Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by YT-Yangbang
By the mechanics I wonder from you guys that are more Obsidian familiar. How do all the games (BG 1 2 3) compare to the lines of closeness, to the heart and gameplay of table top D&D


In both Larian and Bioware's, heavy adaptations were done to make the systems work with the videogame medium. Some highlights that I remember off the top of my head:

BG 1/2:
  • The 2E "group initiative" system is adapted to a RTwP system. Note, this actually works quite well unlike a 5E turn base conversion to RTwP would be like.
  • Changes to character creation - i.e. removed female stat restrictions from the corebook. Charisma hireling effects removed. Etc.
  • Changes to Class - added classes from 3E (i.e. Sorcerer, barbarian, etc). Added tons of kits (subclasses) to almost every class. Changed Illusionist (which was its own class) into a mage kit/subclass
  • Implemented the Weapons Specialization/Mastery system from the "Combat and Tactics" book. It was stronger in BG1, but nerfed to match the book in BG2
  • Epic level abilities (from Throne of Bhaal) are mostly a Bioware invention
  • Heavily re-balanced monsters ("hp bloat")*



Larian's BG3
  • Turn-based system implemented as-is in the game.
  • Changes to action/bonus action balancing - some PnP actions are now bonus actions (i.e. "disengage")
  • Backstab/High-ground advantage to attacks - "technically" in PnP (the book says DM should grant advantage whenever it makes sense), but still a big change from more PnP games
  • No new classes, but there have been some alteration and "rebalancing" (Rogues missing expertise, GOO Warlocks missing an ability) - could be bugs/unfinished
  • Rate and availability of treasure is higher in BG3. No attunement as of right now (which limits stacking magical items)
  • Larianisms like surface area damage (although that has been toned down)
  • Heavily re-balanced monsters ("hp bloat")*


    * Yes, BG2 has "hp bloating" too - even more drastically than Larian considering the system they played in. It made sense though, because in these conversion, monsters are always more vulnerable positionally (i.e. no flight) - so HP is often increased to account for that. Some examples:
    • 60 avg. hp Balors had up to 155 hp (the ritual demon in the Underdark)
    • 33 avg. hp Trolls were had 80 hp.
    • 102 avg. hp Great Wyrm Red Dragon had 184 in Firkragg.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: no idea why my text appears inside the quoute frame, there is an end of quote written when I look at the editor.

Thanks again.

The good thing about BG1+2 was that they came with a huge manual book, basically a full PHB made exactly for this game.
This way I did not have to look at the PnP rules so I did not see these differences because I only had this book as reference.

New video games based on PnP usually do not come together with a full PHB, so I had to read the PnP rules for DnD 5E and Pathfinder in order to play those games.
This way I saw the differences between computer game and PnP and I complained about some of them.

- I like the changes in the last patch that put the game closer to PnP, like cantrips not causing surface effects any more.
This is EA and some more changes will happen.
- I wish every large RPG comes with a manual like BG1+2. In order to play BG3 or Kingmaker you have to read the PnP rules somewhere else and then you have to guess the differences between PnP and the computer game.
I did not know the stuff you wrote about BG1+2 because the manual was perfect to understand the game mechanics and lore.

Last edited by Madscientist; 16/12/20 11:42 AM.
groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi: