Originally Posted by clanpot

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.


I wasn't dividing. I wrote: Some fans. I could have been clearer though and not written DoS fans, but some DoS fans.

Originally Posted by clanpot

Re-read the post I quoted.


No you wrote:

Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave.


To me at least, it seems like an attempt to paint people as diehard fans. It is your interpretation of their intent, not a quote.

Originally Posted by clanpot

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.


I can counter that by saying we all knew we were getting a turn based rpg based on 5e. So why did you shell out 60 dollars for an EA if you dislike 5e or think its bland or whatever?

Based on 5e. The language is vague. But consider this: People like me, and I think there are many others, understand that changes need to be made when translating TTRPG into video game form. So when I hear based on 5e, I think of changes to illusion spells etc. Spells and abilities that would be very hard to implement mechanically. But many of the mechanics they have changed, would have been easy to implement. The marketing language wasn't "loosely based on 5e". And you are basically saying its better because they have steered away from RAW. Which is the same as saying, it would be better if they stuck harder to RAW. Not very constructive.

Personally I think the changes are for the worse. No flanking (I know that is an optional rule from RAW), but backstabbing instead. Backstabbing requires no tactics as melee. You just move around them and get free advantage. You do not have to consider or weigh if you should do something to get advantage, you just follow a recipe: Run around and get advantage. Why not implement flanking instead? At least it requires some thinking and positioning.

Shove as an action is also for the worse in my opinion. Instead of weighing the option between hitting or shoving someone down a cliff, I just do both. Not only that but feats like shield master becomes useless, and open hand monk looses some of its its luster. Shove is also more than strong enough as an action when you have so many places to shove people down.

My subjective view is that a good tactical game forces me to make hard choices.

Rogue has lost its identity completely. They are not skill monkeys, and everyone can disengage as a bonus action (this will affect monk too). At least they still have sneak attack (albeit a weird version of it). Changing core aspects of a class is in most cases, not all, a negative in my book. People like to recreate their favorite characters from the table.

I could also argue that the warlock class has lost some of its identity as the cantrip master. Currently a firebolt has a higher damage average than an eldritch blast with agonizing blast. If you target moves after you hit them, the firebolt even beats a eldritch blast+hex. There are many worrying balance changes.

If damaging surfaces from everything will make the game more fun or not, is subjective. But considering the amount of damaging area spells from RAW at higher levels: Spike growth, Fireball, Cloudkill, Firewall, Wall of Thorns, Hurricane, Hunger of Hadar etc, I think the battlefield will be extremely messy considering the fact that nearly everything creates surfaces.

Those are some of the changes that make the game worse for me. I also have faith in the 5e system and its ruleset. If people think I am a fanatic for thinking that, then so be it. 5E isn't even my favorite system, but I have fun playing or DM-ing it. And I believe it would translate well into a game.