Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General New interview with Sven by Gamespot

Precisely! They can even expand upon it, of course, as long as the game is fun and balanced!

Coming from a computer RPG playing background and not a tabletop playing background (except for some Vampire: The Masquerade in high school), I do agree with them focusing on making a good RPG first and foremost... I've never had the opportunity to play tabletop DnD, but I understand the DnD rule set has gone through many revisions, versions and books over the years. It's a rich world, but its rules have adapted and changed over time and will continue to change. I doubt very much that 5e is the "holy grail" of DnD and it will stay frozen forever using those rules. Larian are just being a DM adapting some of the rules to suit their game... Personally, I'm happy to be along for the ride on this particular game with this particular DM and learn what THEIR rules are.



Yes! I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure they will do a wonderful job, and look forward to more characters/companions/content in future patches.

I am actually hoping the "beach surprise" is a new companion, and not a tentacled creepy brain.

All this shows is that you continue to have no understanding of the actual problem.

It's not about "ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% ADHERENCE TO THE RULES IS BAD". Changes are expected. However, a lot of Larian's changes in the current version are not good, and a big reason why is that they're changing some rules while leaving others the same. Balance does not exist in a vacuum. You can't change a butt-ton of rules which affect the way things work, but leave others in place which were designed to work with the other rules before the changes.

I would list some examples, but it would waste my time since it seems that you are only listening to your own opinion and any explanations will be ignored.

I will say that the "it's fun for me right now" argument is based on the unproveable idea that if anything changes, it will suddenly not be fun for them... but how do they know? Maybe some changes will happen and they'll go, "gosh, this is still actually fun". They're arguing that players who are not having fun right now should be quiet because MAYBE if there are changes made it MIGHT not be as fun for them.

I haven't seen one post saying 5e is the holy grail. Rather a lot that say rules-as-written is better than the homebrew Larian came up with.

All I'm seeing from Larian is, "D&Ders, just let it go. You lose. DOS wins. BG3 will be a DOS game with some D&Dish rules set in a D&D world with D&D characters and D&D story."

Why? "Because there are too many customers screaming for a non-D&D game. They don't want D&D. If they did, they'd also play Solasta. After all, Solasta won the title of "The game that most closely translated D&D into a video game." Not BG3. Solasta.

So, if you want genuine D&D, go play Solasta and quit hounding Larian for an authentic D&D experience. NEVERMIND that BG3 is a D&D world. Nevermind the other BG games use authentic D&D rules. BG3 will not, so shut up."

That's my unofficial Swen translation.

That said, I enjoy BG3 as is now. So... either way... jist finish the game.

I find it fascinating that those who support Larian's implementation to at least a moderate or majority percent all seem to actively define anyone who doesn't as being a 5e purist who wants an exact or literal interpretation of the as-written rules, when there is, as far as I'm aware, quite literally not a single person on this entire forum who has ever asked for that or ever indicated that they want that in any way... and yet, no matter how many times other people point this out to them, they never acknowledge it, never accept it, and always run right back to that exact same rhetoric every time it come sup. Why? I'm really quite genuinely curious as to how a person's mind must work and what their thinking must be to continue to do that... can one of you who frequently paints others as wanting 5e pure rules or as hoping for them, please explain this to me?

I don't think there is any such thing as a 5E purist. The 5th edition of D&D was designed around homebrew and flexibility. Ironically a "purist" would be someone who understands that the game needs to be adjusted as needed.

No, I think we are dealing with a group that wants to stick to RAW, because they feel that will produce the best possible gaming experience for people who appreciate strict rules and a group that is fine with flexibility as long as it results in broad appeal and an overall fun experience.

Really, nobody is wrong, they are both valid points of view. My issue is on ad hominem attacks and aspersions cast on the people working on this project masked behind "I am just giving feedback". Also the endless people who seem to think they know what everyone wants while having no actual data to back that up. There is only one company that does have that information and they are not obligated to share it with anyone.

What this entire exchange proves more than anything is that Larian is 100% right not to say anything until they have a finished patch to present to people.

I mean, as one of the people who keeps yelling for Rules as Written for implementation of stuff, I have been on record saying I like a lot of the homebrew and just want them to be toned back to be in line with 5e. Shove is good, it being a bonus action and flinging people half a mile is not. Surfaces are interesting, every battlefield on fire and it breaking concentration constantly is not. Non Warlock Familiars getting unique abilities is very cool, them attacking thereby invalidating the warlock a little and losing their ability to deliver touch spells is not.Each companion having something special hearkens back to BG1 and 2 and is common for DND tables, the player character having nothing feels eh. Animals being able to o0pen doors and sit in chairs is cute and wacky, them not being able to move their concentration spells is not good though. Highground and Backstab does make sense for giving advantage, but doing so is too strong so instead giving highground a flat bonus and change backstabbing to proper flanking and it will be more in line with 5e and more balanced. Weapons having a special action is reminiscent of asking your DM if you can swipe at the goblin's legs to trip him, them doing so much damage that they become the superior action always is not good though.

Overall, the issue isn't that Larian is using homebrew, it is that the homebrew they have implemented needs to be toned back considerably, or atleast for me. In fact, most of the homebrew in the game I want to remain, just, as I said, toned back.

For example, looking at one of the things I mentioned, Familiars.
I LOVE summoning. It is my thing, it is THE THING I want done right. After next update I am probably going to file many different reports on what conjuration things seem right and wrong to me. And one thing that is wrong to me is Find Familiar.

