Originally Posted by Thrythlind
Originally Posted by blindhamster
Originally Posted by VhexLambda
I don't know I love Larian but I think they changed a lot from 5e that they really did not have to change. I play 5e on a regular basis and it's very beginner friendly. People picking up the game I don't think would have issues learning the system even if they dont D&D. BG 1 and 2 were pretty successful and used AD&D's confusing ass system to the tee and at the end of the day people loved it.

I agree that Larian changed a bunch of stuff they shouldn't have... that being said, BG1&2 really don't follow 2e rules to a tee, they make a lot of their own tweaks, albeit mostly out of necessity due to RtwP. Still the games that got me into both computer games and roleplaying though.


Also, they were pushing a lot of changes that would come out in 3.X, such as dropping level limits.

I disagree on the changes to 5e for the purposes of a CRPG vs TTRPG, certainly they COULD do a more accurate version, but I'm remain unconvinced that would be a good idea. But no, I don't think there's a problem with learning D&D from this.


I encourage anyone who wants to get a feel for how combat would play if it were closer to tabletop to try Solasta, which is also in early access. BG3 has a lot of things over Solasta, but Combat gameplay isn't one of them (nor is party control out of combat or moving through environment to be fair, but the biggy is getting people to see what being closer to the actual D&D rules might look like)