Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Is this really the consensus?

Strong agree. After playing Solasta it is very clear to me that a mostly faithful adaptation of 5E can be fun. I do not expect Larian to make the exact same decisions as the Solasta team (differing visions are fine), but using the excuse that adhering to the 5E rules is "not fun" is not going to sit well with me.

+1

Where was the expectation that BG3 will be a faithful adaptation to 5E set? I honestly do not recall any promises made in that regard. This is coming from someone who wants a more faithful adaptation to the rules (as a Paladin fan, I am dreading to see how they'll butcher my smite), but I've never had the expectation that the rules adaptation would be faithful.

Just look at the Baldur's Gate 3 Steam Store page vs. Solasta's.

• BG3 only states that it is set in the world of dungeons and dragons in the intro paragraph. Its first mention of being "based on" 5e rules is in the full features list buried under the read more expandable.
• Contrast that to Solasta - whose first line "TRUE TO THE TABLETOP"

It's clear where each games' vision and value proposition sits, regardless of our personal preferences.

We can all prefer steak to chicken, but it's unreasonable to order a chicken and be mad that you didn't get steak.



In terms of interviews, even from the very start, there was no mention of a "faithful adaptation to 5E". From an interview with Gamespot after the 2019 Announcement. It feels like from the start, they would be working with WoTC to be changing things in lore and gameplay.



The one quote I can find that leans most towards a "faithful adaptation" would be this quote from a PCGamesn interview with Sven. But even then, it's clear in the quote that Larian would be making adaptations for the game. You can argue that Larian has gutted the heart of D&D in their translation, but you have to be expecting changes.

Something to think about next time I cram a wheel of cheese down Astarion’s throat in the middle of combat.

That last quote sums it up.

They came up with "solutions" for stuff that actually does work, as Solasta has proven, making it worse.

Currently with how the ruleset and mechanics work, combat is focussed around the Larian homebrew rules and changes, which is very similar to DOS combat mechanics. The D&D ruleset did not really survive the translation at all, nor is the game a true D&D experience. It feels more like a blend between DOS and Dragonn Age to me.

If you are looking for a D&D style game, which that basically says, you are going to be dissapointed. Not happy.

I think that's a fair take. I want to be fair to Larian (in that they never offered a faithful adaptation), but that doesn't mean I don't have my own issues with the game.

For me, I'm most unhappy about improper-reactions and no-held actions (which I think removes an entire strategic layer from the game).

If they truly ‘meticulously’ started with 5E and then started improvising to fix it, it’s a real shame we never got to test that version in EA.

It's natural the official early access forums are seen as more "toxic". People tend to focus on the things they don't like and want changed significantly more in a place they are (more) likely to be heard, than praise what most agree Larian does well.

I see 3 large issues:

Combat. Excessive environmental shenanigans and excessive bonuses for higher ground/flanking advantage. In particular jumping to flank and gain attack advantage, and putting weapons on flame. Both are virtually guaranteed extra damage, but require the player to perform the same time wasting, boring ritual over and over and over again. This is bad gameplay and is likely to cause class imbalances too (ie barbarians reckless attack ability is rendered worse than useless). Excessive environmental effects may be fun, but also takes a dump on class balance (everyone can fireball) and takes the focus away from the class development. Just think that Larian hasn't found the right balance between what worked well in DOS2, but works less well in BG3.

Resting mechanic. Wrecks immersion and class balance. Either implement it properly with camp changing after location and preferably a day/night cycle like the original games,and/or implement some magical camp like the "Rope Trick" spell that creates an extradimensional space, and/or make evermore house rules to buff the classes relatively nerfed. Alternatively, scrap the mechanic and implement cooldowns and action points like DOS2. The current balance is neither here nor there. Address narrative dissonance between allegedly being in a desperate battle against time and unlimited sleep.

Loot focus and inventory mini-games. Weakest part of DOS2 makes a comeback in BG3 sadly. I would prefer an abstracted system with a party inventory which automatically sorts and stacks by loot type (not accessible in combat). Secondary personal inventory (accessible in combat) should be limited to a smallish amount of hotbar quick slots. Less trash loot. Items that can be used for crafting should be clearly marked as such (in DOS2 you were worried selling items would ruin crafting). Heal items should be scrapped or abstracted to be used automatically after combat (ie. give slow regeneration). Healing related to class abilities should be buffed to compensate classes that are made less useful by the easy access to sleep/heal.

I agree, and I think this is where the company has the most to gain and the least to lose if it listens to those of us who actually pay attention to gameplay (which I like to think is the majority here in the forum).

I would say you are accurate in your assessment @Topgoon.

Prior to the EA release, there were several months of forum debate ( mostly civil ) discussing how Larian might implement 5e rules and the BG legacy.

