Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Reactions like Solasta!

Larian used borrowed code from D:OS2 to launch Early Access faster. Said borrowed code was not written with 5e rules in mind. And, each patch we've had improvements to get closer to 5e (mostly from player feedback).

I don't know about code, but according to Larian themselves, it's not entirely accurate
https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/

I have my doubts that Larian built a game with D&d 5e rules as written (in entirety), and then spent time changing the code again to be more like D:OS2.

thanks. that explain why BG3 have striking similarity of being a DOS2 enhanced edition. most software developers they basically just copy paste and rework on the assets, UI and content from old codes and assets. they should perhaps change different artist and graphics designer as there won't be much difference when they reuse the same one from DOS2 devs.

back to point on reaction. i prefer the Solasta reaction. I believe it's the way how it depicts 5e. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

Yeah it does sound stupid, but still that's what they said. Even if they did it and even if they didn't, this just a very stupid thing to say.

They did not, but they also made and are making substantial changes - it is not the same engine that run D:OS2 - that should be obvious just comparing them side by side. And considering how much stuff they add and change, I don’t think “engine doesn’t support it” is a reason for anything.

They clearly do want to keep many things from D:OSs - that is creative choice however, not an engine limitation.

I suppose an odd quote is this:


I wonder what form it took - did they added functionality to their D:OS engine? Or did they created basic prototype in which they can mess around with stuff? You hear stories about devs prototyping ideas within days to prove a concept - they might have tested potential implementations without going full in and building proper framework for it. I doubt there is another build of BG3 with faithful 5e implementation, but that doesn’t mean that what they said is a lie.

I don't think they lied either. I suppose I just wonder what exactly did they do and what exactly "didn't work" according to them

Yeah, “we saw the things that didn’t work” is ambiguous. It could be from a technical perspective, like “our engine doesn’t let you take actions outside of your turn so reactions don’t work”. Or it could be from a design perspective, like “we can’t really constrain the frequency of long rests, so the short rest/long rest balance baked into 5e doesn’t work”.

Reading that Larian quote, I always assumed it was the latter but reading this thread I think it might be the former.

i beg your pardon for reviving this thread. but why is reaction is something that didn't work?

"We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work.".

I think reaction is a nice mechanic. They shouldn't have remove it? If they claimed that they took the dnd5e ruleset and ported it over to a video game. Also, while it's nice that bonus action was given to everyone, i think that's not a right thing to do? As i checked the bonus actions only available to certain special abilities, or feats:

"Various Class Features, Spells, and other Abilities let you take an additional action on Your Turn called a Bonus Action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a Bonus Action.".

Thats easy ...
Some people believe that reactions would prolong the combat, wich is sometimes allready quite tedious.

We don't know exactly why BG3 doesn't have a more 5e-like reaction system. That quote implies that Larian internally implemented and tested it, but decided it wouldn't work because [some reason]. Theories for this reason are on previous posts ITT and don't really need restating.

Unfortunately, we as the EA players/testers can't judge whether Larian's implementation of a functioning 5e reaction system is actually tedious or not because we've never been given a chance to test it. We can base our opinions off of other games' implementations, or what we think Larian will do, but that's not quite the same.

Larian has indicated that there is a reaction system overhaul in the works. So who knows what we'll see and when/if we'll see it in EA.

I know right?


Word



Yea...Solasta is definitely more of the Spiritual successor to BG 1 and 2 because it is actually D&D (They trusted in the rule set...never even questioned it).

Larian did not...like at all. BG3 is NOT D&D its DOS at its core, but will be fun once you understand and get past this.

Love child...perhaps a third company that will be faithful to the rule set (Solasta game play is absolutely fun), but with the budget to make it more modern and sandbox like BG3. I would also support Tactical Adventures if someone backed them in going big.

Tactical Adventures had a small budget and made it feel big.

Larian had a large budget and has made it feel wasted on a genre they do not fully understand.

seems like this thread get revived. did larian implement reaction in the latest patch yet? correct me if i'm wrong, reaction is part of the core rules of dnd5e. if solasta able to implement it, why reactions doesnt work for larian? i checked fighter has the protection fighting style that can use reaction to impose a disadvantage on enemy attack rolls within 5 feet. also archer can ready action when enemy closing in. those are cool implementations i really like seeing.

Nope, reactions are still either automatic, or turned off.

They can't even maintain internal consistency for the main reaction they have - Sometimes they call it by its correct name "Opportunity Attack", and sometimes they call it by the name that was used in earlier editions but is not correct in 5e - "Attack of opportunity", and it flip-flops back and forth depending on where you look. This may not seem like a big thing, but it's hard to have faith in a company doing right by a ruleset in their adaptation of it, if they cannot even maintain internal consistency with the terms of reference they use.

It's EA. They'll still clean all this stuff up. I'm sure.

Right? RIIIIIIIGHT?

I was thinking that was odd because they’re not D&D veterans at Larian, but of course… it was called Attack of Opportunity in DOS2

Larian seem very well organised, they have a large army of internal testers to do all the Quality Assessment they need, and they might even have a large army of feedback gatherers who can process everything we report on these forums. So, provided there is some will to deliver a clean product, I don't see how minor things like the name of a mechanical feature would slip through the mesh of the cleaning net/sweeper.

On the other hand ... well, I don't have any degree in software engineering, but I would have assumed that a good approach to coding something would be "first, get it okay, then, get it better, finally, get it perfect". I think I remember Swen, during the first Panel From Hell, saying Larian likes to iterate a lot. And David Walgrave talked again about that iteration philosophy in the Wireframe interview. Maybe they prefer to start with a mediocre version of any given feature. This way, they can iterate more before they get it perfect. Sure, it will take more work, which could have been devoted to other features, but maybe they focus on the journey more than the destination.



In defence of Larian, maybe they're not aiming for internal consistency ?

I mean, some writers made time a big pressure in the story, while some other devs programmed the camp cutscenes so that you need to rest frequently if you want to see them all. Some PR folks made a big thing out of verticality, but the devs still program mostly for a 2D game world. The speed of the enemy AI hasn't dramatically improved, but Patch 4 made the fight against the Druids during the Minthara's Attack involve even more numerous (and tankier) enemies. I can no longer list the Jump/Disengage action that would expose you to Opportunity Attacks, but I could easily go on. Point is, perhaps it's unfair to criticise them for lack of internal consistency if that is not what they're shooting for.

Unfortunately, the specifically said they don't want to grow much bigger. Founder of the company already founded one successful studio that grew too big for him to actively work on games. TA very purpose was to be small enough to avoid that

They wouldn’t need to grow substantially bigger to put out a more polished Solasta 2. They could outsource more of the design/modelling and take advantage of new tech like Metahuman that does a lot of the hard work for you.