Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules

So, I've been kinda saying it on other posts, but I'm laying it out here in a brand new one.

In the Great British Bakeoff (love that show), the judges sometimes make the bakers create Illusion Cakes. The concept of the Illusion Cake is to make something look like something else, but it's really a cake. So, in one episode, someone made their cakes look like hamburgers, french fries (chips in England, I believe), ice cream, etc. The cake tastes amazing, but at the end of the day, it was cake, not hamburgers and such.

That is how I feel about Baldur's Gate 3 right now, and I know I'm not alone. Baldur's Gate LOOKS like a D&D 5e Game set in the world of Forgotten Realms, but it doesn't taste or smell like a D&D 5e game set in the world of Forgotten Realms. It is a beautiful game and as fun as heck. I've never played a game THIS much. I almost never replay a game more than once. I didn't even replay Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 more than once. I could barely get through them once. It's too much work for me. I don't have endless hours to throw at any game, so for me to play 500+ hours, I must really really love this game.

I also really love cake, but if I see something that looks like a hamburger, and I bite into it and it tastes like cake, that's gonna mess with me. It might be fun at first, but at the end of the day I want cakes to look and taste like cakes and hamburgers to look and taste like hamburgers. (I'm getting hungry now.)

My point is that Baldur's Gate 3 is messing with me. It's like it WANTS to be a D&D 5e Baldur's Gate sequel game, but there are just so many elements that aren't D&D 5e Baldur's Gate. Again, I'm not alone in this because there are many who say it is more like DOS 1 and 2 than Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Why is it so much like DOS and not BG1 and 2? Because it strays so much from D&D, and there are too many elements from the first two games that are missing.

What could they do to make hamburgers taste and smell like hamburgers? Cook with hamburger meat and not cake. What I mean is, they need to do things that tie players into the originals from a feeling perspective. How do they do this?

1. Proper D&D 5e stats for monsters and enemies. This is absolutely essential to the feel. You can make them injured so they have less health. You can do all sorts of things to make them easier or harder to kill, but you need to at least give them their proper abilities, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc. Example: What makes a phase spider a phase spider is Ethereal Jaunt. They should be phasing into the Ethereal Plane, moving up on their enemies in ways their enemies can't see, and then phasing into the Material Plane and ninja assassinating the characters. Then, as a Bonus Action, they bounce back into the Ethereal Plane. So, every time a phase spider Ethereal Jaunts into the Material Plane to attack, they use their Bonus action and can't Ethereal Jaunt back. So you get an entire round before it can Ethereal Jaunt again to peg it before it escapes into the Ethereal Plane and does it all over again. They don't teleport like they all know an extreme form of Misty Step and bounce around game maps willy nilly acting like they can go anywhere and do anything no matter where you hide or how far you go to get away from them. Part of the whole fun of facing phase spiders is you have to try to guess and predict where they're going. You have to try to lure some away into traps and get them to try to attack your tanks while your squishies keep away and peg them as soon as they appear. It's all about strategy, but you can't do those strategies if they aren't even acting like phase spiders. Imps don't have resistance, intellect devourers don't do Devour Intellect, their most signature move, Sword Spiders don't Pounce on their prey, I still haven't seen a Minotaur do their signature Charge attack, but they sure like to Hulk Smash Leap everywhere, Wood Woads, Mud Mephits... Over and over again, most monsters don't do the things that they're supposed to, and they're nerfed in order to make the game work for a party of 4 at the levels Larian is limiting us to.

2. Proper base 5e rules. The more homebrew, the more you negate certain base elements of 5e that make different abilities and classes unique and fun. Rogue fast hands is virtually meaningless if everyone can drink a potion as a Bonus action. Cunning Action is pointless if everyone can hide as a Bonus. These are just 2 examples.

3. Party size of 6. Yes, there's a whole separate Mega-Thread for this, but in this particular thread, the point is that Party size of 6 is a Signature Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 Party Size. Party Size 4 is DOS. Why do people feel like this is more of a DOS game? One of the reasons is that it is Party Size 4. If you want Baldur's Gate 3 to smell and taste like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, you need to at least allow for a Party Size of 6. Why? Because one of the most awesome things about BG1 and 2 was that you met a TON of potential party members that you could have in your party. By the Hells! 6 was too limiting for me in those games. I was frustrated to no end because I wanted Minsc and Jaheira and Imoen and Aerie and Viconia and Mazzy and the thief guy who always said, "I can dance on the head of a pin" (can't remember his name for the life of me right now) and the monk guy and the paladin and just about every freaking character all in my party and I was limited to only 6. That's only 5 other characters because I had my custom made MC. That sucked. 4 is even more viciously limiting. I want to have ALL the origin characters in the party, and frankly, if they allow me to have Minthara and Karlach and Halsin and Zevlor and Elegis and Kagha and Rath and Nettie and whoever else they're going to allow us to have, 4 is going to feel SUPER UBER MONSTROUSLY LIMITING!

And as I've said in the Mega-thread, a party size of 6 would allow Larian to use proper D&D 5e stats without having to add or subtract any monsters from any encounters. The entire game would be perfectly balanced for a 6 party member size game with proper D&D 5e stats. So there wouldn't need to be nerfing of monster stats and stripping them of their signature moves or nothing. So combining both would only make for a truly authentic D&D 5e Baldur's Gate experience.

4. Random Encounters. Yes, a lot of people don't like Random Encounters. However, after playing Solasta again, I realized what I like about Random Encounters. Flavor. Variety. Immersion. I know, when you're on your way to fight the goblins at the goblin camp, the last thing you want to do is face some random encounter fighting a pack of wolves or a bear or whatever who pop up on you out of nowhere. However, what we have right now is a world that is DEVOID of life. The forest has no wild animals. Nothing is really and truly living or breathing. In BG1 and 2, you had animals hopping around, even if they didn't fight you, random fights that would spring up on you, and the world wasn't just waiting for you to spring the next cutscene. It was more living and breathing. Besides this, what most don't realize about Random Encounters is that they provide variety in the monsters you fight. There isn't much variety right now in BG3. When I roam in a forest, I might get attacked by a pack of wolves during one playthrough. The next time, I might run into giant spiders roaming the streets of Bogrot. The next time, I might encounter a group of kobolds when I'm roaming one of the dungeons or caves. One time, I might encounter a group of evil gnomes or bandits on the road or SOMETHING besides the same old encounters every time I replay the game. Yes, Random Encounters can be annoying, but when you don't have them, you also don't have variety in encounters. And again, the point is that Random Encounters was another element of the originals that is missing, and the more elements that are missing, the less it feels like the originals.

5. Day/Night. Yes, I'm repeating a lot of items that I've mentioned in the past, but aren't we all really just repeating everything that's been said for the last year? I won't go much into this, but Day/Night REALLY gave the originals the ambiance that is missing in BG3. The dark streets of Athkatla at night with vampires prowling about, the dark forest where you and the werewolf lady are fighting shadow wolves and other wildlife, the graveyard at night, even fighting the trolls in the dark or gnolls or spiders or all the plethora of other monsters that make D&D what D&D is (because having a variety of monsters is one of the absolute staples of D&D and what makes it fun), all of it is lost in the blaring, blazing light of day. I want to have zombies grab my characters' legs as I'm moving through the bog at night. Then they spring up out of the water as the horror music starts to play, and you can only see their eyeballs popping out of their heads in the pale moonlight. I want that gnoll scene at the toll house to be SO much scarier, which it could be at night, with the gruesome bodies all around . I want phase spiders and ettercaps roaming Bogrot at night pouncing at us from spidery webbed buildings with eerie, spooky music playing or off of rooftops. I want caves in the Underdark and where they should be without beaming rays of sunlight pouring down. Day/Night could be done so easily. Forget realtime clocks and so forth. Just implement a single button that switches it from Day to Night. Then, you want night to day, you Long Rest. Boom. Done. Yes, I'm aware intense coding is involved, but it would make this game a thousand times more fun.

