Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback D&D Mode

Thats the tricky part isnt it?
To even get consensus about what "done well" mean.

Agreed ...
But that would require much more specific suggestions than "please give us DnD mode". :-/

Trying to put the topic in context with the information available. I would encourage you to also search for data to back up those long opinionated posts of yours that usually try to dissect and debunk other posters.

Somewhat. Though the great thing about suggesting "give us D&D" mode is that the D&D rules already have all the specifics. I guess, if I had to specify, I'd argue for: give us a "D&D combat mechanics" mode.

And using D&D rules negates the need to get consensus about what "is done well" because everything is done according to the rules. Anger would (should) be directed at WotC and not Larian.

I think it would be beneficial if this discussion was consolidated into one thread (currently there are several and lots of ideas and suggestions peppered among the many posts) with specific suggestions.

I intentionally wanted to keep this a high level philosophical discussion, without trying to itemize all of the individual deviations from D&D 5E.

This discussion is about whether there should be different modes (a as close to as possible to 5E raw mode and another mode that Larian thinks will be more more appealing to people who are not buying 5e game for a D&D experience.

There are too many deviations from 5E for anyone casually playing early access to catalogue them all. It is also unclear which deviations are intentional and which are not. I would hope that Larian has a paid professional on staff that is keeping track of all the differences between BG3 and 5E (intentional and unintentional) and is not relying on us to keep track of every single issue.

I agree with this, but I think that anyone who is coming to the this game from D&D is going to come in with certain expectations. The less of those expectations that are met, the less likely they will enjoy the game and recommend it to others.

People who haven’t played D&D, won’t care about the minutiae. However, D&D players are going to be tripped up by both big and small things that aren’t consistent with their expectations.

D&D expectations aside, my personal opinion is that almost every change Larian have made from 5e so far have also made the video game experience worse.

- Unlimited long resting completely destroys class balance and the playstyle that rewards you for playing smart with your resources. Serious RPG's shouldn't be about blasting away with reckless abandon at every opportunity.
- Turning combat into a Shove-fest has made it poor and repetitive tactically. Getting to high ground and pushing enemies is always the best thing to do everywhere.
- Letting you throw void bulbs etc. that can be used to insta-kill multiple creatures without a saving throw turns hard encounters into trivial jokes. Same with the double surprise rounds or barrels.
- Monsters like Hook Horrors and Minotaurs jumping and teleporting everywhere makes the game more chaotic and less tactical. Tactical combat requires you to be able to have control over things incl. enemy movement.
- Surfaces everywhere that you constantly have to be jumping out of that ruin concentration spells are just annoying.

Playing BG3 feels like playing chess at a children's sandbox. If you don't like the rules you can just say "my knight takes his bomb and blows you up!" and sweep the opponent's pieces off the board. That's where Larian's shoves, void bulbs and barrels come in. And they literally give you a runepowder bomb that's even more powerful.

Larian are catering to a group of players who enjoy feeling powerful without being challenged or having to put in much effort. And there's nothing wrong with that. But there needs to be a separate difficulty setting for that. And a separate difficulty setting for players who want BG3 to play like D&D without overpowering the player.

I doubt that very much, otherwise we would probably not have so many deviations in the first place?

That is the question i asked ... what data im i suppose to search?

Amount of people who played C-RPG in last 50 years? O_o

Its nice you have big number you can show, but that is all it is ... "a big number" ... with zero value, especialy for this topic. :-/
How many of those people play computer games?
How many of those people will buy Baldur's Gate 3?
How many of those people would appreciate if Baldur's Gate 3 would be closer to 5e?
How many of those people even preffer 5e over other ruleset for tabletop?
How many of those people still actively play?
How many of those people are even still alive?

You dont know answer for any of those questions ...
So your big number is really nice, but also completely useless.

Yup that would be better ...
You know the problem here is just wording ... you are here long enough to know that unless people specificly say what exactly they wish to change and how, it allways turn into "pure transcription 1:1 of tabletop rules" ... wich was multiple times confrimmed by Swen himself that is not going to happen.

Also there are things that are really fun, and other things that should be changed ... so it would be fine to be clear on what do you really wish to change ... just stating "give us DnD more" means litteraly everything in game ... state "i want DnD combat mechanics" is a little better, but it would still mean everything related to combat.

Few examples ...

There are things that are not acording to rules, but should remain as they are:
- Allowing people to cast second leveled spell after they cast Misty Step, even tho rules forbids it ...
- Allowing people to use bonus action to drink potion, since i dont think that give something to your mouth and gulp is so complex task so it would require full action ...
- Allowing people to have +2 to AC from shield at all time kinda makes sence ... since the shield is still there its just protecting your back, instead your front while you hold Bow ... also if you are not profficient, you get Disadvantage to everything at all time, not just when you are holding it ...
Etc. etc.
- Allowing people to use Barrels ... i will not start this conversation again, there is topic about that

But there certainly are things that should be changed:
- Remove bonus action cost from Jump and adjust jumping distance acordingly ...
- Change shove to action, rather than bonus action ... add condition that you cannot shove creature that is bigger than you are.
- Add responce from NPCs when you lay explosives next to them.
- Give all Chromatic Orb corect damage and remove surface effects (optimaly make it toggleable* ...)
- Remove surface effects from Elemental Arrows ... and allow their usage combined with Sneak Attack*.

