Hi,

Originally Posted by Milkfred

I'll take a few moments to go on a bit of a tangent here. People are going to say, well, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had way more characters. Yes, they did. But Baldur's Gate 1's cast were basically blank slates with names and some flavor lines - the expectation was that they'd die and you'd cycle them out without fanfare. Baldur's Gate 2 had a smaller cast with more detail, but even then I think it's safe to say that most players used a lot of the same characters and that, outside of specific gimmick runs, the majority of the cast was not utilized. Without even going into the production side of things like detail, the evolution of expectations, and so on.


Before addressing your points, I'dd just like to say that the quote above is pretty much you talking out of your ass. It just looks like you've not actually played the original games or maybe just skipped through everything.

In regards to the actual title of BG3's problem being 5e I find this to be 100% false. The problem with BG3, and you can easily see this in your own points which do point out actual problems in the game, is due to a poor implementation of the system by Larian, not the ruleset itself. In regards to the skill checks, these can be done in a variety of ways. Larian just chose to do it in the worst way possible. Multiple skill checks of the same type in a row, little choice of actual skill to use, etc. The Nettie example you gave is a good one, and there are plenty others in the game.

Your first 4 points are all the same and all of them due to Larian's poor implementation of the system.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history? Again, this is something a DM may just throw in. Perhaps the Nettie scenario might not feel so unfair if, say, the player was able to nudge the scales based on things they had done. This is something that Disco Elysium did extremely well. Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history, and not just being decided because I didn't put enough numbers into certain stats when I made the character a few hours before.


I disagree. The modifiers are a good way to show your character development and/or choices while building him. I'm not saying that they couldn't add something along the lines of what you are suggesting, but it seems like it would be something like a Fame system (at least the examples you provided). If they do however, I think it should be extremely rare for those bonus to be given as overall I don't think they make a whole lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible. Some people are upset over the surfaces being so common, but I think without them the combat would be far less interesting than it is.

That's really about it. As it is, I think just about every issue people have with BG3 stems from these compounding issues arising from the strict tabletop gameplay. For example, people wanting an increased party size - because you practically need someone who can lockpick and a Wizard for spells and a Fighter to tank and a Cleric to heal and support and, well, suddenly you feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into. And if you made a Fighter and happen to like Lae'zel, well, good luck having two Fighters.


In regards to combat, you're right, combat as it is now is very very bad. Encounters are boring and uninteresting. The problem here, once more, is not because of 5e, it's poor implementation choices by Larian. Combat is boring and dull because you can't really do a lot in each turn. Not only that but you also have the problem compounded by having to wait for all the AI to each take their turns before you can play again. This is especially fun in those fighter turns of Move + attack *miss* pass turn... In Divinity it worked well because DOS system was very nicely built for a turn based video game. You had a lot of action points, loads of skills, cheap movement skills, action point gain skills, extra turn skills, etc etc which made for very action packed turns where you could get a lot done. The hit/miss system was also much better tuned for turn based video game gameplay. If BG3 had been rtwp this would be a non-issue, people keep foaming at the mouth that rtwp is the spawn of satan but then it's amusing when all of them start having this same issue with the combat lol. I have no illusions in regards to Larian actually implementing the option to toggle between rtwp and turn-based, they won't do it, but they have to refine the turn based combat in BG3 by A LOT. Turns are way too slow. You said you played Wasteland 3, and it's actually a nice example of a game which did something to improve turn based combat in that when enemy turns begin, they all move at once instead of one at a time, which already spares the player a lot of tedium. Not saying that would be the solution for BG3, but it does show that something can be done about this problem.