The thing is, there is a perfect example of another game in development that uses the 5e system with some minor modifications (compared to BG3 at least) while being more limited with what they have to work with and the combat is much better, smoother and generally more fun.
That is strictly opinion though. It sounds like Solasta's vision aligns with what you want more, which is totally fine.
For me, I think Solasta's done a great job with what they have. I do legitimately like some of their implementation (i.e. reactions) far better than BG3. However, I far enjoyed BG3;s combat far more.
For me, combat in Solasta was extremely dull and repetitive. By the end of the Solasta EA I was dreading each additional fight because I was just spamming basic attacks and cantrips against the same repetitive mobs, and I was steamrolling. I blame this more on encounter design than class mechanics, but they do work hand in hand.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Adjustments are fine, in some cases needed. But BG3 made changes that completely throw any balance out of the window. Combat becomes boring and tedious and generally the same (Go for backstabs and highground. That is the tactics). Which makes some classes the same and less unique, and thus more boring to play. The best way to succeed in combats is to make clever use of these added houserules and game mechanics. It caters more to DOS1/DOS2 tactics and ignoring many 5e tactics (And class abilities, spells, etc).
While I think backstab and height is overtuned, I didn't find the mechanic repetitive. It at least add a bit more choice for "attack only" classes and make you consider the terrain more. It's as repetitive as any cover or high ground mechanics you see in X-com and other combat games. Get cover, get high ground, and flank when you can. Most games will sound repetitive if you sum up its core like that. Most RPG combat would just be - buff self, debuff enemy, attack. I'm not sure how removing it would make things any less repetitive?
I agree with you that they haven't nailed the balance (like I said, way overtuned), but I don't have a problem with them trying something new to make 5E work better for a videogame.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
If you are going to do that, why even bother making it the weird 5e/DOS hybrid that tries to do two systems but fails at both. Stick with one or the other. And definatly do not sell it as a 5e game while it clearly is not this.
I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. Just sticking to DOS or 5e seems like an incredibly lazy way to do this. Neither are perfect systems and have gaps that can be improved on, which is what I would prefer Larian try to do with BG3.
All successful D&D videogames (BG1/2, NWN 1/2) have been adaptations of the D&D rules and made massive implementation changes, but sold as D&D video games.
