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

Ehh. Not great breakdown of the three camps you've identified the last two largely overlap (if they were distinct camps I would reside in both) and the first camp "people who want BG3 to be more like DOS" has perhaps 3 or 4 members. There as many people calling for the return of the 3.5 ruleset as there are advocates of cooldowns and action points.

The biggest difference between the second and the third is the RtwP vs TB, if you don't care about that then there is no difference.

There are some pretty direct opposing wants between the BG1/2 camp and 5E camp though.

• RTwP vs. Turnbase per 5E RAW
• BG style adjusted monsters (including hp increases) (like in BG2) vs. Monsters implemented as RAW 5e
• Okay with adjusted rules vs. rules implemented RAW (BG1/2 were far from 2.5E RAW)
• No skill check (and thus no content lock) vs. skill check in dialogue and game (thus locks content)
• Single character focused narrative (THE chosen one) vs. the table-top-esque group dynamic narrative of BG3/5E PnP (group of chosen ones)

With that said, it's totally valid for someone to say - I'd prefer a BG3 that's true to BG1/2, but if I can't have that, I'd rather have 5E RAW than Larian's invention. Which may be how some people can identify with both of those camps over the DOS/Larian camp.

Also, sometimes I have seen some instances where some people of these latter 2 camps are simply united more so by their distaste of Larian/DOS, than actually being on the same page (i.e. both camps may say this game is basically DOS3, etc).

Let’s say BG3 ends up being more loosely based on 5E, and doesn’t tick the RAW compliance box that a lot of us seem to desire, are there other hopes?

We know about Solasta. Back in 2019, WotC announced that there were 7 or 8 D&D video games in development. So, if we consider Solasta as one, BG3, Dark Alliance… what does that leave us? Idle Champions? Is there anything else folk are aware of that might give a glimmer of hope? There should be another 3-4 that they could announce at any moment?

Yeah, I ignore the RTwP bloodwar even if I'm in the BG3 should be like BG camp. I just like turn based better. But fair enough in the venn diagram of the two the RtwP is a part of the BG camp not covered by 5e camp.

I've also not seen anyone asking for a BG 2 type difficulty adjusted monsters -- I think mods like sword coast stratagems were a response to the critique that the difficulty slider above 'core' was too crude. I think everyone would prefer a difficulty slider that increased the intelligence of the AI like SCS does. (the unmodded beholders are a pretty dumb bunch)

Eh, I don't think the origin character is more table top like. I think Solasta is more table top like. (and I prefer the BG3 model to Solasta in terms of role play) Like many DOS2 fans I thought non origin characters had a diminished experience. And even among the origins it's really Fane's story -- I just don't think you can compare the experience of playing as Fane v Beast.

Our disagreements aren't large but they boil down to this:
That's said often but when people try and talk about what is different it largely comes down to issues of movement / kitting and things that are true of every other D&D adaptation except Solasta. (that I know of) Things like eliminating spell components, encumbrance rules, gp weight and the like have been repeated by every other D&D game. BG1 was the best adaption of 2e RAW there was and most of the exceptions / exploits were made at the request of the community. And there's the rub

When I first played BG1 it was clear to me that it was made by TT players because it's house rules pretty much mirrored the house rules I used in my own games. Larian's house rules by contrast are, well, strange and I think you would have a hard time finding a Table Top group that uses them. I mean dip is just a weird thing to implement. Candles = magic arrows ?

So I think "purist" is a strawman for those of us who want as close to RAW as possible -- once Solasta implements the promised check boxes for its house rules I'll turn off spell components. Hopefully Larian will follow Solasta's lead and make its house rules optional.

I assume with the increasing popularity of D&D, I'm hopeful that more games will be coming, especially if BG3 is commercially successful. BG did spawn Icewind Dale 1/2, Planescape Torment, NWN 1/2, Pool of Radiance, Temple of Elemental Evil, and some others.

Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous isn't exactly D&D, but for me is definitely still within the same genre of "D&D" games.

I'm looking forward to Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, coming out later this year. Pathfinder is based on DnD 3.5, so it's not that big of a difference.

I'm just here to say everyone in the replies has excellent taste and I love this community. I don't think this forum is toxic. Healthy disagreements can be very constructive and I hope Larian is taking fans of the original BG and D&D seriously.

Elves are actually "slightly shorter than humans on average," according to D&D Beyond, which I wish was a fact better known as a grown man at 5'7".

https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/elf

Yup, DnD (or at least FR) has short elves.

Wood elves and Drows are shorter than humans, but High elves are around the same height, if not taller.

No, all FR elves are shorter than humans. Wood elves (and Wild elves) are actually the tallest ones, Sun and Moon (high) elves are shorter.

Minthara must have been a basketball player back in Menzo.

She left Lolth because all the other Drow were mean to her about her length

Thank you for your persistence.

Yeah, when I said the t word earlier in this thread I was probably wrong. It's not like 4chan toxic. Not even as bad as, say, the 174 page 3 year long Stellaris FTL change thread. And I get it, I'm still irritated by the 5th ed book Ranger 6 years later. But both a drastic departure from 5E rules and a completely faithful 5E simulator aren't in the cards for this game. And there's a number of threads here that refuse to stop complaining about that. But I guess that's just par for the forum course.

Because Larian still has not addressed this question, and it is the main source of complaints.

The problem is that it should be close to "faithful 5E simulator", because they clearly expressed this intention/engagement, and that currently, well, it is closer to a drastic departure on many aspects, arguing that it was not possible, or not fun, whereas we know (thanks to Solasta), that it is possible, and fun.

Yep, I think if they'd stated in the EA that BG3 was only loosely connected to 5E rules, people would be less bothered. I played all the content, and initially enjoyed it, but was increasingly put off by the many things that are patently not 5E and overpowered/game-balance breaking. And clearly inserted because they were 'cool'.

I can say, that if I had known - going in - that the intention was not to do actual 5E rules, but some kind of hybrid rule-set - I wouldn't have bought in at the EA stage. I would likely have bought later, when the game was cheaper (this is the most expensive EA that I have bought into), since I did enjoy DOS1/2 (but for a different experience - not as D&D game)

I accept that some things don't map well to a PC RPG game (without a DM) - but as several people have pointed out, there is another game in EA that shows it can be done for 5E.

That said, this is still EA, so maybe things will change to be more 5E-like, guess we'll see in the next update.