At that time, the main complainants were expressing angst that the game felt more like DOS than the original BG games, but there were also discussions on obvious changes to the 5e action economy, lack of control over reactions, and a number of other changes that could be easily gleaned by looking at the gameplay streams and developer comments.

It was very clear from available game footage and developer interviews that BG3 was never intended to be a tabletop emulator, or a tabletop game-aid; unlike NWN/NWN2 which were both designed to be used in that way. There have been no guarantees of providing anything beyond a story-driven co-op RPG; everything else that has been mentioned by Larian is aspiration, at best.

If anyone posting here thought there was a promise to implement 5e closely, then that is wishful thinking.

Of course, anyone ( and everyone ) should be free to express their preferences, and ( if you care to ) make rational arguments to support your preferences. That is one way that Larian will be able to guage how broad or narrow their market is, and how well or poorly their design decisions are received by different market segments.

Ideally, Larian will provide enough optional gameplay settings to allow most players to feel comfortable with the game, but if your expectations diverge too greatly from the EA experience, you should expect to be disappointed.

Larian have never said they cannot implement the 5e rules exactly; tabletop RPG rules sets are sometimes exhaustive, but rarely exceed simple arithmetic in mathematical complexity. What they have said is that the 5e rules do not always work well for the game they are making and the broad audience they are aiming to please.

Unlike Solasta, whose audience will likely be dominated by PnP players, BG3 is an expensive production that needs a broader audience, most of whome will be mainstream videogame players. Larian could not make BG3 based on the Solasta sales model.

With such a broad audience, I doubt there will be consensus on anything very much.

Oh, I can't believe I'm seeing the voice of truth on this forum.

I agree with those stating that the size and scope of this game in the current era likely won't be successful enough sticking to a fully faithful interpretation of the 5e rules. That said I do think there are some changes that do make sense that won't hurt their standard gamer fan and will address at least some of the concerns from the D&D and BG fans.

Most of these have been mentioned but I will also add my thoughts as someone who never really played the original BG series and someone who, while interested, has never played a full campaign of D&D (started one but the group fell apart.)

1: resting, for the love of god this is something that is stupid in it's current state. short rests are useless because you can simply long rest w/o consequence. Not only that the game actively encourages you to take long rests every 15 feet as over half the EA story plays out in camp. The amount of content I missed cause I thought long resting was something that should be done sparingly is staggering. This is especially weird because of the time-crunch the game appears to put on you (turning into a Mind Flayer and all that.) I thought I would be playing around spell slots trying to save them for good opportunities. Nah, just spam all the spell slots and take a long rest every fight... (honestly I thought Fallout 4 felt like it was rushing you to do the MSQ without detours but BG3 takes it to a whole other level.)

2: Reactions, not a lot to say about this other then it just doesn't work that well in it's current iteration.

3: Dipping, honestly I don't use this mechanic because I think it's tedious and adds nothing (except extra dmg) to gameplay. (coating weapons pre-fight in oil or poison could be a thing.) at least at that point me setting my sword on fire with a candle would at least make some semblance of sense.

4: Advantage, This is something I have thought about a fair bit from an outside perspective. On one hand I get it standing at someones flank would realistically give you an advantage on attacks, that's common sense. and in the Immortal words of Obi-Wan "It's over Anakin! I Have the high ground!.) High ground is also realistically advantageous. However, when playing I found this aspect a best tedious and at worst a pain in the ass. This was true in DOS2 as well and often takes me out of the immersion by repositioning my characters mid conversation (or before) into advantageous positions. in part because my ranger and mage would brilliantly be standing right next to the enemy at the start of the fight. (sometimes this would make sense like if we got ambushed but other times why is my archer standing face to face with a fighter when objectively the odds of a fight breaking out are high.) you could get around this is dos2 with shortish CD movement abilities so it wasn't that big a deal but in BG3 it uses a spell slot which you would ideally want to save. That's to say nothing about the fact that rogues/rangers have no such ability at least early on. With all that taken into account I feel elevation plays to big a roll in advantage especially with how the system works currently.

5: Action Economy, let's start by saying dash is largely awful.... Jump fills a similar roll and often does it better as it only uses a bonus action. This could be at least slightly solved if jumps range was limited by your movement per-turn. or used a full action. Only rogues (and maybe rangers?) should have sneak/stealth as a bonus action. (AI still needs to be less retarded.) for all other classes it should be a full action.

6: this is more of a personal preference after trying out solasta but I would like to see my rolls on screen (and not just the 20s and 1s) I noticed when playing solasta I was less frustrated when I missed a target when I was able to see the rolls. (this can maybe be a toggle-able option.)

Honestly, there are probably other changes that wouldn't effect the average CRPG player but would help alleviate some of the issues D&D and BG fans have but these are the things I can think of ATM.

Personally I like the game more or less as is. (with a few exceptions like resting being required for half the story plot.) But many of the things I mentioned I wouldn't have an issue if they did get changed to help alleviate the issues other fans have.

