Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback stick with the 5e monster stat blocks

Please stick with what monsters should be able to do by the PHB / Monster Manual. Don't give basic goblins any potions, scrolls, superpunches or anything that simply isn't there nor should be there.
(Also don't give them "levels". Monsters don't have character levels, only Challenge Ratings.)

This kind of thing was unpredictable and endlessly chaotic in DOS2 and many players found it hilarious, me included!
But BG3 is supposed to be a DnD game. Or make "homebrew wild mode" an option if you must, but it appears a lot of players want an as authentic as possible 5E experience here, and I agree with them.

Purists are the reason this game sucks right now I hope larian listens to very few of them, odd you're complaining about insignificant things and not the complete lack of fog of war and exploring though walls with your bugged out camera. Odd how the purists seem to be the most casual out of the bunch. You're advocating a boring soulless game that lacks any sort of depth even close to DO2 be some how more boring broken and bugged.... HARD PASSS. There is so much potential for this game right now literially DECIMATED to the point I wouldn't even give this game a 6.5/10 rating right now sidelined trying to implement a system that taken at full purist value does not work AT ALL!

Larian needs to make this game the best game it can be, THEN let the handful of purists mod the game back to its boring broken buggy and incoherent rendition of 5e not the other way around, it doesn't translate and likely never will I promise you that, it does not make for good game play in this engine anyways.

Not sure about levels/C.R because I don't really know how D&D is balanced and how that work but I'm totally with you on that.

I hate Rules Lawyers.

How would you know that it doesn't make for good game play in this engine when we haven't ever seen it in this engine? Since day 1 of EA this game has not played like D&D 5e it has played like DOS2, complete with total rewrites of how some spells/cantrips/abilities work and even tossing in completely made up abilities for monsters that just makes it even more clunky. Right now Gnolls get 3 attacks per turn, plus a bite attack as a bonus action it seems. How is 4 attacks per turn, which is enough to KO and be well on the way to full out killing a character, good for the gameplay? All it does is add frustration as a pack of Gnolls that should be somewhat easy for your party to deal with are suddenly turned into Super Gnolls who have been shooting up on steroids apparently.

The game has thrown out how so much of this should work in 5e just to make it play like a Divinity game, which is stupid. I bought this expecting to play a Dungeons and Dragons 5e game, as that's how it was marketed and sold. Instead they just disguised Divinity Original Sin 3 as a Baldur's Gate game and lied to us. You would be pretty pissed off if you bought DOS3 and then it played like D&D 5e, and it's the same thing on the reverse.

Pure DnD does translate rather well into video games, with minor (!) adjustments, it always has:
in the 'golden box' AD&D computer games of the 80s and 90s
in BG1, BG2,
Neverwinter Nights 1+2

And 5E works just as well as a computer game, again with *minor* adjustments. Leave spells out where it makes sense. Simplify them were it makes sense. But don't wildly add stuff all over the place that throws all sense of balance out the window. Because then I'd be playing a DOS game. And make no mistake, I happen to love DOS and DOS, as the highly volatile brand of tactical RPG they are. But BG3 is supposed to be a different game, with a different approach - based on DnD 5E. Saying that would make a game "soulless" is basically claiming 5E is soulless - you're entitled to that opinion of course.

Finally, my sense of 'depth' in an RPG comes from story, writing, dialogues - and I don't see BG3 lacking at all here.

Ah, so we already drew lines in the sand and call each other names now... yea, how dare us evil "purists"?

OP +1 from me, obviously... which is not to say that shooting through walls isn't a problem, but things like that are obvious bugs that will be ironed out, bad balancing because of inaccurate monster stats and wrongly implemented abilities, not so much.

If you think BG3 plays like DOS2 no one will ever take you seriously... it plays nothing like DOS2... its five times as broken with a fifth the content. Your judgement is way off...

No one can say this game plays like DOS2 and be taken seriously at all... It's not even remotely close.

*yawn, cracks open eye* another one..... bloody purists spreading their hate mongering, pointing fingers, what we need is a circle of trust, maybe a tree of 'this is not DOS' 'Black isle is gone so you'll never get another BG game like BG1, or BG2. So we now switched to monster stat blocks.... bloody fascists... sooo monster stats, and CR in 5e what to say.. what to say shots already been fired, on both sides.

