BG3 was never marketed as a strict DnD 5e game. It was marketed as an RPG "based" on DnD 5e. According to Larian it's meant to be a hybrid of RPG and 5e. So, if someone asks for an option, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Sorry, but this needs a separate answer: no, this is not true. They did promise a faithful translation, with some minor tweaks to certain rules (they gave example) for better implementation RAI (rules as intended) when RAW (rule as written) does not work. They NEVER talked about any hybrid system, or a homebrew system. Whenever rules come to question during numerous interviews, it was always "5e and nothing more".
DOS system remained - as I think (and I can be wrong on it) - for their DOS audience, who knows Larian for DOS games and came to play yet another game in their system. But it clashes with 5e rules on a fundamental level and if you advertise the use of one system and people bought the game specifically to play that very system, you have to stick to that. Otherwise, it's a false advertisement.
BG3 was never marketed as a strict DnD 5e game. It was marketed as an RPG "based" on DnD 5e. According to Larian it's meant to be a hybrid of RPG and 5e. So, if someone asks for an option, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Sorry, but this needs a separate answer: no, this is not true. They did promise a faithful translation, with some minor tweaks to certain rules (they gave example) for better implementation RAI (rules as intended) when RAW (rule as written) does not work. They NEVER talked about any hybrid system, or a homebrew system. Whenever rules come to question during numerous interviews, it was always "5e and nothing more".
DOS system remained - as I think (and I can be wrong on it) - for their DOS audience, who knows Larian for DOS games and came to play yet another game in their system. But it clashes with 5e rules on a fundamental level and if you advertise the use of one system and people bought the game specifically to play that very system, you have to stick to that. Otherwise, it's a false advertisement.
I read from a PCGamer article that states that BG3 is based on Larian's interpretation of DnD 5e rules. They claim that Swen stated that there are some things you can't translate from tabletop to a video game. Also this is a quote from the article "Vincke says the game will be heavily systems-driven and Larian will be creating its own D&D-inspired ruleset. "We'll stay true to our roots, so we'll give players lots of systems and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your personal adventure and your party's adventure." In a way that is a homebrew system.
What if everyone had a bottomless healing potion in their inventory at all times, so they never ran out of healing?
Only, instead of a magical potion, maybe it could be something else, like maybe a cigarette?
An ever-burning cigarette that can be used as a bonus action to heal up all your scrapes and burns.
I mean, I don't see the harm. If you don't wanna use it, don't use it.
I see your sarcasm but that's my point.
Which is fair. I understand your point.
But in return, can you see where other people are coming from? Can you see how other people might not want an ever-burning cigarette that heals wounds as a bonus action?
You could tell them not to smoke the cigarette, but that's easier said than done. The cigarette becomes a big part of online streaming. Suddenly, use of the cigarette is in strategy guides. All of a sudden, the player who doesn't want the cigarette feels like the game is too easy because it's not incentivizing resource management. Other players who don't want the cigarette start getting turned off because they feel like it doesn't make any sense.
*
And at some point, making everything an "option" feels like it's getting in the way of game completion. All of these options sound great on paper, but they take extra time, and each option has an impact on other things in the game, like dominoes, unexpected things, developmental bugs, and the smoothness of how it all plays.
I don't know. I get that you want easier healing, but I'm not sure why eating food is the hill to die on. Why not ask for more healing potions, for instance? Personally, I think there are plenty of healing potions, but at least they feel like they make sense compared to eating an apple to mend flesh.
Guys, it's perfectly fine to have ideas and ask/request for something to Larian. No need to get uncivil about it, and even less need to shoot down/argue over it just because you disagree. I believe there's been about a thousand cases in older threads where some names here have been on the other end of the stick. You can disagree, but don't shoot each other down because of it. Imagine if someone were to be happy with the current party-chain UI, or wizards being able to learn any scroll, or don't feel a desire for a day/night cycle; Would you want them to spend pages upon pages trying to shut you down and silence you, if you happen to be positively for either of those popular requests/criticisms?
