Originally Posted by endolex
Originally Posted by clavis
*and to simply stop the this is DoS comments. Instead focus on what you feel is wrong*


Avoiding mentioning *those other games Larian made* as being the blueprint from which many of the current issues that alienate 5E enthusiasts come won't make said issues disappear, nor less of an issue.

Player expectations are a driver for player satisfaction, yes? BG3 was advertised as a 5E experience as close to the core rules as possible, just like DnD adaptations of the past had been: As faithful as possible.
I was already worried back when they announced during the early days that they didn't even want to implement the original combat system in the 5E way because they felt "it wouldn't work well in a video game".
Had they ever played BG1+2? Icewind Dale? NWN 1+2? Dark Sun? Pool of Radiance? Any game that had a "core D&D" difficulty setting?
In any case, very glad they stepped back on that, because 5E combat in a video game works just fine as it turns out - and clearly not because they added oil barrels or cantrips with splash effects. So I hope they keep stepping back on these wilder elements inspired by the approach taken in *those other games Larian did*.
There's lots of ways to introduce homebrew where it makes sense: I'm very glad for instance that you can just recast Speak with Dead on a different corpse in BG3, because I feel that kind of thing should be a ritual spell in the first place and not waste spell slots. You know, minor stuff, for quality of life.

You want to make a game adaptation, start with what is there and get the base game right, and work from there. You seem to be saying "don't take 5E PHB as scripture", yeah I get that. But, well, I'm saying: "maybe also don't take the ruleset as some rough guideline to toss away the moment you think you have a better idea". Might as well call BG3 a game "inspired by" Dungeons & Dragons 5E then.


see I don't feel like being so sarcastic and arguemenitive. The Whole this isn't such and such, it's this, tends to in my eyes invalidate what the points are. Now with everything laid out, it feels more like feedback to me, then all the thousands of this isn't this, it's this. Which you can claim about a great many games imo on the market.

1st. point = True. counterpoint/note how many 5e players are actually looking at BG3 vs. those that don't know much about, or know nothing about 5e. Add to this they may know about DOS (don't get me started on my views on that series). Divinity mechanics are familiar to mainstream gamers, 5e may not be. So Larian maybe comprimising to ease in the non 5e crowd who have played Divinity. could be, also a point of arguement with valid reasons on both sides even without discussion imo.

2. I can see thier point, do to how 5e is handled. Alot of open area to play with rules that earlier except that one that shall not be named (4) simply do to the lack of extra source books for 5e being out. Also alot of vagueness in some rules, and source material. Also again target audience 5e players vs number of non 5e players. Then number of divinity or other similair mainstream game players.

3. MMMmmm, Pool of RAdiance, sorry drooling. This could also be that there were more D&D players then is currently true. Think about just the sheer number of games D&D was putting out as video games vs. now. Add to that the number of source books were you could find nearly anything in them. Vs the by comparision lack of anything about 5e. 3.5 alone had source books for each different classes with stated subclasses. prices for all items, magic compendiums with far greater numbers of magical items, alternate rules for creating monsters, using monsters as a pc raceetc. Where 5 is simply a shell compared to the others.

4. Yeah I've posted several times about using what makes sense, yet there are valid arguements about why in this case goblins have access to equipment and things they normally wouldn't have.