Disclaimer : this post is an attempt to help fixing what doesn't work in BG3 as a D&D5 adaptation, not a hating post or anything ill attended. I wish this game comes as close to the tabletop game I love as possible so it is with this mindset I'm writing this.
As the title says, I've been playing the Early Access since it's available and I find it very different from what my D&D5 tabletop experience is, and what a D&D5 based game should be.
I'm both an avid player and DM on tabletop D&D with 20+ years of experience running the game and I have a weekly campaign running (currently Tomb of Annihilation).
Where D&D has been always shining, especially when compared to other tabletop RPGS, is class flavor and class exclusive skillsets. Playing a D&D game makes you realize very quickly you can't overcome the challenges on your own. You pick a class and are very skilled in what you should be able to do as an expert, but you lack skills in other areas. That's where the magic kicks in : you need others - your companions, fellow players - to face the threats and eventually win the big encounters (both social and combat ones). That's the most gratifying thing D&D brings to you as a player or as a DM : having your group acting together to defeat what you've been throwing at them.
I thought BG3 lacked this feeling so much in its Early Access state. I can get why some of the rulesets are tweaked or changed a bit (like the Natural Explorer ability of the Ranger, which wouldn't be very useful in a video game setting), but some of those changes are so deep that they take away the class favor and make them feel bland.
Here is a list of what disappointed me :
- Giving all the classes the option to disengage / hide / dash as a bonus action instead of letting it be a rogue core feature (cunning action - lvl2). I get somehow that you did this to speed up combat turns, but it makes being a rogue very lackluster for example. And it really breaks the immersion to watch my rogue or mage jumping as far away as my warrior (which should be tied to an Athletics check in the first place by the way). Giving mobility options in Divinity might work because that's at the very core of the game, but it doesn't match at all the strategic feeling of D&D. In D&D, it's all about action economy and choices between moving, facing an attack of opportunity, to get to a more secure location or stay where you are and deal damage before the enemy turn. The combat shouldn't be as opened and easy-to-move-around as in DO:S (except for, well, rogues who get this extra movement as a core feature).
- Giving all the classes the option to use spell scrolls. You end up with your warrior casting the same spells as your mage. And I'm betting this problem will only get bigger and bigger once you hit level 3 spells mark with the ability to use real powerful spells instead of cantrips out of spell scrolls (Warrior with full plate and AC 18+ using fireball scroll / action surge / using another fireball scroll / disengage as a bonus action while jumping away or jumping in to close range). Now if merchants are anything close to DOS:2, you'll end up with tons of money to buy spell scrolls from them as much as you want, and get your frontline warriors with 18+ AC to blast spells as much as your weak mage with 14 AC who will be using only darts when his spell list is depleted.
About spell scrolls, be careful about what you're giving players access to. Healing Word (lvl1 spell - bonus action - healing for 1d4+WIS HP any creature in sight) for example should not become accessible easily for all classes, as it would totally take the tension away of inconcious players having to make their death checks.
- Giving away revivify spell scrolls. Death is a definitive part of D&D5, not a state you are supposed to end up in frequently. Down state on the other hand is here for that. Instead of giving players powerful rez spells, give them options to pop out a potion and give it to fellow fallen companions, instead of letting them die then having to cast a rez spell on them. Which potion will they choose ? The only superior one they got, or a smaller one, facing the risk their companion might get inconcious again ? Will they use their action to drop that potion in their fallen companion mouth, even if it means moving away from the enemy and facing an attack of opportunity ? (now you understand why disengage should remain an action and not a bonus action : you're creating dilemnas the player will have to deal with when it costs a whole action).
- Instead of using all the class abilities from the SRD out of simplification (which I can understand somehow - not everything from tabletop can work in a videogame), giving players new out-of-the-hat options tied to weapons is somehow both unexpected and contradictory ! How does my bow now have an option to reduce enemy speed ? Does it come from me being a warrior ? From the bow itself ? From my mastery of the bow ? From my background as a soldier ?
This doesn't belong to D&D5 at all.
Instead of creating such abilities, it would be far better to focus IMHO on implementing actual real abilities from the D&D classes (and with all the subclasses available, there is already plenty of work to do). Again, tying abilities to weapons makes all the classes feeling somewhat the same, which takes away from the D&D experience.
As a side note : backgrounds could use a proper tab in the character creation. They're very important in D&D5 in that, when you pick a class at level 1, you're already somewhat of an accomplished adventurer. Your background is what you did as a job before you started adventuring. By level 1, you're already seen as a very capable fighter and feared by most of the regular folks populating villages. Backgrounds should be more than just 3 lines of short description when you create your character. You need to understand why you are able to use thief tools when your companion can't, why you're able to use herborist kits, etc. Plus, it brings in so much character flavor, again lacking in BG3 as it is now.