This has gone on long enough, so I won't go into any of the other items I'm thinking of. The point is, Larian... Please, please please just hear me and think about this. If you get nothing else from this post, please at least get this. If you want this game to truly smell and taste like BG1 and 2 at all, and D&D at all, and not just look kinda like a D&D 5e Baldur's Gate sequel, but you want it to actually BE a Baldur's Gate sequel, then please consider implementing more of these things from the first games that would make it FEEL more like a D&D 5e Baldur's Gate sequel.

That's the thing, isn't it? It's arguable that it's of higher priority to Larian to make something truly their own, rather than make something that "smells and tastes like BG1 & 2". It's clear to me it was never their intention to make something like that in the first place. Plenty of people don't care much for the original games, and even dislike them, as clearly expressed by some on these very forums. Hell, some have even said that this BG3 atm is precisely how a BG game should be. So what incentive would Larian have to make a game more "similar" to the originals? Why exactly should they change their design direction now? From where I see it, it's more a problem of "not wanting to do it", rather than "not knowing how to do it". From a business standpoint, it really is more beneficial to them to try to cater to as many different groups of audience as possible, rather than aiming specifically for the BG fans. This game is their big step that truly takes them as a studio to an entirely new level. I don't see why they would want to turn around and try to please the BG fans now.

That aside, it's not just D&D rules and creature stats. There's the writing and overall atmosphere, for which Larian also has their own things.

There is actually an article where Swen states that BG3 is a game that will be based on D&D 5e. They are not trying to make a strict DnD game because they want to make a game that is for everyone and they want to stick to their roots (DOS?). He also said they may not use al the rules of DnD because some of them may not translate well into a video game. He also said he is focusing on making first and foremost a video game not a tabletop.

Yeah yeah. So it'll look like hamburger, but taste like cake. So, the end result is that you either need to like cake that looks like hamburger and get used to it, or just go away.

Well, if you want a strictly hamburger and don’t want to taste anything else. Then you have no choice then to stick with the hamburger that exists since the chef has made it clear they are making something based on a hamburger but not necessarily a hamburger.

It’s foolish to hope that now Larian will pivot toward making “a Baldur’s Gate” game. It’s fine. BG1&2 exist still. In a couple of years wide public with catch up with Larian’s shortcomings, just as they finally seem to catch up with Bethesda. And maybe if BG3 is successful we will get somewhere down the line New Vegas equivalent for BG, by someone who understands and wants to make that game.

As it’s own thing, BG3 shows a bit of promise, as long as Larian stops unnecessarily messing thing up. When I heard rumours that Larian will be making BG3, I immediately understood that it will be D:OS2 with DND - and that sounded alright. D:OS2 had good presentation and good engine, but poor systems. While I don’t love DnD, it is a more mature, and more sophisticated ruleset. Alas, so far BG3 is still worse then D:OS2. Larian home brew additions don’t even have the little depth that D:OS1&2 had, while overriding and undermining core DND ruleset. It’s frustrating to say the least.

Isnt it like this with litteraly every game?

The thing is neither bg1 or bg2 werea faithful adaptation of the d&d rules either. More faithful adaptation of the current rules will not make it closer to the original games. That is a completely separate thing.

I like that there are some adaptations to the 5e rules, such as being able to drink a healing potion as a bonus action.

I also like that there are no random encounters. Having lots of trash mobs slows down the pacing for me.

The point I was trying to make with more faithful stats, etc. Is that monsters do not act like they should and don't even use their signature abilities.

Besides this, the more you veer away from the Core stats and mechanics, the less like D&D it feels.

Take Neverwinter Online. I've played a lot of that too. Fun game. Totally not a D&D game. Nothing like D&D except setting and kinda sorta story. But it is so video gamey, it can hardly be classified as even in the same category as Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. It's labeled a Neverwinter game, but it doesn't feel at all like the original. I'd say it feels more like Final Fantasy 14 online or Skyrim online.

That's what I'm saying with BG3. The more they deviate from D&D 5e core rules and especially the stats, the less it feels like a genuine D&D Baldur's Gate game.

I guess people expect every game in a franchise to be exactly the same.

It doesn't work like that anymore.

I personally wouldn't call half heartily pressing DnD's class system and action economy into DoS design concept as taking a big step. On the contrary, that show me they are a one trick pony. Taking a big step would have been trying to make a game that doesn't immediately gets me thinking of DoS 1/2.
Sure, the engine and art style they're using is a part of it but that's understandable and that is not all to blame. When I played a year ago, it hit me directly; oh, environmental tactics and surfaces, typical Larian, they even changed the cantrips to make them similar to the 1st lvl spells you get in DoS 2. And they really want those burning patches to hurt not adding saves to them.

Then, after feedback, they tuned that down and I felt; ok, now we're getting somewhere. There are still major issues like for example that they blatantly dislike the class system wanting to give class specific features to everyone because "in DoS the player can be whatever he wants", but they at least took a step in the right direction. And then, a month ago, they did it again, changed a spell to create surfaces though it shouldn't. Chromatic orb did have a similar effect in 4e but BG3 is (supposed to be) 5e.
They have the knowledge and experience to make environmental tactics and surfaces, when created by the players, visually stunning. But it isn't needed to be forced upon us. Instead of having a barrels of oil standing in the middle of a room, seeing a small bottle of oil or an oil lamp standing next to an enemy is enough. The opponent can think; "ha, you missed!" then...*seeing the wizard starting to conjure flames in his hand*..."oh shit". We don't need a spell creating an electrified puddle of water included with its damage, we already have "Create Water" if we want a conducting element to make our lightning based spell hit several opponents.

There is no reason for it. Like you said, they do have other ways to give a lasting, personal imprint on the game. The writing (I love Larians tendency for comical relief, especially their snarky animals) and the art style. Not following the source material when it comes to stats and rules isn't "not aiming for the BG fans". It's disrespecting DnD fans. In a DnD game.

Also, it's never more beneficial trying to cater the larger mass. Instead of getting a sharp product that is really liked by one group, you get a bland product that is, accepted at most, by many. Which is also clearly expressed on the forums.

This. I feel as if Larian has too many irons in the fire. Get the basics right (5e), then work on improving and adapting for a videogame. I find it really weird that they keep feeding us more areas, but a lot of the basics are unclear (reactions, classes, character customisation, etc.). I don't want to have the story spoiled, I want to know if I will enjoy the game's mechanics.

Also, the chain is horrible and should be scrapped ASAP. It's by far the worst part of BG3.

Those are not mutually exclusive - people who work on writing, level design etc. Aren't necessarily same people who work on combat design and adaptation do the ruleset. People were craving for new content and Larian decided to deliver it with patch6, which otherwise would be fairly unremarkable (visual upgreats are great, but now quite meat&potatoe).

I am with you, that I am more interested in seeing progress in systems, then experiencing more of unfinished story content. During older panel from Hell Sven said they are working on better reaction system, so I hope that will happen in the future - maybe it requires new UI, maybe will be packaged with new classes.

it's a fair point concerning the areas and such. As you, I'm simpy more interested in what the system designers have to offer... that's what will keep my interest in the game.

My main problem with this "based on 5e" is that it tells me that they used 5e and added their own stuff. While this is ok, you need to stay true to the main way the rules work.

If you change something in a ruleset you may come out with a lot of rubbish and stuff stops working like it was intended too, breaking the ruleset. Shoving/jumping mechanics is a nice example. The way it was implemeted totally destroys the way combat is intended in D&D.

I agree with 1,2,4 and 5 and have made posts many times especially day/night which is a game breaker for me to know they couldn't be arsed. Party size is dependent on campaign size even in D&D tabletop and I think the game map is cluttered enough at the minute with 4 party members, but of course this is my opinion.

My main issue is the addition of homebrew CORE game mechanics. BG is a D&D franchise and as such reflect that. I know Larian wanted to cut and paste DOS3, tweek a few numbers and hope nobody noticed but BG1&2 fans are where the money is as they are still alive and kicking. Tenny bops don't play games that involve effort, they push X and win, send a tweet then move on to the next exciting adventure.