A tiny bespeckled gnome, with a wild mop of frizzy grey hair dons his monkey suit, holds up The Almighty 5e core rulebook. 'Ahem, Ahem. does it not stipulate in the rule books that they are general guides? I do believe they do, also it has been stated by WoTC on several medias that they are so. That it is up to the DM in this case Larian Studios who is currently leasing the rights, and respective licenses to D&D 5e to adjust the rules as they see necassary, or as the feel there is something lacking to convey the story they wish to tell. Furthermore as is standard for such contracts WoTC has the right to revoke said contract if they feel their system is being abused, one would feel that in the case of this redundant, oft brought up arguement, that if WoTC who is without a doubt closely watching (if not actively involved) many of the updates, and also getting reports, checking progress etc feels that larian studios the current leaser of aforementioned licenses, and rights. Note leased, not bought, feels that Larian is breeching the contract by creating another DOS game under the false pretense of using 5e rules, that they would immediatly revoke said leases, and seek a new game developer to produce BG3."

*adjust his tiny round spectacles* "Oh my, oh dear where was I, oh yes rules, legal actions, my word the notion of using purist as an insult how barbariac, completely uncivilized. Oh yes goblins, filthy nasty things. I would have to sadly agree with this vile heretical purist that every goblin would not be carrying such things about, in truth this is do to the fact they breed far faster then rabbits, and die just as quickly. Vile things that they are, yet if they are backed by other forces as seems to be the case. Armed by drow, and powerful cleric, even a demigod or some such nonsense then I can see where they would be better equipped then your standard run of the mill goblin. Dear I really shouldn't say this, the very thought is unconcievable, attrocious, ridiculous that with this strange creature aiding them, their even is a chance that their are smart goblins... Oh dear I need a drink, I feel faint." *wipes sweat from his brow, looking rather pale, and unnerved even.*

"Furthermore I conclude that according to the Law of 5e, that this is indeed a D&D campaign DM'd by the hive mind at of Larian, subclan of Studio, for which Swen is the active ruler. That the changes within this video Campaign, are to add affects, to adjust for the descrepencies inherient in going from Quill and Parchment, to the gnomish inventions called PC's, were in things need to be adjusted where High Paladin Swen cannot actively control the game, as those in Quill and Parchment also labeled as DM can. As from my notes this is still an Early Access and High Paladin Swen and his hive mind has stated that they are seeking a balance, seeking things that don't seem to be working, or needs to be changed, obliterated, smashed, crushed!!" *rage suffixes the tiny gnome his voice booming out as he vehenmently pounds the Tome of 5e at the last words, before looking rather emberrassed.* "Oh dear sorry I had a moment, just one second. Oh hencefore I politely ask the herd to refrain from accusations based on assumptions about a as of yet unfinished work, and to simply stop the this is DoS comments. Instead focus on what you feel is wrong, after all that is why we I do so hope why we got the game. To make it better, to offer our insight, and suggestions. Well unless your trolls, tadpoles, orges, orcs, or the aforementioned sheep. Yes Yes I'm done here." *scurries off his podium, the Holy book of 5e clutched firmly under his arm.*

From a pure balance standpoint I agree with this. I have never played D&D, despite having played a ton of cRPGs based on it. I love this game and have 60 hours and several characters committed, but the goblins having an entire alchemy shop in their back pocket and the random super boss enemies like the Gnoll are really annoying. I think the point has been made enough about the ground effects enough at this point, but every enemy does so much damage with all these random items and abilities that you either have to cheese most of the harder content, just long rest after every encounter.

+1 to going back to the original 5e stat blocks for monsters. WOTC has already playtested all of these monsters for appropriate challenge ratings so why do extra work by adding levels and attacks and then rebalancing? D&D is already fun, no need to mess with the formula this much.
I get people who want Divinity Original Sin 3 out of this game but if that's what Larian turns it into obviously Baldur's Gate fans are going to be disapointed. I think Larian just needs to let this be Baldur's Gate 3 and save all of their DOS3 ideas for DOS3.

Cute... and I can't beileve I'm about to say this - as one of the rule bendiest (yes, that's a word!) DMs my group has ever known, and bane of all the rule sticklers... especially in Pathfinder - but: Rules are only "general guidelines" if I know them and are able to implement them well, THEN I can think about bending and breaking them, otherwise it's just good, old fashioned arbitrariness. So, bottom line, and as far as video games are concerned: First do a solid port/adaption, then you can go and joke around!

