You should expect this coming ...
Alright, I'll try my best. Remember that I am not as well-read on the subject (despite lurking here for a while) due to being just the type of inexperienced individuals that Maximuuus trashed above. :'[
My opinion, hence, differs from a lot of the critics - but I do see their point when they bother to explain it at a level that even newer player can understand. So please, don't get the idea that I represent either Tuco nor Maximuuus, cause I do not. But I stand somewhere inbetween (I'd guess?). :]
It's not a mater of taste.
Isnt it? How so?
I mean this statement isnt exactly the brightest example of "X is better than Y because of reason Z". :-/
The mostly repeated complaints, related to game mechanics, i noticed around here are:
"barellmancy"
> Totally matter of taste, there is nothing forcing you to use it, if you dont want ... i tryed and EA can be played without even single barell blown.
I would actually be on your side of this argument. While I obviously have seen how barrelmancy works, I belong in the department that simply do not use it. It is in no way required, but the cheese is available for those who want/need it. For me, this is like the cheat mods in games like GTA - don't use it if you don't want it, but don't take away other people's fun when you can literally suffer 0 impact from it (as I've understood that Larian does NOT design their mechanics with the barrelmancy in mind - IFFF they did, then I would agree that barrelmancy is a problem).
"high ground"
> It might seem like it isnt matter of taste, since there is no way to avoid this mechanic ... but since you sugested in your own example switching advantage for +1, or +2 bonus ... it starts to feel like matter of taste, since you obviously dont have problem with mechanic itself. O_o
Mmmmh... I am afraid I really do not see your reasoning here. There is a *HUGE* difference in being marked as having advantage (aka. getting another dice) and simply being tagged for a +1 or +2 bonus. I'll side with Tuco and Maximuus on this, I believe just gaining advantage from height is overkill, gaining a +1 or +2 would stimulate those like me, that are used to "high ground = good" while not being as extremely game changing as a plain advantage roll is.
"backstab"
> I have only 325h played ... but honestly i dont remember even single NPC running around my character to get backstab advantage. O_o So i would say this is the same as with barells ... but maybe i just forget something. :-/
I don't know about you, but I use backstab all the time on appropriate units (like rogues). And, to me, the fact that NPCs do NOT use it is part of the problem. One of the first thing I was taught when I was watching DM guides on YouTube was that DnD enemies are not supposed to be dumb cannon fodder - they are aware of their spells, advantages and other game mechanics and are supposed to fight around these, not just auto-hit the "tank" standing in their face just for the sake of it...
Regarding advantage on backstab - I'll admit I simply do not know and hence do not want to take a definite stance. I just know that whatever bonus we can get from it (without using class perks) should also be actively used by the NPCs. At least on normal + difficultly, and as far as I am aware, our current version is supposed to be the "standard" / "normal" difficulty. And this is coming from someone who got absolutely whooped by BG3 in the very beginning - that is infact how I made it to these forums cause I needed help getting past the goblin camp, being completely new to DnD and all. :']
"jump with evasion"
> Honestly i dont quite understand this complaint ... people want evasion (or dodge or w/e they want to call it) so they can run off meele range without causing AOO ... that means they want to use it with combination of movement ... wich is exactly that jump do ... pure matter of taste, if you ask me. :-/
I mean sure. It is a "matter of taste" arguably, but... I am with the other side on this one. What is the point in classes like rogues being able to use their bonus action to evade AOO if EVERYONE can do it by simply jumping? It feels weird. Jumping shouldn't cause the enemy to just "awh sht he jumped, guess imma just stay here, no point swinging at him". It feels like some classes are being cheated on their PHB mechanics when everybody can do stuff that is supposed to be remarkable.
Positioning in DnD is important. VERY important just because of stuff like AOO. Having jump available for everyone does allow for a stupid amount of cheese and of course - while the "dont like it dont use it" could apply, this just feels a bit more involved than barrelmancy as it does not require you to do anything extra like picking up barrels - it just requires you to jump.
