Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why the aggressive 5e Feedback?

Some, because of D&D 5e core rules.
Many others, because it currently IS terribly implemented.

As Mythago pointed out, dipping a sword in candle-light and turning it into a Flaming Sword, yeah... no. Should not happen at all.

The idea is decent enough, in my opinion, but it requires several components. Cover your weapon in grease and light it on fire, as an example, to make it flaming, cool... sure. It also requires you to prepare the proper tools for such a thing to happen. And it would let me make use of the goddamn grease bottles I carry around, making me decide whether to throw them to act as a bomb, or coat my weapon in the grease and hit stuff with it after flaming it up.

Yeah. There's code already for handling these things in a way that's closer to D&D rules. This is only the beginning of early access, so there's a lot of time to tweak many things. I'm just somewhat confused because Larian didn't go for D&D 5E rules first and then tweak anything that doesn't translate well into a video game.

Alright I see. I don't use dip much outside of prologue since I have better things to do with bonus actions usually. It's not very realistic, but next to jump and shove it certainly isn't too strong.

Perhaps they should simply not allow dipping on fire until you coat the weapon with grease, maybe that would suffice? Making it too complicated would not pay off, at that point might as well remove the whole feature

There is no mechanical reason to even have that feature. Most certainly not as a core mechanic that needs its own dedicated button in the UI as opposed to say the "dodge" action. Which IS a core mechanic that SHOULD have its own dedicated button in the UI.

Agreed 100!!!! I love DOS, mmkay! I have 1200 Hrs played on it, but I was told that this was a "faithful recreation of 5e rule" (which it's not) Not even close atm compare to Solasta who has almost 1:1 conversion to video game and it's FUN! ( who also has a limited license of 5E). So, no I won't stop this "aggressive" feedback...

Larian wanted more explosions and surfaces.
After adding them they realized most low CR enemies would just be one-shot by surfaces so they tweaked them to add HP but reduced AC a bit so they are technically the same difficulty but more durable totally ignoring all the spells that work based on total HD.
After increasing HP, they realized that enemies takes too much time to kill so they added more chipping power to the player via dipping, light exploding barrels and a few other rule-breaking.
After increasing the power of the player and not limiting long rest, they realized bosses were too weak so they buffed them to the point they aren't D&D creatures anymore.

Rince and repeat, it's a vicious circle of power creep that only matter at level 1 to 4 and will get bulldozed once we reach level 5-6. It also makes a lots of higher level class feature totally useless because they already have cheap replacement available at level 1.

This. This is my #1 complaint and I'm worried that it's going to get lost because it shows up in so many threads. I think everyone who wants to see the HP / AC go back the 5th ed standard should use the feedback button as well as the forum.

Sacred flame, hold person, sleep, fireball -- all nerfed.

A couple of months ago my opinion was that 5e wouldn't be a good system for VG because there wasn't enough complexity, so I expected changes. The thing is that in a lot of places that I don't think the game works well its where there is a departure from either the rules or "spirit" of 5e (grenade laden goblins and barrelmancy) and sticking closer would fix the issue. Between BG3 and Solasta I think 5e close to as written is actually in a sweet spot of VG adaption of being intuitive and offering plenty of depth

IMHO if you want people to take your comments seriously, don't repeatedly mention "Divinity 3" in the OP. It's been done to death and at best results in an echo chamber.

Backstab contradicts the game world. These characters aren't standing in place, facing one way. Your character is moving around in combat, swinging, dodging, etc... That's why you threaten the space "behind" you.

That's just silly. If the biggest concern with BG3 is that it's DOS instead of BG, then it's completely valid and appropriate to mention it. You're basically telling people not to mention it because you're tired of hearing it. That's irrelevant.

This. And this is the reason I don't think messing up with 5e rules too much is a good idea. Sure, I get from where Larian is coming from, and yes, 5e is not a perfectly balanced system, and yes, Wizards don't spend enough time rebalancing things. But look, if there is anything close to "balanced" in 5e D&D, it's the official rules released by Wizards, on which they've spent years of manpower to achieve. Sure, they can always do more, but they basically have only two jobs - take care of the lore, and take care of the rules. Larian, OTOH, have so many different things going on: programming, engine, art, story, voice acting, directing all of that, so so many things. To think they could also do a rebalancing of rules (which even the Wizards struggle with), doesn't seem too rational, to me. So why even go down this path? It's a tough job, and it's so easy to mess it up.

'Backstab' gives advantage because your opponent cant see you. Use the blind spell for backstabs to the face 😂

The AI uses it as well at times and honestly if people no longer have free disengage on everyone its alot harder to abuse tbh...

The use of facing (something that is in 5e, but as an optional rule in the DMG) really can work, it just needs to be handled a little better - removing the bonus action jump/disengage would help quite a bit. But the facing rules also allow someone to use their reaction to change facing. Also, moving outside of the front arc to attack someone from behind would also provoke an opportunity attack (unless you have disengaged).

I dont't personally care about DnD rules that much and I am fully aware they cannot be fully translated into a videogame. But Larian could atleast strive to make BG3 unique and stand on its own, it deserves that much imo. It is good that people constantly bring up DOS, let them know that we expect something more, something different.

+1, turn base doesn’t means you are a static statue that can only face one way. If you can do AoO to enemies behind you, you shall not get backstab.

Backstabbing shall only happens when enemy is not aware of u, like from stealth.

Regarding Facing:

I'll do a bigger write-up of why the purported logic is terrible (that you can't 'see' things behind you and it's an optional rule in the DMG), but for everyone using this logic please be aware that using the former argument will absolutely break hundreds of spells and class abilities.

Many, MANY spells and abilities use language that requires you to be able to 'see' your target. So, take the below example:

W ----- X ----- Y
---------|
---------|
---------Z

In this scenario, let's say X wants to cast Bless on W, Y, and Z. Using the logic of Facing, this is impossible. They cannot 'see' each of the targets all at the same time. Add in another target on the remaining axis (Upcast Bless at second level) and it just shows how impossible that will be.

Additionally, you now need to introduce the other rules for the Facing rule. A character with a Shield equipped only gains that benefit against attacks coming from about 1/3 of the area near them, the other 2/3s is useless. Barbarian Danger Sense now stops working a lot of the time because you can't 'see' the danger. You have to start modifying HUNDREDS of spells and abilities because of one dumb rule that I personally have never heard of being used by any DM, ever.

Or just change it to be a +2 modifier so it is significantly less impactful on gameplay, or ideally, remove backstab and instead use the Flanking rule with the +2 modifier to increase the amount of tactical maneuvering required to gain a benefit in melee combat, while having no need to rebalance the hundreds of other spells/abilities.

Can you argue that game is missing a nostalgic feel because it doesn't adhere to 5e rules or previous BG games as you'd like? yes.

Can you discuss balance issues? Definitely, it's early access and of course the game won't be perfect right away

Are other players allowed to like the changes? yes

Did Larian lie? not really, even in OP's links, they never said it'd be 1 to 1 conversion. In fact they said that'd be impossible. They'd get it close as they could. Expect more changes for better or worse as the EA goes on

Keep in mind, even WoTC wanted changes in the game as well https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585

True, but the ranger is almost universally disappointing in 5e. No one was going to complain about that needed change. And their update to the class is excellent. That's the kind of change that come across as "faithful" to 5e.

Many (most?) of the other 5e changes come across as unnecessary. Currently I would not describe this as a "faithful" adaptation, but it's early days.

There is something between "1 to 1 conversion" and a totally inacurate conversion... It looks like "as close as they could" is really subjective^^