I agree. I do not understand why they would not first stick with the basics of D&D 5e, then slowly change the game to make it play "better".

Anyone saying "5e does not translate well" is fooling themselves. They have not played BG3 as a full 5e game. It's been altered already before the core 5e rules were even tried.

thanks lol. My brain went to gnome with someones Rule Lawyer comment. safer you don't ask. The thing you being a DM, and rule bender will probably have noticed is having to playtest the bends, or breaks from the normal rules. This is simpler when you play with the same group, repeatedly. They tend to have a certain style/flavor/archtype that they play for the most part across all classes. The smash everything, the useless in combat, the supremely focused, the talker, the choatic etc, so your able to contemplate which rules need to be changed, what you can adapt in your campaigns to fit their playstyles. If they don't have a particular archtype it's harder, and this is with a small group of players, who may very well be knowledgeable about the rules as are you. From some random subtopic I've seen there are 1 million players in EA, or at least they've sold 1 million copies what ever. Can you imagine hosting a game where 1 million people are your players, some brand new, others die hards, min/maxers, all about me'ers etc. Trying to balance, and fine tune for even half that many at once is mind boggling. Yet Larain is trying that, as did BG1, and BG2 which didn't have the sheer number of difficulties do to fact they were probably a cult classic, and nowhere near as many bought them. (assumption not based on fact)

As for stat blocks how many times have you as a DM raised or lowered hp, added something to a monster to give your players a challenge, or had to lower stats to aid them. Or even add in more health potions cause that supposedly easy fight based on cr was way harder then it should have been. This again is with a small, probably knowledgeable group, and you were right there to do it on the fly. On a video game with thousands/millions of players, where the DM can't be there to adjust on the fly, they need to find what works for the majority. What keeps the majority challenged, and interested.

Nothing precludes a DM giving goblins potions in the game. To channel jeremy crawford "If the enemy creature was not able to hold additional items, the description would say so"

DM present able to adjust things on the fly, being loot (specially made for what the characters are using) amount of health potions, amount of gold, switching campaign from diplomatic towards heavy fighting depending on likes dislikes of players. Creating personal story lines for a small group of players that can work with you at table, or over phone. Adjusting balance of fights, or test difficulties based upon the stats of small party to offer a challenge, but not to over whelm players. Adding lore on the fly as it becomes necassary, or whim of pc at table. Personally knowing likes and disliikes of your players at table. Being able to adjust story depending upon actions, or inactions of players within moments of them going off script. Recieving immediate feedback from players at table about what is working, or not working at table.

having to think about all this to give unknown number and skill level of thousands of players, while taking into consideration what the majority of unknown players, with unknown numbers will like, dislike based upon statistics before able to release a demo to recieve feedback from untold number of players, with unknown and widely varying degrees of skill.

yeah so translates well from pnp, to video game.

I can literally go on all night and day about the difference of being with your players at a table. Vs. having to take into consideration before hand what a far larger majority of people you've never met, nor played with, and can't get direct personal feedback is.

We don't want do2 we want dnd 5e you know the gsme they said they were going to make. Don't say dnd if your not going to make it

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.

Hmm, I am split on this issue. On one hand, I don't think Larian should need to stick 100% to the monster manual. Add and subtract some numbers to balance encounters etc. Or straight up invent some variants. Or give a monster some class levels. But on the other hand, it looks weird when a small goblin punches a large bear at least 30 meters into the air. It just feels like wacky fun, and it doesn't really fit with the atmosphere of the rest of the game in my opinion.

And of course gnolls with 3-4 attacks are problematic. I was surprised when I saw 1 arrow barrage down my wife's character in one turn. That being said, they should probably use the monster manual as a guideline. At least those monsters are relatively balanced (although very easy for an experienced group). And then they can tweak the monsters from there, instead of going far off the beaten path right away.

I create lots of custom monsters when I DM, and I often up need to up the difficulty quite a lof (My group is full of D&D veterans). But I am creating my own world, and I do not have to stick to the monster lore of the setting. So there is that to consider too. I am afraid I do not have a clear opinion on this topic.