I for once am with the people who wrote long ago that having "jump" in BG3 doesnt even make sense to begin with, as BG3 does not take height, other than advantage rolls, into account for stuff like range (as people have shown in tons of videos). Characters should just jump by default if the movement requires it, and if the character is available to make it there with a jump in any way. Jump shouldn't have to be separate from regular movement and it simply shouldn't even be a button for it, imo.
"six members party"
> I dont even know what to say here, since the only arguments i even heared about this topic was "it would be better" or "i would like it more" ... wich are, again, pure matter of taste. :-/
HEY! WHAT DO YOU MEAAAAN!!! :'[ Most of us wrote a MUCH more elaborate response to this than "I would like it more". Imma be that person and quote myself from the mega topic:
I am just here to say that I also very much approve of the idea increasing the party size.
And here is why:
I DOS2 (which I assume is the reason Larian went with a 4man party) all of the characters were class fluid. Story-wise, some roles might fit them better than others - but anybody could do anything, meaning you could choose your characters freely while not sacrificing your team composition. This meant you could without an issue choose whatever 3 characters you wanted, no matter their "prefered" roles. The player could focus on the roleplaying perspective and let their imagination justify the reason why someone like Ifan would be a mage, or Fane would be a fighter.
In BG3, however, all companions are tied to their classes and some even to their subclasses. This forces the player to do one of two things: A) pick their own class to suit the companions they desire to bring along (which is dreadful) or B) pass up on a character they might have wanted just because they don't fill their current group needs. An example of our current followers would be the difficulties of bringing both Wyll and Gale together, unless the PC is a front-liner.
OBVIOUSLY there are ways to play around this. I am most certain that people would/could successfully make a run with a PC-made wizard while bringing both Gale and Wyll and then ... Idk, Astarion. But it would make the game significantly harder and that is really unfortunate from a roleplaying perspective since we *are* limited by game mechanics to only 3 companions.
"day/night"
> Same as abowe. :-/
What's that? :|
First of all - I'll admit, I am not one of the people having D/N cycle as a priority. BUT, I very much get why people are asking for it, even if it is purely cosmetic because it IS a ROLEPLAYING game, and day/night cycle DOES make it easier to roleplay, ESPECIALLY if you're playing it with friends. You even said it yourself that Maximuuus had loads of good ideas regarding D/N cycle at the beginning of the mega thread. And, regarding the entire "we want it because WE WANT IT", imma quote Mr. Planescapist - I think he explained the way I feel about D/N pretty well.
Everyone is getting this wrong.
Why does day/night cycles and time MUST serve a useful purpose? Its just AMAZING atmosphere for you RPG. Thats all. Just like customized portraits and faces. No purpose just gets you in the game. Thats the basic stuff RPGs do.
Picture is from Poe2 Deadfire. Right now having tons of fun with it. Playing a 2 swords wielding chanter skald/barbarian <Howler> class. Arriving in town, nighttime, raining, sets the mood so nicely...Ill check out the Inn, next to a warm fire and talk to newly joined Cleric NPC...
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/vc9rhx3/df2.png)
If half the people understood where the issues comes from and why the game is so unbalanced the opinions would be different.
Presumably they would care ...
Like i understand how hightened AC, and HP makes game unballanced (you were the one who explained to me, BTW) ... yet the game is still playable for me and most encounters i met so far was manageable ... so it dont bother me much to be honest. :-/
But... With that reasoning you're basically saying "I don't really need Larian to fix something until it bothers ME"? :| If Maximuuus even explained the issue at hand, but you dismiss it because it doesn't bother YOU in particular yet, then well... That is your personal experience and opinion. Which I, of course, respect and all that - but many of these issues are bigger than individual experiences and MIGHT be bad for the later game stages.
I really think that you as many here are not usual to tactical turn based game.
It depends on what games you count ...
Im huge fan of Heroes of Might and Magic games ... wich i personaly concider as very tactical, turn based games ... and i allways enjoyed the most those fights where i had much weaker army than my oponent, yet i managed to get out with as low loss as possible, preferably none ofc.
I also loved original Fallout, also quite tactical turn based game, even tho i would say it was not as tactical as heroes ... more about creating your character the right way and picking the right order of oponents.
Of course i was growing with Worms: Armageddon ... i know that is completely different kind of game, but still turn based ... and still quite tactical.