Spell Description:

To me there is a lot wrong with how the spell was implemented in BG3. First of all, the normal familiar being able to attack frustrates me cause that is meant to be exclusive to warlock, that is why you would spec three levels in Warlock for Pact of the Chain. Their familiars being able to attack and thereby deliver poisons is huge, plus the other things like the familiar being able to scout miles away and be able to fly or swim regardless of previous movement because of tasha's. Wizard familiars immediately being able to attack devalues this unique strength of the Warlock. Furthermore, they lack some other core effects such as the familiar persisting through resting, being able to be ritual cast (in other words not costing a spell slot), and perhaps the core of many familiar builds, they are supposed to be able to deliver the caster's touch spells. Which for a healer like shadowheart could be huge and is worth using a feat to get it as a spell. And then on the more dismal end, a conjuration spell like Mage Hand actively dismisses the familiar when they should have no interaction in the slightest. Overall, I believe find familiar to be implemented poorly EXCEPT for the hombrew abilities. A spider being able to shoot web or the cat being able to distract foes honestly feels like something that could be RPed out and is genuinely nice to use. I wouldn't solve Find Familiar by removing the homebrew, instead I would solve it by adding back in all the 5e so that the spell is complete, making it that the homebrew actually enhances the core.

It's really no different than folks on the other side of the argument who claim that BG3 isn't a D&D game, or call BG3 DOS 3, or call Larian's implementation lazy.
None of those things are true but they get repeated quite often, even in this thread.

Quite often the reason given for not liking a particular feature is that it's not D&D without any accompanying reasoning on why it's worse than the current 5e implementation.

Certainly agree!

This statement, though eloquently written, typifies my frustration with the entire discussion.

When I say "I don't like the way that BG3 works right now" that is NOT the same thing as "casting aspersions" at the people working on the project. I am simply being honest about how I feel about it. Calling this "aspersions" really seems to me like an attempt to shut down half of the conversation.

Likewise, when you say that we feel that it will produce the best possible gaming experience "for people who appreciate strict rules..." you are so close, and then shoot wide of the mark. I do think that it will produce a better gameplay experience than BG3 as it exists right now... but I don't see what this has to do at all with "people who appreciate strict rules".

Now, there is a good long time before release, and it is possible that larian will convince me that their homebrew is better than a fairly strict adherence to 5e. But they are VERY FAR from that right now (IMHO, of course). At the moment I think the best approach would be to implement a rule set much closer to 5e and THEN add in Larianized Homebrew to taste. That would stand a much better chance of creating a balanced and interesting game than the ad hoc approach that they are taking now.

Exactly. They should start with a foundation of RAW, then work with their homebrew from that, incrementally.

What makes you think they didn't. BG3 has been in development for years.
They tested and iterated the game long before it went to EA.

I never said you were casting aspersions. I was pointing out the problem with the discussion so far and why Larian was right not to discuss anything with the community.

The thing I have observed you do is you argue from the assumption that everyone thinks the way you do. Which makes sense if you are having a lot of conversations in your head. :P

trust me, everyone in my head always agrees with me too, but then I have to remind myself that people outside my head may not agree. My brain counters with "you can't prove those people exist" - which I do NOT have a counter for. Ah well.

I try very hard NOT to argue from the assumption that people think like me, both here and every other place that I post. Could you please point out some places where I did that so that I can improve myself in the future?

Sorry, thought you were the person I was actually responding to originally.

Also, you really should clean up your reply/quotes. What a mess.

EDIT: unilateral disarmament

Store-bought ketchup is my new screen name.

people are so weird about quotes on this forum lol. How was that a mess? it was just four nested quotes

I'd be in this field as well. I made no secret of having hardly any direct experience with pen & paper D&D (and none with 5th edition in particular).
I don't even rate D&D that highly among the pen & paper systems I actually had a chance to try with friends over the years (MERP, Cthulhu, Cyberpunk 2019, etc). In fact I put in quite possibly at the bottom.
And my experience with pen & paper was fairly limited in general. I never played them for very long and it has been probably at least two decades since I attempted one session. Most of my experience over 30+ years of gaming has been with computer and (to a far lesser degree) console RPGs.

But you know what? Fuck all of that. I'm done with encouraging this wishy-washy bullshit, anyway.
I'm not sure how we even got to the point that if people here are a straight D&D fans they have to DEFEND THEMSELVES and be shy about it, when wanting something faithful to what they were promised it's a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold.

Then again, that becomes of second relevance over the fact that people who are holding to the specious, vague and baseless claim that "things as they are wouldn't work in a videogame" are defending BAD changes here, that DO have a measurable negative effect on the combat.
Because there's no fucking pocket universe where "Jump to disengage as a bonus action" translates in a better flow of the battle, for instance. And anyone trying to defend that design choice with a straight face should be charged for fraud and other felonies or something.

I'm also more than a bit puzzled by the "Bu-but I care more about the story and the characters" crowd.
Fine. You can care about whatever you want. Who gives a damn? This is meant to be a discussion about core gameplay loops. "TEH STORY" is not going to change for the worse only because any degree of effort is put into making the core mechanics more reasonable or more enjoyable, to begin with.


He never made it an "engine limitation" but a design one.
Also, other games figured out how to make flight work on far tighter budget. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that it's their job to solve the issue on their part rather that putting up excuses.
And the only thing that makes WISH "impossible to implement in a game" can arguably be a lack of creativity on how to work around its limitations. Throne of Bhaal had WISH 20 years ago. Was it as versatile as the real thing? Of course not. Was it a more-than-enjoyable-enough as a compromise? Yes, it was.
Not that it really matters here, since BG3 is not even going to reach levels where casting WISH would be a thing.