I recommend watching this video (it's actually relevant, and a quick watch):
BG3 was never marketed as a strict DnD 5e game. It was marketed as an RPG "based" on DnD 5e. According to Larian it's meant to be a hybrid of RPG and 5e. So, if someone asks for an option, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Sorry, but this needs a separate answer: no, this is not true. They did promise a faithful translation, with some minor tweaks to certain rules (they gave example) for better implementation RAI (rules as intended) when RAW (rule as written) does not work. They NEVER talked about any hybrid system, or a homebrew system. Whenever rules come to question during numerous interviews, it was always "5e and nothing more".
DOS system remained - as I think (and I can be wrong on it) - for their DOS audience, who knows Larian for DOS games and came to play yet another game in their system. But it clashes with 5e rules on a fundamental level and if you advertise the use of one system and people bought the game specifically to play that very system, you have to stick to that. Otherwise, it's a false advertisement.
I read from a PCGamer article that states that BG3 is based on Larian's interpretation of DnD 5e rules. They claim that Swen stated that there are some things you can't translate from tabletop to a video game. Also this is a quote from the article "Vincke says the game will be heavily systems-driven and Larian will be creating its own D&D-inspired ruleset. "We'll stay true to our roots, so we'll give players lots of systems and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your personal adventure and your party's adventure." In a way that is a homebrew system.
If you look above that piece, you will see that they were talking about imitation of DM's presence: "The Game Master mode and co-op effectively let you play a tabletop RPG on your PC, but even when you're playing alone it can still feel like you're doing so under the gaze of a Dungeon Master, hoping they'll let you try this brilliant new idea you've come up with. The sheer variety of systems and Larian's willingness to let players bend or occasionally break the game leaves so much room for ingenuity. Vincke loves to talk about players solving conundrums in ways Larian had never even considered, and it's exactly like listening to a proud Dungeon Master gush about their party. Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke, "so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure. That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
This is not about general rules that the game itself follows. On the contrary, if you check that article, for example https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/dungeons-and-dragons-fifth-edition you will see at the very beginning "Baldur’s Gate 3 will be a faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules".
So, no, the general rules were announced to be DnD 5e. They can not take it back now.
BG3 was never marketed as a strict DnD 5e game. It was marketed as an RPG "based" on DnD 5e. According to Larian it's meant to be a hybrid of RPG and 5e. So, if someone asks for an option, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Sorry, but this needs a separate answer: no, this is not true. They did promise a faithful translation, with some minor tweaks to certain rules (they gave example) for better implementation RAI (rules as intended) when RAW (rule as written) does not work. They NEVER talked about any hybrid system, or a homebrew system. Whenever rules come to question during numerous interviews, it was always "5e and nothing more".
DOS system remained - as I think (and I can be wrong on it) - for their DOS audience, who knows Larian for DOS games and came to play yet another game in their system. But it clashes with 5e rules on a fundamental level and if you advertise the use of one system and people bought the game specifically to play that very system, you have to stick to that. Otherwise, it's a false advertisement.
I read from a PCGamer article that states that BG3 is based on Larian's interpretation of DnD 5e rules. They claim that Swen stated that there are some things you can't translate from tabletop to a video game. Also this is a quote from the article "Vincke says the game will be heavily systems-driven and Larian will be creating its own D&D-inspired ruleset. "We'll stay true to our roots, so we'll give players lots of systems and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your personal adventure and your party's adventure." In a way that is a homebrew system.
If you look above that piece, you will see that they were talking about imitation of DM's presence: "The Game Master mode and co-op effectively let you play a tabletop RPG on your PC, but even when you're playing alone it can still feel like you're doing so under the gaze of a Dungeon Master, hoping they'll let you try this brilliant new idea you've come up with. The sheer variety of systems and Larian's willingness to let players bend or occasionally break the game leaves so much room for ingenuity. Vincke loves to talk about players solving conundrums in ways Larian had never even considered, and it's exactly like listening to a proud Dungeon Master gush about their party. Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke, "so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure. That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
This is not about general rules that the game itself follows. On the contrary, if you check that article, for example https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/dungeons-and-dragons-fifth-edition you will see at the very beginning "Baldur’s Gate 3 will be a faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules".
