Goodberries are berries enchanted by a Druid to be magically filling, and heal a single hp.
Wich means 4 Goodberries should make enough resources for our 4 member party to Long Rest ...
Have you seen anyone (else than me :D) complaining about that?
Once again ... immersion only when it suits us.
The mere existence of that spells strengthens the argument that food shouldn't heal up. Why waste a spell slot on casting Goodberry when you can just eat a normal carrot?
There is as much reasons as there is people who did that ...
Also, as far as i know, there is no rule that forbids playing uneffectively ...
We could also ask why waste Action for Truestrike ...
Or why waste spellslot for Prayer of Healing, when we have Short Rest ...
The option is just there, for you to use ...
Its not Larians (not even ours) job to find out why you want to use it.
That is basic definition of option.
It has been explained many times over why the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument isn't valid.
Nah ... it was stated many times, but never even once explained.
Why do you feel like you need exactly food healing? What's wrong with another Short Rest, or even a free full heal after every combat? If you want more healing, why should it be done in a way that many players find immersion breaking when there are other ways that make sense and would even be more convenient?
Like for example what?
- As far as i know, you have limited amount of Short Rests, and they are tied to much more resources than just HP ... so that is not an option, if you just wish to heal some minor wounds.
- There is not any "free full heal after every combat" ... so obviously, non existent mechanic will probably not an option.
That is the thing, "make sense and would even be more convenient" ... that litteraly fits to mechanic that was allready there.
No one is forcing you to eat food to replenish you health if all your other options have been used.
They said to you its immersion breaking and illogical ...
[sarcasm]
To have food and actualy being able to eat it to provide your body needed energy and nutrition so it can regenerate ... such incredible nonsence, where did you even get such twisted fantasy?
While on the other hand ... having food, that magicaly dissapears during the night when you click on your bedroll, and having all your wounds healed by themselves ...
Now that is immersion! I can litteraly taste that realistic feeling. :3
[/sarcasm]
When players try to change a game to fit their desires by removing options that others may like, they are then changing the game to fit their playstyle and ignoring the other players who may have a different playstyle. That's a form of gatekeeping.
Nah, thats being selfish a*****e ...
*Tiefling Woman pointing her finger to the sky and twisting it* ... "There is plenty of us around here."
Should they say "we are making BG3 but with our system" - they could do whatever they want. But the deal was "use 5e rules", so, it is expected, that the game will follow 5e rules.
The deal actualy was "the game will be BASED ON 5e rules" ...
Not "tha game will be litteral transcription of 5e rules 1:1".
So, in other words "5e rules
with some changes" ... as Swen multiple times tells us in every PFH, in their opinion tabletop rules dont translate to Videogame properly, so some changes are litteraly needed.
The rules 5e are not set in stone, even WOTC have said this. They are meant to be a guide, the DM is still the final say on rules. That's why homebrew rules exist.
Yup ... sadly even DM can submit to pressure of its players, if that group is large, or loud enough.
And that is exactly what happened here ... except it was few hundert (i doubt it honestly, but maybe thousands) out of millions of players ... so basicaly around 1%, probably even less.
Just saying so its clear wich situation happened here.
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?
So there should be no changes in rules?
So in order to actualy play BG-3 we should get back infinite long rests, healing by food during combat, AoE effects from cantrips, and all other stuff that was changed or removed since the EA started? :P
I think not.
That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."
Cute ...
How often do you play Chess in single player mode and i dont mean here against computer, or against yourself ... in pure singleplayer, meaning there is just you and your figues, few individual NPCs and nobody else?
Or, just to have it covered all ... have you ever played Chess in co-op multiplayer? I wonder how that looks.
That is why your examples are irellevant pal.
Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?
The problem is that game is not "designed around the new rules" ... if it would, you would be forced to use them, the game would be nearly or litteraly impossible to play without using them.
But you are not ...
Also, we are still talking here about Singleplayer, or co-op Multiplayer ... since as far as i know, BG-3 dont offer option to play "against other player".
Ragnarok, you made my day! I've seen you pick appart so many posts on this forum, wishing the whole time it could happen to me some day. Now that it has, I feel like I truly belong here.
What can i say except:
----
Anyway im glad i will have someone who will actualy read my post.
A few rapid fire responses : I didn't know Superman has frost breath, that guy seems kinda OP; I hate when people complain inconsistently, and I wish they would settle on one opinion before they came to us with their problems; I agree that the resting system stretches verisimilitude, and that verisimilitude is a great word; I always imagined eating a goodberry was like biting into a cherry tomato, releasing a stream of invigorating juice and 1d4 health points.