I have no issue Larian adding their own flavor but the CORE game must mirror the mechanics already in black and white. I don't see how Larian can build a city like Baldurs gate or Waterdeep without a night cycle? They can't as most stuff happens at night. Random encounters when travelling between areas is a dice roll and a random map tile....too much to ask for? For those who want to play the story there are always easy mode and Larian are good at tweeking difficulty as DOS2 did it great.

The addition of "something" that competes with core game mechanics always has a cascade effect in D&D. Advantage and healing for example. Advantage is something gained though tactical positioning (or spell aka resource) of more than one character where instant healing is something class/spell specific. Monsters have their own playstyle mixing the fights up, 50 goblins is a slog but a lich, vampire lord etc. is a totally different fight, RUN AWAY!!! Time stop......boom dead.

D&D mechanics have nearly 50 years of ironing and tweeking I doubt a game adaptation is going to reinvent the wheel here. I will give it to Larian they are listening to the feedback but like I said earier no day/night is a game breaker for me personally and wouldn't of purchased EA if I knew. The game is good, could be better.

Regarding the OP, would love points 4 and 5.

The first thing that impressed me in BG2, back in 2000, was the level of immersion and how it felt alive even with outdated graphics. I think it was the core of the experience.

BG3 feels plastic and constricted and that comes from Larian not understanding what made the originals so special.

This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho.

Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself. He actually said that BG3 is meant to be "first and foremost" a video game in an interview from last year. In a recent interview with Eurogamer, a month ago, Swen even said that they can't do everything in tabletop DnD or they will never finish the game because that would require more people to be hired. In the gaming industry, you have a deadline and things need to be done before then. He also said that they have been given the freedom (most likely from WOTC) as with previous BG games to do what they want with this game.

I have an entirely different perspective. I don't care what rule set it is, or how closely tied to it the game stays. I didn't buy BG because it was DnD. I didn't buy BG 2 because it was DnD either. Upon thinking about it, I initially didn't buy BG anyway. At the time I was playing DOOM and Mortal Kombat. My girlfriend brought BG home one day, and after playing it a bit, I barely looked back at either. Although I did, I must admit, play a lot of MK up to the third installment.

But I played BG games, and IWD games because I liked the stories. DnD had nothing to do with my enjoyment of the titles, at least beyond superficially. Then came Neverwinter Nights. I played that game for 5 years, but it had next to nothing to do with DnD, other than it happened to be the setting, loosely. I say "loosely" because I didn't play the campaigns for 5 years, I played the online modules that people were producing. I played on RP servers, I played on high magic worlds, and in the last year or so of that 5 years, I spent time making my own low magic world, created to tell a story that I wanted to tell in the toolset. While I'm not looking for the NWN experience here, I'm not sure we'll get a toolset, considering the MP aspect, that would be great, I am looking to be engaged by whatever the story is going to be, once it's fully fleshed out.

When I read "not BG", I'm not "like yeah". Instead I see "not the Warden" in Dragon Age, and "Mass Effect is Shepard's story". Bhaalspawn is, after all, the only thing that ties BG to BG 2 in so far as story is concerned. It's a rather important bit there, but that story has been written. I didn't see BG 3 and think that they were going to just remaster the previous two games, or try to retcon the old stories out for a new one. There's a lot more to the FR than just that one storyline. So, I'm waiting to see what they do. This was a pre-alpha test of basic stuff, not a finished product. I didn't get my dice out, and get new books, to go sit at someone's house to start a 5e campaign. I saw BG 3, and nostalgia kicked in for games that meant a lot to me when they were new, and got some hype going. I've been in on the ground floor of modules, especially in NWN, where I wrote story lines, drew up some maps, and even wrote some scripts for existing modules, before going on to create my own. So I didn't come in expecting a polished experience. I still don't expect to have the entirety of the story laid out in the Prologue and Act 1 so that I can say "not a BG game". Even with all of that assumed, I'm not sure I could do that w/out also going "not the Bhaalspawn"...

I haven't read a single post from anyone about wanting an exact tabletop ruleset conversion for BG3. Why are people thinking in such extremes? The vast majority of D&D players are open to homebrew if it plays by the spirit of the rules. If only we could discuss the homebrew rationally without dismissing each other outright with extreme opinions like "Larian should do whatever they want" or "don't change anything". And again, I've not read the latter from anyone.

The problem that many are voicing is Larian not understanding the spirit of the rules. They are simply going too far with their homebrew additions. Surfaces are a good concept for a video game but the implementation is over the top. Same with dipping, high ground and backstab before change. Shoving. Good concepts with poor over the top implementation that promote repetitive tactics. Then there is the type of homebrew that gives out Rogues' Cunning Action to everyone for free that just fails to understand the spirit of the class based system (and multiclassing) on a fundamental level, and is completely unnecessary to enjoy the game.

Maybe it's because their initial advertising campaign, and their original comments, on which the game was first advertised and sold, was the statement that they were making baldur's gate 3, which they would be making in the fifth edition ruleset, which they would be translating into the game, and I quote, "As faithfully as possible".

So, many folks who bought into the game on that premise are rightfully annoyed at how completely disingenuous that statement has shown to be. Funnily enough, it's really hard to find the earliest articles and interviews, where these statements and others of a similar nature were first made, nowadays, and their tune has dramatically changed as well. Many folks are annoyed because they used a premise and an advertisement which they never even intended to honour to draw people in and generate sales.... and are in fact on record elsewhere as admitting that what they really want to do is use the branding, legacy and high-profile nature of D&D and the BG series to pimp Their style of games to a new audience... when that's not what was originally advertised, and not what brought many of the folks here to the game in the first place.

We all know this is a video game, and that the rule-set can benefit from many and various changes and adaptations when transitioning to a video game format - both for pacing and for general quality of life... no-one is denying that at all. In many of my own focus threads, I take special care to point out and note rule deviations and adaptations that are actually very good calls and nice improvements or concessions to video game format where adaptation improves the experience. Those aren't the things that people are making threads about, for the most part.

All you need to do is ask ... i was hoping i get to use this quote ... but i didnt expect opourtunity to come so soon.

Thank you.

I've said before, and I'll say it again. I'm not opposed to homebrew but:

The more homebrew, the more you negate certain base elements of 5e that make different abilities and classes unique and fun. Rogue fast hands is virtually meaningless if everyone can drink a potion as a Bonus action. Cunning Action is pointless if everyone can hide as a Bonus. These are just 2 examples.

The more you deviate from the D&D 5e rules and stats and world of Faerun, the less the game feels like D&D and Baldur's Gate.

I actually like that they have some homebrew goblins, for example. That's fun. Not every goblin has to be a grunt or boss. I'm fine with almost every goblin in the game. What I don't like is the monsters that have virtually no characteristics that make them unique and therefore fun.

So don't tell me something is an intellect devourer and then not give them the ability to devour intellect. If it is an intellect devourer, give it intellect devourer stats. If you're going to make it a newborn intellect devourer which then explains why it doesn't have the proper full-blown stats, then call it an Ustilagor, which is an infant or newborn intellect devourer. Also, give it the appearance of an Ustilagor with stubby legs and so forth.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ustilagor

But I think most are not understanding about what I'm trying to say is that I don't have a problem with some Homebrew monsters and stats and so forth as long as there is a solid foundation of monsters with normal stats and abilities. The problem I have is that virtually no monsters have their proper stats and abilities and there are so many Homebrew rules that negate very basic special abilities four different classes.

So essentially, by creating so much Homebrew they are destroying very basic elements of what makes different races and classes what they should be based on established world-building that is been in existence for over 20 years.

Rogues are probably the biggest victims a Homebrew. So many of their special abilities are being made obsolete because every class can do but only they should be able to do. No. That's not true. Everyone can use Revivify scrolls and other cleric scrolls, everyone can use every wizard scroll, everyone can use every druid scroll, etc. Therefore, no class is unique and special because everybody can do everything.

So does it feel like D & D? No. Why? Because what makes things unique is being stripped from each class, each monster, each item so that nothing is special.

