True enough, this thread is about combat rules.
That said, strict adherence to 5e combat rules is fine. My playthrough of solasta was probably more marred with the user interface being bad at providing information to the player. the UI in bg3 is fairly intuitive and gives lots of feedback as far as percentages, advantages, dmg done, formulas used to determine hit/miss and dmg rolls, line of sight, spell effects, etc.
There are exceptions to those where some tooltips are wrong or skills are broken, but those are expected to be fixed as this is EA.
The biggest differences with bg3 combat is:
- Surfaces
- Shove/Push Actions
- Elevation Advantages
- Jump/Disengage to gain Advantage from a flank
Going back to solasta
- Surfaces obviously didn't exist there
- Shove/Push actions were present, killed a few monsters that way that crowded my wizard and thunderwaved 3 of them off to their death on falling. Bonus thing that I actually did like from solasta was that my cleric got knocked off a ledge and the game paused and asked if I wanted to use a spell to cast feather fall and prevent dmg. Interesting mechanic, but it basically play combat FOR you.
- Elevation Advantages again did not exist
- Disengage was available, but it took an action so you could not use that and then attack again. BUUUT, you could still just run behind them and attack for a flank. BG3 permits you to move while engaged with mulitple targets to jump behind them and not having to risk an attack of opportunity in order to get a flank on your primary target.
From my point of view, BG3 just needs a couple of rule set changes for balance and its core is actually pretty solid.
I think 5e action economy fad is not a very good system for games.
This was done to make TT players life easier, streamline, simplify and limit rolls, as well as try to balance things a bit better. But for video games, where computer handles the rolling without driving players crazy - having very limited amount of things you can do in your turn is a downgrade for sure from previous versions.
I think this statement is pretty fair. Table top combat needed to be deliberate and paced due to so many moving pieces and limitation of automated organization that computer gaming can provide. Also in computer gaming turn based can feel tedious to some. Already with bg3 there is a crowd of people who don't like how slow it is and want rtwp back, they also feel like they waste their turn if they don't expend all the resources and action/bonus actions/movement.
Core 5e is very slow in practice with very little done per a move. Larian spiced it up a bit and changed some things to bonus actions and allowed you to do a little bit more per a turn, still fairly slow in comparison, but I'm used to this style of gameplay from back in the 80s/90s. Rtwp is ok too, but can be chaotic if totally player driven actions or too passive if overly automated and letting AI control a majority of the movement while reserving specific spell casts or actions to the player IF they want to pause the game and dig through the skills to cast something.
I feel I like turn based more, even if it is slow.
