and at the same time having to avoid Rule Court like it was a common thing in 3.5 because players and DM had different interpretations of the ruleset of certain things.\

Lol. 3E broke me when I had to adjudicate a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. An hour of my life wasted because people confuse minutia with depth. F that system. Its all just math puke and overpowered casters.

Its also the most played on various tabletops and the highest selling. If you have other metrics, feel free to trot em out. I'll allow you to return to poring over endless splatbooks to stack your competence, insight, profane, sacred, morale, circumstance, etc bonuses.

I agree, ignore every feedback, except mine!
Just kidding of course.

We all can be wrong, because we can see just from a limited perspective. Even if many of us saying the same, that still can be wrong and ruin the game if implemented.

The risk is yours and so is the merit. Good luck picking just the useful feedback!

So far there is enough fun in this limited early access version that I can't get enough.
Kudos for that! Money well spent for sure.

Restarting 3rd time, because I messed up the builds on all my characters, but that's my fault, just learning this kind of game. Likely a comprehensive help for everything would be very much needed to convert new players into this kind of game. With patience and starting over can still work, learning each time. It's even more fun when knowing what does what and why.

That would turn the game into a slow nightmare. First of all: You would bog down the speed of combat with contested athletics rolls. Secondly: Everyone, including the enemies, would be shoving people around like bouncy balls. If people are never using shove or grab etc in your games, its a problem with the GM not creating good terrain for your combats. Shoving a creature down a ledge/trap/lava etc is often way more useful than just doing an extra attack.

I dislike most of the changes Larian has done to the 5E ruleset. Bonus action disengage ruins the tactical aspect of the game for me. Shove does not need to be a bonus action either since they have created many maps where it is useful to spend your action on shoving. A good tactical game forces you to make choices, but these bonus actions let us do everything. We never have to weigh the option of attacking or disengaging. Or attacking or shoving. We can always do both. The only choice is which bonus action. And, yes, I know the bonus action becomes way more valuable for many classes later on. I also think this robs some classes of their identity. Rogues with their cunning action, Open hand monks for shoving etc.

I think a large outcry against the decisions Larian has made is justified. This feels more like a Larian game with some D&D elements sprinkled on top, than a D&D game. Why stress the fact that they have stayed true to the 5e ruleset and tabletop experience when I get a feeling they want to stay true to the DoS experience? Stuff like Firebolt setting dirt and stone on fire is silly.

Whoa OP, I bet they were totally oblivious before you came along and cleared things up for them.

It's ok, they know what they are doing. I do hope they will be flexible and open-minded, some things do need adjustments for sure and I am sure they can also find patterns in player feedback too. There will be conflicting messages for sure, but it's clear that some things are more consistent there and it's up to them to decide on those.

5e is for mental lightweights. It is simplistic, simplified, and superficial, and everything in it is about combat and nothing else. The only thing you need to care about during character creation is how many "bams" and pows" you can generate in combat (elemental interactions, anyone?). And that is why it has sold well and is popular: simple and stupid is what sells these days, whether it's books, movies, TV shows, or games.

Your TLDR is as long as the read.

I think Larian understands and they know what they can and can't do and where they are open.

This. So much of this. This statement is Dungeons and Dragons at its very core.

BG3 is Larain's campaign. They are the DM, and we are the players. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's the way I see it.

At my table that I DM, I let my PCs drink potions as a bonus action. Guess that makes me a bad DM.

Fun and fairness do come in a large part come from the rules. Saying otherwise shows a lack of experience with TTRPG's. Rules facilitate the framework of the great hobby. Rules facilitate what kind of game it becomes. A Call of Cthulhu game is a completely different experience from a D&D game because of the rules, not the setting (You can have tentacle monsters in both, but the experience of the games vary because of the rulesets).

And yes, it is Larians campaign. But they did advertise that the game used the 5E ruleset. It would be like you inviting players to a game and advertising that you would use no houserules, but when the interested players show up, they get surprised by a whole slew of houserules that vary widely from the game they came to play.

Your example of houseruling potions is a straw man argument.

larian in the past has shown they know how to listen to and know how to listen but not implement opinions. In Dos2 EA there was a quite a large and vocal portion of the community that didn't like the change from gear giving you a single stat of armour from DOS to DOS2 that had gear give you magical armour and physical armour and attack doing either physical or magical damage. Well larian didn't listen to the "outrage" and kept with the new system. Some people like it some people hate it , but the key take away hear is that larian is willing to go with THEIR vision in the face of large support for an opposing view.

Based on this past experience I feel larian will listen when they believe the community is right and go their own way when larian thinks they are right.

This game is d&d and for early access it is excellent - the start of what I hope is a long and wonderful journey,

And there is yet another group of player who would say the following...

"Larian's vision is a big reason for the feedback being so negative - it's not an interpretation of Baldur's Gate, it's an adaptation with a lot of things included that might make a great game but do not make a great Baldur's Gate game."

The amount of "outrage" that the game is too much 5e and not enough BG I & II is on par with the people complaining its not close enough to 5e.

So I ask you who is right how do you solve this problem? If you are like most people you think it should be solved in your favor or the way you want the game to be. You'll never get a consensus. And what if they decided to take the opposite side and made the game less how you want it to be?

Larian is damned if they do and damned if they don't . There are enough D&D 5e "purists" and Baldur's gate I & II "purists" that if either side takes a "hard" stance you are going to do nothing but bitch and complain about how the game isn't X instead of compromising and making the game better by realizing it is NEVER going to be a pure mechanical representation of either 5e rules or represent the pure mechanical style of BG I & II. It is going to be its own thing influenced by both camps.