*Theese both things could be done if Larian would use Metamagic style more often for other classes ... just to avoid confusion, lets not call it metamagic menu but toggleable effects menu ...
As i mutiple times mentioned in other threats ... you togggle Sneak Attack here > it adds damage to your next attack, no matter wich or what attack (meele, ranged, offhand ... strike consumes Sneak Attack resource, miss will not ... so single SA per turn as it should be) ... you toggle Blattlemaster maneuver > it adds it ... you toggle Metamagic > it adds it ... you toggle "sacrifice single damage Dice to create surface effect" > it does it ... you toggle non-lethal attacks > it does it ... etc.

My personal statement for this question allone: No.
I believe it will take Larian enough time an resources to create single model for this game, that would be automaticly adjustable with difficiulty options ... to create more than one model seems litteraly impossible, so it would mean that in order to do this they would have to abandon everything else ... and i believe it would be shame.

Well, that didn't happen here. Let me show you why:

Currently, I estimate that only 100 players bought BG 3 looking for 5e. I'm being generous with this estimation, based on the estimated number of unique posters on these topics.

Now, the actual number of active players could be much higher, or much lower. That's why they open their statement with "estimated". It could be really flawed if, for example, they're basing it on what's been sold. How many unique sales are there? Is there a server you have to log in to in order to play in a TT game? Their number likely includes me, who hasn't purchased anything since they launched 4e, people that no longer play at all, for various reasons, and would leave out players that just use someone else's books at the table. So, while "an estimated 13.7 million players" looks really impressive, it's useless for this discussion, because there hasn't been 13.7 million sales of the EA, and according to some, end sales won't even come close to that, and I'm fairly certain that one could count me amongst those that doesn't think it's going to do that well. Meaning that not everyone that plays DnD, or that has ever played, is going to buy this game.

It's also largely irrelevant since good system design isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

I agree with all of this. My interpretation of early access suggests that Larian is trying to cater to people that they think will not enjoy the full D&D experience, and I agree that on balance, the changes that they have made are not for the better.

Yes, I have been here long enough to know that "unless people specifically say what exactly they wish to change and how, it always turns into a 'pure transcription 1:1 of tabletop rules'." But many of the times this happens, it's because other posters strawman OP's argument, which is not something the OP should have to consider when posting. It's (usually) not their fault others interpret their words in an extreme light. In this exact thread, OP posted The highlighted part allows for slight differences between BG3's "D&D mode" and 5e RAW for things that are needed, nearly exactly matching Swen's initial statements on BG3's 5e rule implementation. E.g., the Ranger (which is so bad that there have been multiple revisions to it), weapon ranges (to accommodate Larian's map style), and all the things relating to the lack of a real-time GM to make judgement calls. But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Shove=Bonus Action or grenades dealing damage twice (on a hit and from the surface) are "needed" changes.

The rest of your post (regardless of which points I agree/disagree with) is your opinion about what should be changed. Which again, shouldn't affect what other posters post. People are free to want and argue for a "full D&D mode literally everything in the game" even if you/I/others disagree. Hopefully, you would then post your suggestions in response, and others would disagree/agree and the conversation would iterate. Instead of responding saying that OP's opinion is unreasonable because it doesn't match what Larian initially said and/or X players wouldn't want it.

In conclusion: I agree that OPs should be specific about what they want, but a lack of specificity gives room for further discussion, not dismissal of the argument. And "D&D mode" is specific; only OP can say whether they were exaggerating or if they really do want all 5e rules.

True words. As much as possible, we should try to argue for changes using reason, careful analysis and objective arguments, instead of an appeal to popularity.


That being said, this approach has its limits.

One very obvious reason is that not all systems and design decisions are amenable to rational analysis and have an objectively better solution, which merely needs to be identified. When it's a matter of tastes, we can argue that many players want flavour X and that system S is important. But if Larian likes flavour Y better and thinks S is not important, they will likely just go with it (and they have claimed that they are chiefly concerned with making a game that they will like playing).

Another reason is that DOS 2 was a commercial and critical success. I think we don't need an advanced degree in psychology to understand how, when using reason to explain why some individual elements were bad, the attempt is likely to fall on deaf ears. Obviously, DOS 2 was a large bundle of design choices and decisions, and it is very possible that some individual elements being objectively bad, but the whole package was successful in spite of these weak points.