Here's something that I think is an acceptable homebrew. You have partial cover, therefore you get a + 2 to your armor class. Another Homebrew that I think makes sense is the flanking advantage Homebrew. Don't misunderstand. I'm not referring to backstab. I'm referring to if you have more than one person in melee with an enemy, you should get advantage on your dice roll to hit. Why? Because if you have two people trying to attack you at once from two different angles oh, it is incredibly hard to defend against both. That to me is a Homebrew that makes sense especially because it works well with the Rogue sneak attack.

But when you start to make special abilities and characteristics no and void with your Homebrew, you begin to destroy the entire rule system.

Anyway, I'm just trying to clear up the misunderstanding because it always seems like everyone who is opposed to what I have to say seems to take the extreme position like I'm against absolutely all deviations from the rules of DnD 5e

Rag, you obviously didn't read the first two paragraphs of niara's response did you.

You're welcome!

In regards to rules of DnD this is what Swen Said last month to Gameindustry.biz

'You don't want a game to be complicated, you want it to be very natural and very intuitive and so there's a lot of work being done on the background that we haven't shipped yet, where we're trying to say: what is the best and easiest way for a player discovering this rule so that they intuitively take it into account? This early access is clearly obviously a very important platform for us."

"I think when you'll see what we will release compared to where we started, you'll have this feeling of: holy shit, this is very, very accessible, I don't have to think about it, it just makes sense. And that's exactly the experience you have if you play D&D in real life. If you have a good DM, they're not going to bombard you with 300 pages of rules that you need to learn, they're just going to be: hey, you enter a dungeon and there's a door. What do you 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. It's really about us removing the barriers to entry and shoving it in front of people's noses really so that they just give it a go, and then usually it clicks. Because if you go to the reviews of BG3, of DOS 2, one of the things you really often read is: 'I never thought I was going to enjoy this, but here I am, a hundred hours later!'"

Interview with Swen Vincke

I agree with every word.

I hear alot of exteme arguments suggesting people are being D&D "purists" for want of a better word. Sven said...... Yes he said many things euphemeistically and directly but here is the thing, it is a far cry from adding flavor when you change the the core rules to a point where it simply doesn't resemble D&D anymore especially for certain classes. Adding homebrew is good, hp boost for garbage mobs is good, acid arrows that create 5 meter diameter pools of acid around the target not so much. Tweek stat numbers and personalities all you like but core mechanics NEED to remain constant or the entire class balance system falls apart.

I keep saying this, the CORE needs to be implented FIRST then add and remove homebrew stuff. I mean throwing a healing potion at your ally heals them? Come on man! I can undertand throwing basilisk oil at a petrified person but throwing a bottle of healing juice into the mouth of your mate is ridiculous. Little things like this don't add to the game it makes it stupid. Arrows do a bit of extra element damage you dont fire a bathtub of acid on the end on an arrow. A barrel of booze will weigh hundreds of Kgs so rolling it down steps is realisitc where putting one (or 3) in your backpack is bonkers.

The little things make a big difference.

Oh yes i did ...
But it all seemed to me like: "i believe i have seen it somewhere really long time ago and i cant find it anymore" ...
While Composer gives us specific quotes even with link to source ...

It just dont seems to hard to decide wich one to believe. :-/

The truth is somewhere in the middle, like what Niara wrote which many kind of skims across or share seats in the boat I'm in. "As faithfully as possible" - Most people just read 'faithful' and expect a near 100% adaption or in the upper ceiling toward 100%. Some few take it as far as any deviation is a war crime and make false claims (such as the source of that quote of mine where someone insisted as such). Then there's me, and I'd assume the notion that Niara refers to, that would prefer a more faithful adaption in terms of less changes to simple things like shove/hide being a bonus action instead of an action which has a ripple-effect into other aspects such as Rogue losing a lot of its class niche. That's where I often butt in to disagree with some people, not because of what they say, but how they say it. I think most people want the same thing in the end of the day.

It was never said to be a 100% faithful adaption, just somewhere between as faithful as possible to based on but with creative liberty for fitting a video game. I have my own criticisms of Swen's wording sometimes and warned how it'd be received multiple times in the long distant past (and my ego admittedly feels boosted of predicting it so accurately). But it's also our responsibility as gamers to apply some good faith and attention to detail in the information we read as well, and interpret its meaning rather than literal face value.

Most feedback that I've seen and forwarded tend to fall into the category of "I understand it's unreasonable to have a 100% adaption into a video game, but this criticism X and complaint Y are things I think deviates away from PHB more than is necessary" kind of format. And that's perfectly fine and good. At least that's how I choose to view most threads, focusing on the meaning underneath rather than the angry words or emotions that often distorts the underlined intent. My only hope / interest is to make sure those doesn't turn into keyboard-warrior fistfights. Because again, we all just want a fun game in the end of the day I think.

All those Swen Vincke quotes prove that Larian are doing much more than changing what needs to be changed for a video game. They have a different vision of D&D, or a very narrow vision on "what works" in a video game i.e. surfaces, pushing and jumping and puzzles to the extreme where they override the actual ruleset being used.

Rogue abilities are a VERY good example of something that has nothing to do with the platform. They just gave the Rogue abilities to everyone because someone over there likes to do Rogue stuff on all characters without multiclassing a few levels into Rogue. Or some misguided notion that every character needs to be able to do a Bonus Action every turn. They don't. The system wasn't designed that way and stubbornly fighting it isn't going to work. Turn based combat does not get better if you have more actions per turn, especially if they are repetitive or overpowered like Stealth (or Shove). Sharing the Rogue class abilities has nothing to do with being a video game but everything to do with class identity and balance.

Solasta on the other hand proves that 5e RAW combat is very enjoyable and tactical in a video game. It does not need superhero jumps for everyone, or exaggerated shoving, or a million surfaces everywhere or goblins firing knockback arrows. These are things that Larian have ADDED because they seem to have an uncontrollable obsession about that stuff. Those additions actually make the game LESS tactical because you're always better off doing the Larian things than doing the D&D things. Solasta feels more like D&D, and it also feels like a better combat system overall after the sneak, shove and bomb fest that is BG3.

Larian aren't augmenting D&D for a video game platform. They're assimilating it into their own narrow mindset that is very different from the D&D CRPG's we have known and played in the past. And BG3 is a worse game for it.

If they choose to tone the homebrew down a notch, it could be great. Augment D&D, not replace it.

I love how I beat you to it with an exact example, 1varangian :'D Rest my case! ♥

Whether the fight in Solasta is better is just a matter of opinion.

Ok. Fine

How about the fact that Larian keep using DnD 5e as a marketing tool?

"AN EXPANSIVE, CINEMATIC RPG WITH UNPARALLELED DEPTH AND PLAYER FREEDOM
Baldur’s Gate 3 is an expansive, cinematic, player-driven RPG based on 5e D&D. It features a rich character creation system where players can create an avatar based on many different D&D races, select their cantrips, skills & abilities, and enter a world where their actions truly define the story.

Baldur’s Gate 3 expands on Larian’s award-winning narrative gameplay both through the advent of cinematic storytelling, and with dice-rolls for key decisions throughout the game, in and out of combat. Dialogue options often have multiple responses, and some responses may require a dice roll to succeed, defined by both luck as well as the attributes of the player character, or circumstances of the situation.

No one play-through will be like another player’s, with a massively branching narrative and meaningful reactions to player actions, and happenings. It features a fluid, high-stakes turn-based combat system incorporating the rules of 5e D&D."

"incorporating" not inspired by or influenced by


"EVOLVED TURN-BASED COMBAT BASED ON 5E D&D
Play through levels 1-4 as the tabletop rules come to life in the videogame
Switch to turn-based mode at anytime to solve puzzles or sneak up on characters
Manipulate light and darkness with our dynamic shadow system for non-binary style stealth action
The next generation of turn-based combat featuring hundreds of D&D spells and actions
Unlimited freedom to explore and experiment"

Hmm, tabletop rules....