And last but not least ... there are chess, wich i love and play for last 15 years ... im still horrible in them tho, but i love them anyway.
I am not sure I belong to the turn-based crowd that Maximuus refers to (despite being a veteran in games like Xcom and Civilization), and to be quite fair I don't think this is a fair argument from Maximuuus side since he did not elaborate further on why experience on the matter was important (unless I missed it somewhere?). I am not much for "I am more experienced than you, hence I am right by default.". The game should be as playable for new players as it should be for vets - with appropriate challenges for each, of course.
ALTHOUGH, I do kinda get the seat that Maximuuus is in. It is really difficult to explain something (often over, and over, and over - I've seen him doing a lot of explaining here) when someone seemingly do not even seem to make the effort to understand what you're trying to explain (not necessarily saying you don't). Not that I have any kind of experience of this from DnD - but I am VERY experienced in other areas, like MMORPGs and moba games c: I agree with your point that arguing "this would be better, and if you dont understand that fact then you are stupid" helps nobody, same with the "too long, didnt read"-"argument".
Things may not be a problem to you but you even don't understand what your experience would be with things reworked... Would you like the game less if you couldn't eat pigs head as a bonus action ? Would you like the game less if being higher gave you a +1 or +2 bonus rather than an advantage ?
First example: Since i dont, i believe it would not change my experience much.
Second example: You are right, i dont know ... since there is no way to try. But i dont feel like it should be my fault. :-/
No, but I'll admit you seem awfully quick at times to shut down ideas in a very inappropriate way for someone who "doesn't know how it would affect the game". Of course it is not by any means your fault that you simply do not know what difference it would make, or if you'd notice it at all. But the least you can do then is to ask for an explanation or ask them to elaborate in a manner that is understandable for you. I did that a lot at the very beginning just because I wanted to make sure I understood things correctly.
I mean, at first some things did not seem very important to me regarding the game structure - but after listening to what people like Maximuuus and Tuco says (without heeding much attention to their often unnecessary tone, COUGH TUCO), I realized that they do make a lot of good points, and I am more than aware of that they got the game's well being in best interest.
Many of us raised facts while many of you just raised nothing.
This is simply not true ...
Let's try and stick to the example we agreed on above. "This is simply not true because of X, Y and Z." would be a better argument so that it is easier to analyze whenever you two just don't agree on what "facts" are, or whenever Maximuuus simply managed to miss the facts of the "other" side.
I'm still waiting for someone to give arguments and explain why he love things like they are/why he wouldn't like things like it's suggested (closer to Raw with specific homebrew)... But it looks that it won't ever happen.
Honestly im asking myself why even bother.
Hey, common. -_- You literally just spent more or less the entire first section of the thread to ask them to explain properly because it makes for a better argument. The LEAST you can do is to actually follow your own advice. If you're simply afraid that these changes might be hurtful, try just politely explaining that. Something simple like: "Hey, I don't really feel like this is a big deal in the game as it is right now and I feel like changing it might cause more damage than it would help. Could you elaborate further to help me understand what you mean, and your reasoning behind it?"
If you read your whole post ... you describe me as lowest of the lowest, stupid, deaf, blind, ignorant, keep repeating the same ... even if us, specificly you and me, actualy argumented about several things in several topics allready ... and even tho i admit that was not allways the case, at least "some" of those arguments were good, when we BOTH have reasons, explains, examples, etc.
Yet, few topics later in your eyes im once again just another head in crowd, where everyone have the same opinion, just bcs that one next to him said so.
To be fair. You both have valid points, but you're both also rather quick on just harassing your opponent when it becomes too much of a hassle to explain. :'] Although, I'll admit - I've seen a lot of in-depth explanations from Maximuuus side in earlier posts, and I get that he might be tired of repeating the same things over and over. That does not, however, in my book excuse him from the insults he keeps hiding in his commentary.
We get it, Maximuuus. You're probably, unironically, more experienced and knowledgeable than most people here. I am certain your ideas overall are great and that you absolutely want the best thing for BG3. But it really does not help your case to repeat it in our face over and over. Helping us understand your arguments will give your ideas more support than trying to bully people into your suggestions.