So, no, the general rules were announced to be DnD 5e. They can not take it back now.
Wait, are you saying that because Larian said one thing once, they can't change their mind on their own game? I don't see anything wrong with leaving some options for players that maybe having a difficult time. There seems to be a division with the Baldur's Gate player base. On one end we have strict tabletop DnD 5e only rules players and on the other end we have homebrew players and even some players that are new that are okay with the rules being bent a little. That goes back to WOTC who I have read or heard say that the rules are there as a guide but a DM is still the final say on how the game plays out.
No, what I am saying, they advertised the game as faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules. And they kept declaring their intention to follow that rules (I am not about to link every interview they have done during the last several years). By doing so, they attracted DnD audience and changing the rules now would mean false advertisement.
The division you see does not come from "homebrew" crowd, but from people who are used to the DOS system. For the "homebrew" crowd Game Master Mode will be implemented. But the base game has to do what it promised to do.
No, what I am saying, they advertised the game as faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules. And they kept declaring their intention to follow that rules (I am not about to link every interview they have done during the last several years). By doing so, they attracted DnD audience and changing the rules now would mean false advertisement.
The division you see does not come from "homebrew" crowd, but from people who are used to the DOS system. For the "homebrew" crowd Game Master Mode will be implemented. But the base game has to do what it promised to do.
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.
To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.
I think the messaging have been pretty consistent.
Are we really going to talk about what does or does not feels realistic
If it was the only reason, then sure.
As i said previously, as long as we will aply same requirement of realisticity, or logic if you wish ... to every single aspect of game, i shall have no objection ... As long as we would use it only when it suits us and ignore it whenever it does not ... its not an argument for me, but excuse.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
What's the point of making food into healing potions?
It depends ... - For starters its clearly something *some* people want ... - Pure subjective opinion sure, but to me it makes more sence to simply eat food and see result than to have it magicaly dissapear during sleeping time ... i know i can potentialy imagine the same process, and i do ... but its better for MY immersion if that is present. - As far as i know, nobody asked for "making food into healing potions" ... and yes, there are quite important differences ... for one, food still weights much more than potions (therefore weight to healing ratio is clearly better for Potions) ... for two, as far as i know Lady Avyna litteraly asked for option to use healing OUTSIDE THE COMBAT, wich is also important difference from Potions. - Also its much more covenient for people who simply does not like to run back into camp and "end the day" after every single (or every second, w/e) combat encounter ... wich could be also excused by "immersive" since as we all know, our characters are affraid that they will turn into mind flayers, and therefore it makes sence that they would push amount of activities per day to the limit of exhaustion. - There is Short rest option, true ... but that is for one limited, and for two there isnt much reasons to use it if all you need to do is heal two of four party members, while everyhone have full spellslots and other resources. - And finaly there were some Suggestions, appearing more and more often that Short rests should not be limited by count, but should also consume food as a resouce ... if that would be the case, it just seems a little like going to kill a mole with rocket launcher (common Czech expression, well maybe not so common but i say that often) ... in other words, allowing healing outside of combat by food gets simmilar (not same im aware, i play Warlock) effects with minimum effort.
Originally Posted by fylimar
Ragnarok: You could carry a lot more back then, so the pig head being heavier is not really an argument.
I know ... that is why i said it.
On the contrary my dear fellow Tiefling. It is an argument ... let me explain:
First lets run some numbers: Potion of healing - Healing potential 2d4+2 = up to 10 ... weight 1 ... so ratio heal / weight is 10 per 1kg Potion of Greater Healing - Healing potential up to 4d4+4 20 ... weight 0 (wich i gues is a bug, so lets say also 1) ... so ratio heal / weight is 20 per 1kg Pig head sadly i dint find, so lets use Roughly-Cut Ham ... weight 3kg ... and as far as i remember, i never managed to heal more than 15 with that, so lets say 15 is the healing potential here ... so ratio heal / weight is 15 per 3kg >>> 5 per 1kg
Now why is that important ... As far as i know back in Patch 1 or 2 (acording to this reddit post) we were able to carry our Strength * 5 ... so minimum of 40. Now as far as i know the numbers are the same ... the only difference here is that back in Patch 1 or 2 encumbrance was not implemented, so you were totally able to carry double your own carryweight without any punishment ... now our carryweight "without any punishment" was effectively halved.