Both excerpts above is taken from Larians own homepage. https://press.baldursgate3.game/

There is no doubt that Larian has and still does use DnD 5e for marketing purposes. It's no coincidence that their announcement of BG3 was together with WoTC, the creator of DnD. It was to give their game legitimacy. Not as a good rpg game, larian is already known for that, but for a good DnD game.

And let's have a look on the second quote that The composer gave us

"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."

What worked and didn't work - because it is a videogame. Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?

Now. What Niara wrote isn't false, and The Composer did summarize the subject perfectly.

The game itself is BASED on DnD. The 5e that is being incorporated is for combat.


Larian did say that there may be some rules that they will not incorporated into the game because it doesn't translate well into a video game, so you may not see it. Swen has always said multiple times that Larian is the DM of this game and they are making this game for everyone. They also don't want to make it complicated for players that may have never played a DnD game. They want to make the game accessible and not seem complicated.

Why wouldnt they?
I mean this game IS based on DnD 5e ... its not their fault that some people wished for something else. :-/

Indeed ... and also not "litteral transcription" ... what is your point?
We could find dozens of synonims they didnt use.

And since their game is based on DnD 5e its perfectly fine ... again, what is your point here? O_o

And owner of Baldur's Gate trademark.

It indeed is no coincidence, but i would say you presume too much.

Question here is: Does it matter?

I mean Swen obivously leads this project ... if it would be movie, Swen would be director ... his job is to mediate(?) his vision for us ... and purpose of EA is to find out how much that vision is close to our expectations, possibly even bend it a little somewhere, so our goals get closer together ...

But he still sells his vision, his product, there is his name on it. :-/
And in the end he (probably not litteraly, i presume he have people for that) will decide wich of our suggestion goes good with his vision, and wich are completely off.

Yes it matter. Very much. It matters because we have laws against false advertising. It matters because we have 3 year long university programs with focus on media management. It matters because Larian isn't some indie studio with three people that never has spoken with a journalist before. They are an international multimillion company fully aware that everything they do, everything they say in regard to an ongoing project, is marketing. Not just what a single spokesperson say but everything. They are fully aware that using the BG trademark and keeping mentioning DnD 5e would attract fans of the franchise. Just as you use those quotes from Sven to justify homebrewing you like, I can use the rest of their marketing to justify why I don't feel it right.

This thread was about GM4him requesting for them to consider sticking closer to some things he liked with the previous BG games. He didn't ask for a . Instead this thread turned into whether or not Larian has used deceitful tactics in their marketing. I claim they have, you claim they haven't. That's where we stand on that subject. Now, maybe time to get focus back on OP's suggestions?

Let me but in here, you are seriously misinterpreting what Larian has said or what they have marketed. They have not falsely advertised anything, so there are no legal implications. They used the term "BASED ON", that term does not mean a literal translation. "Based on" means that they are using what they know from DnD 5e as a foundation for their game. When you mentioned the word "incorporating", they were talking about the 5e rules of combat not the whole game itself. They use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. They mention DnD 5e because they have incorporated 5e rules, maybe not every single one that you would like but they have implemented some.

Lead designer dont like how things looks in game ... or lead designer dont like how things works in game ...
Therefore lead designer stated that things didnt translate well into this game. (your words not mine)

How is that "false advertising" ?

Lead designer dont like how things looks in game ... or lead designer dont like how things works in game ...
Therefore lead designer stated that things didnt translate well into this game. (your words not mine)

How is that anyhow tied to meda management?

Why is size of studio anyhow relevant to that Swen (in your example) stated that game dont translate well, bcs he either didnt like what se see, or didnt like what he play? O_o

And they are fully aware that using the BG trademarks and keeping mentioning DnD 5e on wich their systems are BASED, wich is exactly what they are advertising ... is totally okey, and fact that some people will ignore half of sentence to see only "DnD 5e" and "Baldur's Gate" cannot be avoided no matter how often Swen repeats that this game is not, will not be and never was ment to be litteral transcription of tabletop rules ... bcs those people will ignore the rest anyway.
I really wonder why tho.

Do you believe that if there will be enough people expecting something else, Larian will scap all their curent work and recreate everything to fit your expectation?

Or do you just WANT TO BE MAD at somethig and this is easy target? O_o

I dont understand this sentence ...
But if you wish to use their marketing to anyting, you have to use it whole, not just those parts of sentences that suits you ... then you could simply make out those quotes and claim they are real, since their value would be the same.

Ofc they haven't broken any laws, they have lawyers and pr managers making sure of that. But you can still give the impression of doing something while also following the law. And that can still be considered deceitful. Larians staff is not naive, they know exactly what they can do. And neither I or GM4him has asked for a literal translation (I really can't see why that always comes up?!) We simply, based on the impression that they want to create a DnD 5e game, ask that they follow the rules more closely. That is all. Because several of their homebrew rules isn't there because its impossible to be transitioned otherwise into the game, but because Larian decided they didn't see it as fun. And we disagree with them on that. That, is our feedback.

And this was your first response to OT:


Isn't that the exact kind of response you dislike in your thread about food?

And no, they do not use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. It's the other way around. They could have easily kept their whole story and named it something else. Or they could had made an entirely different story. But they didn't want to simply do what Tactical Adventures did, they coveted the BG trademark and the revenue that name would bring by itself. WoTC didn't ask Larian to do this game. Larian asked WoTC, several times, for permission to use the trademark and had to come up with a good pitch for that to happen.

1. Close adherence to stats - in general - seems like a good idea. In earlier versions enemies had higher HP, but lower armor. I don't know if any of that was reversed, but it probably should be because it affects the balance between things which use attack rolls and things which use saving throws. HOWEVER, I don't think it would be a good idea to put in Intellect Devourers unchanged with no way for the low-level players to avoid being rendered catatonic by "Devour Intellect", so that's a warning flag to me that you may be prioritizing purism a little too much.

2. Not everyone is going to agree on what the best way to translate the 5e rules for this adaptation. For example, I don't agree at all with your assertion that potions shouldn't be a bonus action. This is because you take a lot more damage than what potions are good for. If you're hurt by an enemy, take a full action to use a potion, then get hurt by the same attack again, you're going to end up worse off than ever. That makes using a full action to take a potion useless most of the time.

3. Larian isn't likely to budge on this, but I would like a party size of at least 5 for more flexibility.

4. Random Encounters.

+1

Obviously there are 5e things that people don't find fun (e.g., the Ranger class). But even then it's still valid to analyze whether Larian's replacement mechanic is better or worse than the 5e rule. Larian is the DM and is technically allowed to make any changes they want, but if they make bad changes then we should and will call them out on that.

I might dislike many changes Larian make, but you can't accuse them of false marketing. Nowhere did they claim they will adapt rules 1:1. You can disagree with them on creative basis (aka. if the changes they made are for the better, and if they were needed for BG3 to feel like a good cRPG) but they can't be accountable of what you or anyone else might have imagined in their head, especially that detailed gameplay videos were made public even before EA was on sale. Many things we continue complaining about were raised even before any of us put our hands on the title.

+1

Once again, you are seriously misunderstanding and misrepresenting what is being said in regards to what Larian has said and done. As for you or GM4Him asking for a literal translation of DnD, you kinda have with always asking for more 5e and how the game is not DnD enough. Also, Larian never said that their homebrew rules didn't translate into video game, it's the DnD 5e rules that may not translate. You seem to have a habit of misquoting, maybe you are just misunderstanding what is being said. I'm not sure if there is a language barrier and that could be a reason.



No, it's not. That's a food analogy in reference to DnD 5e and DnD homebrew.

{quote=PrivateRaccoon]And no, they do not use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. It's the other way around. They could have easily kept their whole story and named it something else. Or they could had made an entirely different story. But they didn't want to simply do what Tactical Adventures did, they coveted the BG trademark and the revenue that name would bring by itself. WoTC didn't ask Larian to do this game. Larian asked WoTC, several times, for permission to use the trademark and had to come up with a good pitch for that to happen.[/quote]

That literally makes no sense. The reason why they use the title "Baldur's Gate" is because the game is based on Baldur's Gate. No one said anything about WOTC asking Larian to do this but it's obvious WOTC doesn't mind. WOTC wrote a blog about this very same thing. They are allowing creators to make their own canon which is separate from theirs.