Two points here:
One can wonder why WotC went with Larian given the intention of not adapting the 5e rules, or why they did not enforce a faithful adaptation, which would be better for their product (the D&D books).
IMO that's a bad strategy from Larian and WotC. D&D has an estimated 40 million playerbase, if they went with a faithful adaptation, they would be drawing from the D&D and CRPG public, and a fraction of this would make a smash hit. DOS playerbase is much smaller, so it seems strange to focus on those, given that probably a large share would buy the game regardless.

This analysis has a couple of assumptions:

1) A "faithful adaptation" is required to draw the D&D crowd

2) The perception of BG3 is that it's more Larian/DOS than D&D

We have to remember the bias intrinsic to the people posting on these forums right now - we are literally a minority of die-hard nerds posting endlessly on a forum for a game that's in EA, months in without an update

There are many D&D players who don't even recall or understand the abilities of their own characters, nevermind care about what the RAW ruling of X and Y is. What "Larianisms" that sticks out to some people here like a sore thumb, can just be a "oh look, a fun house rule" for many other players.

There are lot of D&D players who care so much more about the narrative and roleplaying more than the mechanics. In fact, on tabletop, a lot of discussion here would be labelled as people trying to "rule lawyering" a DM. Look at what Larian HAS been focusing on - the characters, their romances, and the narrative design. It would seem like for the majority of the public, that's what they care about most, over a few mechanical implementation.

I think it's safer to assume that both Larian and WoTC, who actually has the numbers (market research and the in-game feedback/data), has run them, and calculated this is the best strategy to move forward with. We don't actually know DOS 2 sales (steamspy says 2-5 million), and the 40 million D&D playerbase number is an overaching number with no details. If WoTC has done their market research correctly they'd have a good understanding of what the breakdown of that 40 million is, and have segmented it properly to know who are likely to buy a D&D videogame, and thus strategized accordingly to their needs.

On point 1 (why would WotC go with Larian), I'd say several things:
- they talked about and agreed the game approach and modifications ( according to Swen )
- any publicity is good publicity
- they want to cross-sell to people that don't already play DnD
- WotC may simply not be as dogmatic and purist as some of their players

It is also worth pointing out that recent DnD videogame products have included new 2e and 3.5e content from Beamdog, so WotC are clearly not only interested in 5e licencing.

On point 2 (addressable market), I was unable to find any original link to anything that supports the 40M number ( it was not in the Bloomberg story that your link referenced ), and the figure is not properly explained either.

The real number of players is unknowable, and must be estimated. The last time I saw credible figures that appeared to quote WotC directly, about year before the Bloomberg article, the active player base was estimated at 10M for 5e, and 5M for all other editions. Most likely, if the 40M was a 2018 WotC estimate, it included inactive players that used to play DnD ( which would include me, last played 2e on the TT ).

As a comparison market size, the active videogame player base is conservatively estimated at 300M ( Ignoring the players who only like things like candy crush / angry birds ).

Relatively few videogame players will buy BG3, and relatively few DnD players will buy BG3; but the disparity in market sizes does show where the potential is, and that matters when making design decisions.

Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

Yeah it’s quite possible WotC weighed up the overall benefits and judged that onboarding a greater number of new players to some version of D&D, even if it’s a looser ‘Larian’ rendition, is better than avoiding some potential confusion or backlash due to rules variation.

i really hope this isnt the wotc thought process or business strategy - idk if sales of larian's interpretation of dnd 5e via a video game medium will also lead to increased sales of wotc tabletop products. sure there may be some increased interest in wotc dnd 5e products once bg3 launches, but i just wonder if that growth wouldnt also occur naturally (and potentially at an increased rate) if larian's bg3 product more closely reflected the 5e tool/ruleset (specifically the combat/spells and rest mechanics most glaringly, imo)

still, looking forward to what the next patch/update adds to the ea experience - as an aside, i hope the next update allows us to get to lvl 5 and open up multiclassing, as i think it would add a bunch of hours of ea content

Its funny how people mention valid complaints and feedback WHICH NATURALLY ARE NEGATIVE about the game are labeled as <toxic>...
The toxicity ironicly is opposite to that. People who smell roses 24/7 , the forums is a place to just make you feel happy and cosy making friends...everything is peachy.
This is a forum to gather feedback on a ongoing game being made, a game that is incomplete and that people already bought to test run. A game that is quite underwhelmingly carrying a BG1 and BG2 legacy on its shoulders.
This isnt tea time with grandma and I love you Larian time.

The bar of once great studios has sadly already been set VERY VERY low with Cyberpunk...Hopefully it wont get any lower.

And by the way, we are nearing the 6 month mark on this <alpha> version of the game. I am not seing major changes to anything. Little tweaks this and that, and bug fixes...so yea people are worried and complaining.