That means if someone would wish to heal only by potions ... and lets say his equipment would take 10Kg ... he is able to carry up to 30 potions ... and potentialy heal with all of them up to 300hp (and i only count the weaker one) While if someone would wish to heal only by Pig Heads (or that other meat i posted) he would be only able to carry 10 of them ... and potentialy heal with all of them up to 50hp
Do you still wish to tell me that ability to heal with food dimishes the meaning of potions? Especialy since only healing out of combat was asked for? O_o Well i stand corected ... while i read page 4 i see this is not right. Well ... this kinda changes things. :-/
//Edit: I simpy have to coment on this:
Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by Amirit
No, what I am saying, they advertised the game as faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules. And they kept declaring their intention to follow that rules (I am not about to link every interview they have done during the last several years). By doing so, they attracted DnD audience and changing the rules now would mean false advertisement.
The division you see does not come from "homebrew" crowd, but from people who are used to the DOS system. For the "homebrew" crowd Game Master Mode will be implemented. But the base game has to do what it promised to do.
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.
To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.
I think the messaging have been pretty consistent.
+ <3
(Hope you dont mind, but i really think about saving this coment to quote it every single time someone mention that BG-3 was "allways advertised as strict DnD adaptation".)
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 07/11/2108:27 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Feel free to, Rag. I'm just not fond of misinformation, because it propagates and grows on its own. Also, Game Master mode isn't confirmed, so saying that will cover for homebrew fans is misinformation as well. It *may*, but current status quo is Larian is focusing on the campaign now, everything else is a maybe at best. The only thing they have confirmed, is modding support some time after full release. Note here that this doesn't even confirm at full release, might be after, even a long time after. (Which I'd personally be sad about, I'm a modder more than a player. My time modding Dos2/BG3 surpasses playing either by hundred-folds of hours).
Last edited by The Composer; 07/11/2108:33 PM. Reason: Typo
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.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I can see we sit on opposite ends of the gameplay focus spectrum with GTA on one end and Pro Evolution Soccer on the other. You're obviously on board with GTA 's design philosophy and I can respect that. I've played GTA V and Saints Row IV and they were sweet! Let me tell you, though, there's great value in a game knowing exactly what it wants to be and delivering on it as best it can. For as much praise as I could heap on those two games, I will never play thousands of hours of either of them as I have with PES 2016. That game had one mission and wasted no time making yellow cards optional, or whatever.
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
You don't have to use that option, it's just there for those that like it.
I understand the stance that options, by definition, can't detract from a game's appeal. But I do believe they have a cost, particularly for new players. They need to learn that the options exist, then understand what they do, then recall them when the appropriate time comes. There are a number of threads on this forum where the OP is furious because the hotbar fills up automatically with random arrows and scrolls. Then someone points out that the option exists to change that behavior. But the button for it is lost among a bunch of other options, in a menu new players have probably never seen. Every additional option, valuable though it may be, compounds this problem.
Conclusion : In my immaculate opinion, designers of a game need to nut up and pick a way for their players to play. Video games are art, and art suffers no compromise. Unless a moderator steps in.
@Flooter ... Yeah why not. As i repeatetly stated, my point is not to show why im right and other side is wrong ... as long as we really understand each other opinion everything is fine i would say.
BTW i didnt play either of those games ... not quite sure if GTA is even something that i would want to play, i mean i did realy realy long time ago (First one and Vice City) ... but i gues not anymore.
I understand there is great value in games that have strict rules ... i love chess, poker, gwent, etc. even tho i play them all horribly. But those are different kind of games.