+1

The more you move away from the established rules, the less it actually is the original game.

Bottom line.

Neverwinter Online is D&D set in Faerun. Is it 5e? 100% no. It is an MMORPG, plain and simple. But then, no one cares because they in no way set an expectation that it would be even remotely like tabletop 5e. So, everyone plays it expecting a pure MMO game.

BG 1 and 2 were made as adaptations to tabletop D&D, and BG3 has also been created as an adaptation. So, immediately, it's like the illusion cakes. They said, "I'm making an adaptation of 5e rules.". So, immediately D&D fans and DMs like me especially are thinking, "I know these rules and I'm finally getting a true video game adaptation of D&D turn based 5e. Yes, they said there would be homebrew, but what DM doesn't have some homebrew. I can handle some homebrew."

But the more they deviate from the rules with homebrew after homebrew, suddenly, I as a DM begin to think, "Am I really even playing D&D anymore? It feels more like some other game here. Where is the Rogue Expertise? Why don't imps use poison stingers? Why don't intellect devourers devour intellect? Why do phase spiders have ultra overpowered Misty Step and spit poison? Why don't we use Hit Dice during short rests?" Over and over again, I'm wondering WHY they made their homebrew and therefore killed a bunch of other rules and characteristics which then required more homebrew which then killed more rules until now I'm not even sure if I'm playing even a D&D game.

It's a fun game. I love it. It's just not what I originally wanted based on what was advertised, an actual adaptation of D&D. It's more like Neverwinter online in the end. It is set in Faerun, but gameplay-wise, it is getting further and further from true D&D.

It smells like cake and tastes like cake, but it looks like hamburger. At the end of the day, it's cake, not hamburger.

Just to be clear, hamburger = D&D 5e.
Cake = Whatever BG3 actually is.

I like cake, but it's NOT hamburger, even if it was packaged like hamburger.

Something that bothers me, and I think this is on topic, is when people pressure Larian to change things that are fun.

For instance, the barrels. I've seen a lot of comments about how the barrels are overpowered and should be removed from the game and so on. I completely disagree with that.

Personally, I never use barrels. I don't need to use them to get through the encounters. But I like having them there in case I ever just want to have fun and start blowing them up. Sometimes that's fun, and it's nice to have them around as an option.

*

It's like the new weapon features, things like Pommel Strike and Lacerate. I like that stuff. It makes the weapon choice a little more interesting and brings more options into the moment. Someone might argue that it weakens the two weapon fighter because someone with a great sword can now have a bonus attack, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I mean, it's limited to once per short rest, I think, whereas the two weapon fighter keeps going with the bonus attack.

At any rate, regardless, it's just fun. It's extra options. Now I consider these things when I decide which weapon I want to wield.

*

That said, I do think it was an improvement to change the height from advantage to a plus two.

Look, rage aside, they're not going to change it drastically this far into development.

I'd quit fussing over it, imo.

Adaptation in works of art does not mean carbon copies, many adaptations are only in part. Here is how they define adaptation in film.

"An adaptation is new story, or a retelling of an old story in a new media form, that is based on an already existing work."

This is the best response. +1

That literally makes no sense. The reason why they use the title "Baldur's Gate" is because the game is based on Baldur's Gate. No one said anything about WOTC asking Larian to do this but it's obvious WOTC doesn't mind. WOTC wrote a blog about this very same thing. They are allowing creators to make their own canon which is separate from theirs.[/quote]

That food analogy is basically saying, if you don't like what Larian has done, suck it up, because this is their intention with their game. And that can be used against your wish to revert the change with food as well. They changed it because they wanted to change it. It's exactly the same. I may be born in Sweden and therefor not having English as my native tongue but I do take pride in having a very good understanding of it, and so did my teachers, so there is no language barrier.

I also did study media management, marketing, economics and organization theory so when I say that Larian went for the BG title because they know how valuable that trademark is, its not something I picked out of the blue. MILLIONS of players recognize that name. Just adding that title to your game is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free marketing! And marketing is THE number one expensive post in a games budget.
Yes, WoTC do allow creators to make their own canon, but they don't allow just anyone to use their established trademarks. If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story. Whether or not that makes sense to you, well....

And asking for something more, is not dealing with absolutes. The world isn't black or white. I'm not against ALL of Larians homebrewing. But I don't have to like everything they do either. To make another food analogy: Just because I dislike bananas doesn't mean I hate fruit. So no, we don't "kinda" have. That's you misunderstanding our intent. Or should I interpret you asking for some homebrewing you like to exist, meaning that you think DnD rules should get thrown out completely? Because I don't.

It wasn't the barrels themselves people had problems with. Lets say a barrel of booze has the same amount of liquid as an oil drum in the real world. That is 170Kg, now put 4 in a backpack and you have half a metric tonne in your bag...... There was the problem. I do enjoy crazy barrel fun. I am going to MOD BG 3 on release like crazy for the fun explodey times for that very reason. It is why games like fallout 4 and skyrim are still fun to this day. But not main game mechanics.

The weapon features do nothing to effect fighter classes as they have mechanics that makes these attacks even better. I really like they added these weapon options. The issue I have is they are once per rest? I mean why? it isn't "a resource" so this makes no sense in D&D. Why would you only be able to swing a greatsword once a certain way per rest? The point is it has to make sense for it to be homebrew D&D. Like wet characters being electrocuted in water. That makes sense so why not? This is a genuine DM choice.

Homebrew still has to be belevable otherwise it is just stupid and lessens the experience. Throwing a barrel over twice the weight of Lae'zel 60ft is something an ogre couldn't do. No casting a spell in a world where magic exists isn't the same as a halfling carrying a metric tonne of barrels in his pack. Howver there are mechanics in D&D that would allow you to do this. A type 4 bag of holding can carry 1500lbs but cost 10k gp but you would still need to be strong enough to get the barrel out.

Another thing is the arrows that contain "a bit" of acid covering 30sq meters on impact. How does that make sense? See the issue? It not that it isn't fun in a game not claiming to be "something like" D&D as these "little changes" are nothing like D&D. Tidal waves of goop fired from a hand crossbow breaks concentration and damages a class mechanic hard enough to maintain without it.

The game is okay it has the potential to be amazing.

+1

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

...and any lawyer playing through the game would tell you that you'd get in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Courts, much like everyone else, hate to have their time wasted. The problem is, courts can levy fines against the people that waste their time.

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?

Baldur's Gate 2 was set in Athkatla. The only relation it had to BG 1 was tied to the characters from the first game, and that the main character was a Bhaalspawn. You could completely skip BG 1 to play BG 2, and I'd be willing to bet that more than a few people did just that. If WotC, or Hasbro thought Larian was walking all over their trademarks/IP, you can bet we'd know about it already. So what have you heard from either of them to indicate that they're abusing that trademark, or is this something that you're coming up with to justify your own perceptions of the game? Careful with this, because false copyright claims can land you in legal hot water just as fast as frivolous lawsuits about false advertising.

Are you even reading what you are writing? You literally said "If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story." You're making it sound like it has nothing to do with Baldur's Gate. That's where I'm pointing to you that it does. I don't understand what you are trying to get at and you are making a lot of assumptions and false accusations.

The amount of bad-faith takes here is pretty astounding. There is no doubt that Larian advertised the game as a Baldur's Gate game, based on the 5e ruleset.

Asking that the game's mechanics be as close to 5e, in EA, is not unreasonable. Larian adding its homebrew to the game is also reasonable, to the extent that it does not break the core ruleset the game is based on.

Currently, Larian's homebrew is "breaking" the action economy, it is creating too much overlap between the classes and is removing a lot of the tactical choices (by providing significantly better (read OP) options).

In short, the game balance is all over the place. A somewhat straightforward approach would be to align the game with 5e, and then apply homebrew were necessary/fun. What's so hard to understand in that?

The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

Well said. As many others have expressed, I wish this forum had a "like/upvote" feature.