Oh yes, Superman is totally OP, even for superhero standards ... that is one of reasons why his previous comics were allways boring for me, (
basicaly Superman comes, superman saves ... no matter what was the problem, somehow he manage even if that would mean to break litteraly every law of physics that are there ... the bright example is his ability to "chatch falling plane" by its underbelly ) lately they started to explore oter side of his power and i must say that his character starts to feel quite interesting to me.
It is not a great word
as non-native english speaker (and most people would say im not even speaker in any other way) i really hate long words.
Interesting idea with that goodberry.
Jokes aside, something you said here (and elsewhere) deserves deeper examination.
And i simply cant understand why there even exists people who demand to ruin this game for other people who are completely fine with healing food, since that is nothing new in fantasy videogames ... and demands change of rules so this particular game is "challenging enough" for them (and everyone else who never wanted that in the proces). :-/
There's a game design truism that players will do whatever it takes to win and then blame the game if what they had to do wasn't fun. From thegamer.com :
https://www.thegamer.com/players-optimize-fun-out-of-games/This phenomenon is a really interesting one, and is summed up in a pair of quotes by Civilization IV designers Soren Johnson and Sid Meier, who said, respectively: †given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game,†and that, therefore, “one of the responsibilities of designers is to protect the player from themselves.â€
Mark Rosewater, head designer for Magic the Gathering, explains it better than I ever could during his 2016 GDC talk. (Timestamp 38:27)
I didnt need Mark Rosewater to tell me that ...
Im aware just from my own experience here on this forum.
The fact that i know its happening dont change that im litteraly unable to understand such behaviour tho.
I dont wish to claim that im more mature than those people, even tho there is no other word fully expressing what i have in mind, when i say that ... so take it with reserve ...
But i also had my time when i was younger ... time when all i cared about was to beat the game, no matter what ... so i played with cheats, mods, trainers, guydes (not those that tells you what are you suppose to focus to be effective ... but those that told you litteraly step by step how to beat every single puzzle in game, where to find best gear, how to beat certain bosses, etc.) ...
But as time passed, i find one day that its not fun anymore ... so since that day i play games "by rules" and i enjoy them ... if there is (and there allways is some, so this is more like matter of if i notice
) some option to exploit the system, i usualy save the game ... try it, have my fun, then load and continue properly.
It might seem like argument for accepting DnD rules for BG-3, but actualy its not.
When you want your serious game, you are allways able ...
When you want to just get in and make a mess, you should also be able ... after all, its your 60€ and it should be your ( certainly not "other forum users"
) decision what you wish to do with them. :P
I was member for Bloodlines 2 forum, while that was still active ... and one of most cotroverse topic that was there mentioned was the fact that this game supposedly should have implemented option for people to skip certain missions that could trigger them ...
People was furious about it and i dont really see why? If anyone wish to spend 90€ for clicking 50 times to "skip" button and then watch final credits ... i dare to say its his decision.
Ragnarok, your position as I understand it is that in this 60€ game with which I expect to have fun, food is both all over the place and the most efficient use of my bonus actions, but I shouldn't use it because it's a game design trap?
Nah ... i shouldnt use it, bcs i find it stupid, immersive breaking and rulebreaking.
Or at least those are arguments that was most used here.
The same story is with Barrels ...
- I have option to blow a Barrel and kill the enemy by that ...
- I also have option to ignore a Barrel and go fight the enemy regulary ...
- I want to fight enemy regulary, since that is what i like, that is what i wish to do and that is what i believe is right thing to do, unlike the other option, wich i despise ...
>> And so i go and blow a Barrel, bcs its "more effective way to do that" ...
Seriously where is litteraly ANYTHING logical in such behaviour?
Asking other players to ignore gameplay aspects they don't like is asking them to find the fun in the game.
Well, not exactly ... since those players clain they allready have their fun ...
Only existence of those options is ruining it to them ... wich can be easily fixed by ignoring them ... you refuse to use it, therefore final effect is exactly the same as if that would not be possible at all.
That's the designer's job.
Thats is where we disagree ...
In my opinion:
Designer's job is to presume what will be fun for me and give me options to have it ... the more options, the better chance he will hit the right spot.
And my job is to explore those options and use those, that will give me fun i wanted.
When I play a game, I expect the designers to have made the easiest way to win also the most fun way to play.
Exactly ...
And the same expect all those other people, who have different taste.
The only difference here is that they dont need to ruin your fun so they can have theirs ...
Kinda sad, isnt it?