In RPG i just want to be as free as possible, to let my imagination think about the crazyest methods and tactics ... and then wonder about that developers actualy had same idea and allowed me to do that.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 07/11/2108:55 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Jesus, what an exhausting thread. So much angst about food..I feel like I am at an overeaters anonymous meeting or something! Lol (kidding)
My perspective—- If you want the ability to be saved in the middle of a difficult battle because you did not plan ahead, get a god mode cheat or a mod and be done with it. I think that advocating for a poorly optimized game from the developers with endless cheat/broken mechanics actually affects the game negatively for those who want fun + challenge. It is a game, not a walking sim. If the mechanics over overcheesed, then it is just not fun for alot of people. If it is too hard, I am sure there will be easier difficulty settings and mods and cheats.
Ie—-the argument the “don’t like it, don’t use it” is not as strong to me as “can’t play it, then mod it”. There will be endless mods for these types of things (like healing food). But I personally would like a well constructed and balanced game as the base starting point.
No, what I am saying, they advertised the game as faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules. And they kept declaring their intention to follow that rules (I am not about to link every interview they have done during the last several years). By doing so, they attracted DnD audience and changing the rules now would mean false advertisement.
The division you see does not come from "homebrew" crowd, but from people who are used to the DOS system. For the "homebrew" crowd Game Master Mode will be implemented. But the base game has to do what it promised to do.
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.
To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.
I think the messaging have been pretty consistent.
Completely agree! Very consistent Nowhere do they say they are going to add their own DOS system or create some kind of hybrid system but to keep it "definitive D&D game of it’s generation" adapting the rules for the better video game experience. Breaking fundamental rules of DnD system can hardly be called a "definitive D&D game" can it?
No, what I am saying, they advertised the game as faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules. And they kept declaring their intention to follow that rules (I am not about to link every interview they have done during the last several years). By doing so, they attracted DnD audience and changing the rules now would mean false advertisement.
The division you see does not come from "homebrew" crowd, but from people who are used to the DOS system. For the "homebrew" crowd Game Master Mode will be implemented. But the base game has to do what it promised to do.
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.
To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.
I think the messaging have been pretty consistent.
Completely agree! Very consistent Nowhere do they say they are going to add their own DOS system or create some kind of hybrid system but to keep it "definitive D&D game of it’s generation" adapting the rules for the better video game experience. Breaking fundamental rules of DnD system can hardly be called a "definitive D&D game" can it?
Oh believe it or not, I have my own criticisms and hopes for changes / focusing more on 5E. However to be taken more seriously, it helps to not rely on hyperboles or mis-quotes to back up one's arguments.
"I think change X and Y would play better if it'd do this and that in a particular suggested solution to adhere more closely to 5E ruleset.", would work a lot better in a debate than "They promised 100% accurate adaption because that's what I remember and it is true because I say so, and I will stubbornly stand by it even though history contradicts me, and if you disagree, I will die on this hill with more angriness, sarcasm and disingenuous stances."
They don't need to say what they're going to add that doesn't strictly adhere to RAW, that's besides the point of being genuine as a baseline, however we can point out what we believe works or doesn't. For example, Larian never said BG3 was going to be the "definitive D&D game of its generation", but in the interview, that was a compliment to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2; Never a statement of what BG3 is or would be. Just a good game. Again, mis-quoting does you no favors. To keep true to myself, that's what they're *trying* to achieve. If we want to help guide development in that direction, we best do it the better way, is what I'm trying to say. No need to make enemies just to win an argument, when we all want the same thing. A game we can enjoy afternoons with.
Edit: To be clear, the point is that your premise for argument comes from misinformation, deflection by other quotes is besides the point, even though even those quotes contradict your earlier 'statement of fact' as well. The argument here isn't what Larian said or didn't say, or what they should've said, but rather voicing a desire for being as faithful to 5E as possible, at least where it makes sense. I'm no fan of needless changes for change's sake either. Shove being a bonus action instead of an action as a classic example. We can keep bringing that up, until maybe we either get some insight on why that's a bonus action now, or have it become an action again. But let's be civil and reasonable about it, rather than fighting over it. It's Larian's hearts we want to inspire, winning an internet argument amongst eachother makes no difference. We can put our pride aside. Larian already removed healing properties from food, and it's fine to want it back. I refer back to this post.
Last edited by The Composer; 07/11/2109:36 PM. Reason: Appendex extra thoughts