At the end of the day, I think that the number of copies a game sells remains one of the most important metrics of success, from the point of view of a game studio, especially one that has just made the transition from the indie league to the AAA division. Arguing that "more players prefer flavour X to flavour Y" is (implicitly ?) a way of saying to Larian "you will have better chances of success if you go for Y".


So, quite sadly, it seems as if popular pressure is likely to be useful, if not needed in some cases.


That being said, as PrivateRaccoon noted, nobody here has the full picture of player preferences. So instead of claiming "most players prefer X to Y", we should all stick to shouting "I want X" or "I want Y", and let Larian do with that what they want, if they care.

This feeling of deaf ears is reinforced by Larian's muteness and invisibility. They are locked up in their ivory tower, and occasionally send a herald on the balcony to shout about the shiny new patch. Perhaps a loud enough clamour, self-organised and synchronised into some short and easily intelligible message, has more chances to reach them than other feedback approaches ? I don't know.


Coming back to the topic of the thread, I would love the have a D&D mode/difficulty setting. Count this as my +1. It's certainly not out of being a die-hard fan of the 5E rules. I just find the BG3 rules set to be rather bad. And from what I heard from DOS 2, Larian doesn't seem be be very good at, or care very much about, things like rules sets/systems and game balance. So I'd settle for the 5E rules set, which works fine enough.

That being said, it took Larian until Patch 5 to accept making Disengage an Action and separating it from Jump, as well as removing Backstab. It took until Patch 6 for Larian to accept removing Advantage/Disadvantage for High-Ground/Low-Ground.
Adding a D&D mode sounds like a very complex request.

So I feel like jumping on the bandwagon, and joining the "Shove should cost an Action" clamour, since it seems to be the one riding high at the moment. Then maybe "Hide should cost an Action", "add the Dodge action", "add the Ready action", and "add proper Reactions". By Patch 11, the rules set could have become closer to how I think it would work better.

On the bright side, these changes have slowly moved closer toward 5e rules, and Larian is allegedly working on a reaction system. The list you gave plus spells (learning from scrolls and quicken), monsters jumping, and removing automatic sources of damage would go a long way toward matching 5e. If all of those are implemented, then there might not be a need for a 5e mode. The biggest remaining things would be NPC stats and short/long rest modifications, which is admittedly are much bigger asks than simply changing combat mechanics. (And I've already said I don't think the former is necessary for a '5e RAW' mode). The rest would be small, more acceptable differences: e.g., haste potion length, weapon ranges, spell durations.

For me the biggest factor in making BG3 not feel like D&D are the OP fun things Larian like so much that casually ignore the entire ruleset or the spirit of it.

- Power shoving or yanking enemies into lava/pit/river with a Void Bulb, without allowing a saving throw. If you have a Void Bulb you can simply decide to kill them. That's not D&D and a brainless easy-mode isn't required for a video game either.

- Same with barrels and bombs that are so readily available to a lesser degree. They are so abundant and enemies are blissfully unaware of the explosives around them. This whole concept would work better on tabletop with a DM to make enemies react appropriately so the "videogame" excuse does not apply here.

- Giving goblins an abundance of knockback arrows, fire arrows, bombs etc. just to get more modifiers and surfaces on the battlefield. Giving monsters like Phase Spiders ranged poison spit surface attacks and completely changing what they should be about. Giving everything so much ranged stuff and new movement abilities makes melee lose it's meaning for anything but hacking away with a two handed weapon for maximum damage. Fighter classes simply can't play as protectors on the battlefield in a Larian game. They are better off equipping Boots of Speed, or Ring, or a Teleport amulet, or Boots (lots of Misty Step and speed / disengage items already in EA) and playing ninja assassin.

- Wizards learning other classes spells. Sure, it's probably unfinished, but it was still released to the public as such and has remained so for over a year. It shows neglect at understanding why this is a bad thing. Easily forgiven once it's fixed though.

I feel Larian is just going to do whatever they want. Shove as the most powerful mechanic? Cool. Challenge ratings? Naw. Pause button? Not here folks!

Some console output of dice rolls would be helpful, at least.

i'm not a hardcore dnd fan but myself included i don't like the current implementation (if it hasn't changed since first EA) on the reaction and the bonus action. a d&d game should stay closely to being d&d IMO. also, there's another problem. the art direction, the design, the assets were heavily reused from DOS2 and the look and feel keeps making me thinking that this is a DOS2. the 4 party character limit, the chaining and unchaining character UI are clear evidence.

+1

I would love for them to have a core rules difficulty option just like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 did. Some of the homebrew rules Larian is using make no sense whatsoever. For example, twinned spell with chill touch requires the targets to be in a little circle rather than just designating two targets. Why? Twinned spell also doesn't allow for concentration, so if you use it with witch bolt it does the initial damage but not the subsequent activations. Shove is a bonus action which makes a lot of combats a game of two hand shove football for the high ground. Reactions are not as player friendly as they are at the table. These are little things, admittedly, but they add up to feel less and less like DnD.