I'll add: obviously Larian chose to use the Baldur's Gate name and D&D 5e system at least partly for the name-recognition to boost sales. They are a company; they need to make money in order to exist and create new games. This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing and denying it does nobody any favors.

I keep getting a lot of responses about how we're so far in development so basically just shut up. I thought the entire point of the suggestion forum is to offer our suggestions of what we think would make the game better. You can tell me that you don't like my suggestions oh, and you can tell me why, and that makes perfect sense to me. But what doesn't make sense to me is when people are out here telling me to stop complaining - which I think is a gross misunderstanding because I'm not complaining, I'm attempting to make suggestions that I think would make the game better - because we're so far into development.

This entire thread is about me suggesting that the game would be better and would feel more like DND 5e and Baldur's Gate if they were more true to the proper stats for monsters with their special abilities that are signature special abilities that make the race what they are, and stop home brewing everything so much that the game no longer feels like we're playing The dungeons & dragons game.

It is about the feel of the game. The Baldur's Gate feel is missing. Why? You may not agree, but I think that the reason is that they are disregarding very basic core elements.

Rogues don't seem like Rogues, mages don't seem like mages, and clerics don't seem like clerics.

Imps don't seem like imps, intellect devourers don't seem like intellect devourers, phase spiders don't seem like phase spiders.

There's no night travel and ambiance. I can't even tell you how much that effects the overall tone and mood of the game. From my earliest D & D memories, dark and spooky forests, graveyards, streets, and mountain pathways with scary ambience music, that was the stuff that sparked the imagination and sent chills down the spines of the players. That's what made things exciting fin fun.

I feel like what we have in this game, it is fun and nice, but we are missing so much more.

Reasonable limitations make a game challenging and rewarding. If a games rules are too loose, it removes the challenge and there is nothing fun to overcome. The more you deviate from the established rules the more you have to deviate from the established rules to fix the rules you deviated from. They have created so much more work for themselves by deviating so much from the established core rules.

Again, I'm not opposed to Homebrew. But Homebrew should be limited to minor rules, not completely overhauling the core rule system.

I also like things like exploding barrels, and special moves that make different weapons unique. To me, those are clever and they make sense. Otherwise, what's the difference between a mace and a hand axe? What's not good is it character picking up a hundred pound barrel and throwing it 50 feet, or a character jumping literally 30 feet and then still moving like another 15, while leaping up in the air like 15 ft. That's broken, and that is what makes the game not as good as it could be.

Feeling they were deceitful is one thing, claiming that they are is another. Which is why some of us have told you otherwise, because you seem to be claiming that they are and even mentioned the whole legal system against them.

Fully agree about the like/upvote feature... It would filter a lot of the BS in these threads and focus the feedback on actionable stuff Larian can use in development.

To the second point, there's no doubt about it, it's just savvy business acumen. But they need to manage those expectations accordingly.

Or maybe I'm just naive and Larian is more than happy that it took my money after "unconsciously" deceiving me about the product they were selling. If so, shame on me I guess

Nope. Same here. I'm not about the legal nonsense. I don't care about that. Bottom line is, they made people think this was going to be THE D&D 5e ultimate adaptation. That is totally the expectation that they set. There are too many of us for it to be just me and you.

Especially in the beginning, there were so many more people upset that this game was more like DOS than D&D. SO many more people.

You can't disappoint your fan base like that without consequences.

There likely won't be a BG4 from Larian. I'm still afraid BG3 will never fully happen because of things like that. Hopefully, we'll still get this full game.

I think the issue some of us are having is where did Larian specifically say that they are making a true DnD 5e game and not a game based on DnD 5e? I believe that is where the confusing lies because I don't remember Larian saying anything that states they are making a 100% copy of DnD 5e. Larian keep emphasing that the game is "based on" even before the release of EA.

They said, in their initial interviews, before EA even came out, that they were excited to be making Baldur's Gate 3, that they would be making it using the fifth edition of the dungeons and dragons ruleset, which they were going to be implementing as faithfully as possible. Those were the original advertising comments made. Those comments were weakened and backtracked very hard after EA launched. This is not a shared hallucination - this happened. No, I can't provide quoted interviews - they've disappeared.

It may well be that those initial comments were made indelicately, and were not, exactly, intended to deceive... but they were nevertheless not indicative of their actual intention and so people who came to the game excited and invested in it, based on those comments, got very upset when it became clear that those initial comments were not actually reflective of what they were doing at all.

In any case, there's a strong argument to say that the game is less and less based on 5e anyway... With each additional homebrew, their chipping away at the core ruleset.

Well, the legal thing was specifically in regard to Rag's question whether it mattered if a certain quote could be interpreted in different ways. And it is important. We were taught to always be as transparent and as specific as possible when dealing with journalists as to hinder any misconception on the readers part. Sure, being vague can have its uses when deflecting those misconceptions but it's always better if they don't arise from the very start. As you've seen, saying "based upon" is not very definitive on your intentions.

But, going through my responses in this thread, I can admit, although it pains me, that I might...just barely....been a tiny little bit...zealous and derailing in my answers. For that...I apologize. Pfww, that was hard.

Based on; The interview also goes on to mention trial and error in interpreting TT into video game translation.


Utilize means to make use of, not necessarily fully and solely only use without interpretation.


In reference to earlier statements on the forums. Homebrew / extra system designs were talked about long before EA release.


Boldened text implies creative liberties / changes to the ruleset deemed necessary for a video game format. Hence, not 100%. (Though this isn't meant to disqualify criticisms / requests of turning current design to be closer than it currently is, I too want this. I'm just putting cards on the table here.)

Edit/Appendix: Whether or not having tried it in video game format, or comparisons with Solasta is beyond the point, I think most of the critiques among us, me included believes there's a lot of current changes steering away from PHB that would be better if changed back to RAW. Point is what was said, namely clear indication of some homebrew and creative liberty in interpretation of the ruleset. Expectations beyond this is solely on the player individually.


Similarly, based on.

Now here's the real kicker. It's not vanished. Here's every single interview available on google specifically published before 2020. Dig in!

The highlighted is obviously a lie though. Baldur's Gate 3 does not have a proper reaction system, and comments by Swen/Larian have heavily implied that they are still working on the reaction system to make it work better with 5e. But how can they simultaneously have had "ported [5e's reaction system] to the computer game" and yet, 1 year after EA release, 2-4 years past initial development, still have a reaction system with less functionality than tabletop that they're trying to make work more like 5e? Shouldn't they just able able to use that original build?

There are numerous other aspects of BG3 that don't make any sense if Larian truly "ported all the rules to the computer game" first. Height and Backstab Advantage, countless spells, shove checks not working properly (atheletics vs athletics/acrobatics skill check), jump+disengage bonus action, bonus action hide, darkvision, the short rest system, Prone implementing unconscious (and losing concentration), casting 2 leveled spells in a turn, surfaces, mage hand being a summon, the list goes on. And many of these are universal things, not niche "one subclass's ability" things that it'd be reasonable for Larian to implement only in later builds.

Sure, it's possible that
- Larian implemented all of these exactly matching 5e (modulo bugs and misunderstanding the rules)
- Larian then changed these things to their homebrew versions
- For a good number of them, Larian then changed BACK to closer to RAW

But it's overwhelmingly more likely that Larian did not start with a build that was just 5e rules. They started with a D&D-DOS hybrid which was much more DOS than it is currently, and only after releasing the game to the public they were told by many players about all the shortcomings of their homebrew changes and began implementing these things closer to per 5e rules.

Edit: To clarify, it's perfectly fine that Larian literally did not implement every single D&D rule first; "all rules" obviously is an exaggeration. At the very least they wouldn't have all classes implemented in this first build, which again is fine. The problem is the sheer number of important rules that were clearly changed from 5e RAW on initial EA release, rules which realistically wouldn't have been implemented that way had Larian truly tried 5e RAW first.