The harder either camps works at to force the game into their own mutually exclusive positions the more unhappy both camps are going to be. And know this, you will NEVER win, so stop trying. Just try to make the game better and by better I mean be open minded to change. Be willing to express your opinions but also be open to the fact the 5e isn't perfect and "house" rules are part of the D&D experience. Conversely be open to baldur's gate I & II not being perfect and changes to how those games approach thing needs to change as well.

First of all. That's fair. The potions thing was a crazy oversimplification so let me be more concise.

When BG3 was announced, Larian Studios specifically said "BG3 is based on the fifth edition. We started by setting out the rule set very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn't work - because it is a video game and DnD was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn't work, we came up with solutions."

Your acting and responding to an extreme. BG3 is built on a tweaked version of 5e. Some of the mechanics DO need fixing, so I agree that it is not perfectly executed, however Larian did not advertise that they would be ONLY using 5e rules. We aren't logging into the game to find they threw the rulebook in the trash and just did whatever they wanted.

i get the game..
I expected DND.
i cannot play it irl but for a bit was crazy and delving into it massively.
i also like turn based combat games like Xcom.
so... yeah i like BG3

Meme Cutscene Pending...

He wrote that accepts that certain things need to change, and then he expressed his opinion. Just like you said people should do. And I don't understand your talk about a consensus. People either like or dislike something, and they should express that. Hopefully they can come up with constructive criticism.

I don't think you can put the 5e crowd and the BG2 purist crowd in the same boat either. I am in both camps kind of. BG2 is my all time favorite computer game, and TTRPG has been a hobby of mine for over twenty years. But from early on, Larian made it clear that they would use the 5e ruleset (which varies widely from 2nd edition, which previous BG games are based on), and that they would make it turn based and close to the TTRPG. For me at least, it is easier to understand why the 5e crowd is disappointed. The BG crowd should have been warned by now.

That being said, I think a lot of the feedback is constructive. Take the environmental effects quoted above for example: Burning stone from firebolts and puddles of acid (burning your feet through your boots for some reason), does not make it feel like a TTRPG (which I believe is Larians vision), but more videogamey. And D&D already has environmental spells like Cloudkill, Fireball etc. Adding environmental effects to every little thing will just make it messy.

I think 98% of people understand changes need to be made when adapting 5e to a videogame. And yes, house rules are part of the D&D experience, but currently it does not feel like house rules for d&d, it feels like a different ruleset with D&D flavor. For me at least. If that is what Larian is going for, I think they should have more up front about it. I think it will be a fun game no matter, but I would probably like it more if they edged closer to 5e than it currently is.

I totally get that changes need to be made when adapting 5e to a videogame. I should have made that clear. That was an error on my part.

That being said, I see no real gameplay reason for most of the changes they have done to the 5e ruleset. And I think that is what is confusing many of us.

And the more you hold on to that attitude that this doesn't "feel" like 5e the more you are doing exactly what i said by taking a "hard stance you are going to do nothing but bitch and complain about how the game isn't X." Or doesn't feel like X, it is the same thing.

Stop trying to get the game "feel" the way you want. That is a nebulas concept that means F'all because it doesn't have the same meaning for every person. Accept that there WILL be environmental damage that is part of D&D now, it has been expanded GET USE to it. It is not going to change. If you want Larian to remove environmental damage you are pissing into the wind and all that is going to happen is you are going to get angry and wet. This current version of environmental damage is extremely tame compared to DOS 2. You are not going to get it removed. That is the heart and soul of how Larian approaches combat.

I find the BG purist and the 5e purist to be a bunch of rigid uncompromising fans that simply feel they are right period and refuse to accept that they will have to bend. You will never get what you want so stop the BS. Speak specifically to systems and NOT with the intent to have them remove but how to improve the system. Stop trying to make the game in your image, instead accept the image larian has made but try to improve upon said vision.

It seems you are the one taking a hard stance here regarding fans of 5e or BG. And to use your rhetoric: Stop trying to get people to act the way you want. And asking for systems to be added, changed or removed is not futile in many cases. Look at Pathfinder: Kingmaker. Enough people asked for turn based combat, and they added it.

Regarding environmental effects: You deflected and ignored my points: 5e already has spells for environmental effects. Adding more will make it messy and unbalanced. 5e has balance issues at higher levels, adding lots of DoS elements to them will not make it better.

In the battle between 3.0/3.5 and 5.0, as an old timer I'll pick 2.0 every time. However, I already had my satisfaction from BG1 and 2. 5.0 is the current Soup De Jour, and I would have no right to insist the gamer world accede to my preferences.
That being said, I can certainly manage to play and enjoy a BG 3 built around 5.0

Suggestions on implementation variances to make 5.0 work in a computer game vs real life DM situation are always welcome...griping about a D&D game based on the current version of D & D mechanics is just durn silly.

The overall feedback isn't negative at all though. The game currently has a 84% review rating on Steam. Around half of the negative reviews are due to crashes, not because of gameplay. The "feedback being so negative" that you are refering to is mostly people who write on forums, whereas most people who actualy like the game are currently playing the game instead of writing critiques on forums.

It was the same when DOS2 first launched. Lots of complaints on the forums, yet the game now has a 95% review rating on Steam.

As with most topics in life:
The loudest people are the minority, not the majority.
People who complain will always be louder than people who praise.

Okay, but you are not factoring in those people who don't even buy and play the game in the first place, because they dislike the game, and you have to buy and play the game before Steam will allow you to post a review. So in places like Steam, the reviews are structurally biased towards the favorable side.

Also right now, lots of people who have negative things to say about the game are being banned based on totally BS reasons. So Steam ratings don't mean a damn. They are essentially rigged ratings.