Oh I have my doubts as well. Could be that rules and systems are differentiated, or that it's implemented on a theoretical design level - Who knows. Not to get into depths of my speculations, it's rather besides the point. The point is what's said about promising an 'as faithful as possible' interpretation, which similar words have been said on context, but everyone's using that out of context here.

Thanks for those Composer.

These are some of the comments that I would point to as well, specifically as being misleading. A company can wiggle and wheedle and say "Yes well, saying 'utilise' is not the same as saying we're actually using that system", but that's not how it reads, or comes off. It comes off as saying: "Hey, what rule system are you suing for your game?" "We're using D&D 5e!". And that is not the reality... it may not have intended to mislead, but misleading it is. I will speak from the perspective of players, and payers, who read that, felt it said something very clear and quite specific, and then were upset when that turned out not to bee the case, and felt strongly misled.

This doesn't feel like it's based on D&D 5e at all - or at least it does not seem to be so - It feels like it's based on something more personal to Larian, with 5e being worked into it and mapped over it. It feels like it would have been more honest to say "We're excited to see how our Divnity style gameplay and mechanics can make use of a 5e framework".

Here is where I have to step away from pure analytics:


I've seen this quote plenty. I simply do not believe it. I cannot accept it as an honest statement of truth. It looks, smells, tastes and feels in every way, and with all evidence present, as a dishonesty. There is no feasible, believable way that they started with a faithful implementation, and then rolled through design process from that, to what we have now - something that in it's earliest patches was almost a majority built out of D:OS2.

At very best... at very best, what I can see in this statement that I could actually believe, is that they set out the rules for 5e On Paper, looked at them, and then said "Well, we can't do that and that with our engine, and the probably wouldn't be fun, I don't think, I want to do more than that... Let's do it our way, start with what we've got, and try to see how much of this 5e we can work in as we go." And all without much actual contact with playing 5e or D&D in general.


I'm sorry that I'm so cynical about that... I just cannot buy it.

Same, but it too is besides the point. I'm purely talking about player expectation of "faithful translation" being a hyperbolic self-imposed expectation that we as gamers often do (I fear I might be in that dangerous pool for Halo Infinite, biting nails in anticipation to not be disappointed) and using faint memories of statements where the context or details are long forgotten. I've provided the details and sources now, so you can make up your mind more clearly in a grounded way, so that our criticism can be genuine, instead of emotional or based on a fading memory.

Edit: I've even forwarded some criticism of my own that was brought up to Swen at some point, where I quote myself from private conversations:


Context here is Larian internally refers to acts as three-fold. DOS2 had three acts according to Swen: Fort Joy > Reaper's Coast + Nameless Isle > Arx. The rest of us would say Act 1 is Fort Joy, Act 2 is Reaper's Coast, Act 3 is Nameless Isle, Act 4 is ARX. That has seemed to be a trend for BG3 too which I believe is not speaking the language of the audience. So a lot of people think of EA as one third of the full game, because Act 1 out of 3 acts in the language they know from earlier games.

So there's all sorts of criticisms I'd make too, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to ensure that we're speaking the same language here, and not relying on inaccurate claims based on memory.

This is closer to what I'd imagine too. Which isn't necessarly bad IMO. But now it's up to us to voice that feedback (and I've forwarded soooo much...) and hope that Larian comes to their senses and give it a practical shot. One of my top current examples being certain bonus actions that should be actions as per PHB, because the ripple effect is undermining the class fantasy and value of eg. Rogue.

But it helps to focus on that, rather than misquoting and rallying up anger about something that is a fading memory at best. I know you, and that you're not angry. But one post leads to another, and halfway through the next page it'd be spiraling the wrong way otherwise by someone else that has less control of temper.

You are right, and I should have kept an eye on myself better - constructive conversation is what matters.

Though... I'm not sure what the odds are, at this point, of them taking a step back, giving the whole engine an overhaul to actually work in a way that's deigned for 5e, and going from there. It seems a slim hope given how far throug the process we are now.

But... wee do know that a major update to magic, spellcasting and its associated systems is something that is happening, so, maybe the best thing to do is remain vocal about wanting a game system that feels like it was legitimately made to play 5e or something 5e-like, and hope that the architectural changes continue.

I don't think you can disentangle Larian's promise that they "ported it to video game format" first from the general expectations of BG3 set by Larian. It's part of their Full Statement™ on how well BG3 will match 5e RAW, and taken together it heavily implies that BG3 will be as close to 5e RAW as possible. That the vast majority of changed rules will be those that are un-fun or simply don't work in a video game.

So I suppose it's breaking the spirit of their words rather than the letter (except actually the letter of the specific "ported 5e rules video game first" sentence). Yes, they literally said that there would be modifications. But they also implied that they'd only modify 5e rules when necessary, which doesn't seem to be the case imo.

Can I sue Larian for false advertising? Absolutely not. Am I disappointed at many of the (imo needless) changes away from 5e they've made, which doesn't quite match the impression I had prior to EA release? Yes. But of course, as you say, the best way to advocate for any changes is to argue for why BG3 would be better if Mechanic X was changed.

p.s. I agree that the "Act" language is confusing, especially given that Larian map design naturally leads to considering a single theme-park location as one "Act."

Edit: Added quote for convenience due to new page.

I feel that the odds are good for certain things like making shove/hide an action, most likely at best chance of happening along-side with reactions system implementation. I'd like to think that they're only bonus actions temporarily until missing systems are in place. At least that's my belief/hope that keeps me sane.

Stuff like Wizard being able to learn anything from scrolls is an easy fix too. That's just a matter of convincing the designers. Simple changes like those are very hopeful from a "easily doable from a technical PoV". I say that with confidence because I've worked with older versions of the engine for many years, and spend most of my time tinkering in the game files, than playing the game. I just cba doing anything with it until we actually have modding tools and compilers available. I stick with Dos2 until then.

However I used to view day/night cycle as a full hard impossibility due to the lighting system being similar to Dos2. I've made a day/night/weather system in Dos2, and I'm happy with the results for how I implement them, but it's limited to outdoor areas and certain circumstances due to limitations. However after lighting changes in patch 6, I'm more hopeful from a technical PoV, but still not convinced due to expense > pay (not economic, but manpower and time investment). Lots would really want it for atmosphere and a sense of immersion, time passing etc, so the convincing to be done there IMO is more at why it matters for the experience and adventure at this point.


Edit 2: I don't disagree with you, Mrfuji. There are many times where I daydream of being Larian's PR person; I have many ideas on how I'd do it both from a social media perspective, and community interaction. There are many things I'd have done / said differently.

Well. it wouldn't be the first time in these forums that I request that Larian hires you and the other mods to be just that

People make mistakes. I get that. They may have started out with the full intent of being 100% TT by the book and decided, "Ah crap! Budget, timing, the amount of work necessary, let's just DOS it for now and give them more D&D 5e later as time goes on."

Who knows?

I'm not out here trying to point fingers about what they promised, though I clearly remember my first time reading about the game. I remember the comments about true 5e adaptation.

BUT, I will say that what is hard to remember is whether Larian actually said it or someone else did. I will admit, with all the hype, it may have been a different source.

Regardless, the point still remains, BG3 is D&D-ISH right now. It can still be tweaked to be more D&D-ISH. I'm not expecting a full adaptation, but the more they make it 5e, the more honed and refined the game will get and the more Baldur's Gate it will feel.

In regards to "they have always said that they will adapt the rules to a version that works as a PC game": I think we all are fine with that. We know that there is no actual human DM, who can do stuff on the fly. We know some rules/abilities will not really work. So no one was really suprised that the GooLock did not have it's telepathy feature at the start of EA (and still does not have anything, sadly). This is a feature that is pretty useless in a computer game. But chaning up spells like chromatic orb? That is just changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

And in regards to things like reactions, bonus action economy and things like wizards learning all the spells: I will say it again and again. We NEED a roadmap. It is pointless to argue over these things while larian is just silent on all these issues.

But apart from all that, there is more to it than just the rules. Day/Night, animals roaming about; non-harmful ones like deer and rabbits.

Like in Neverwinter Nights. You walk around the forest and there's a stag, maybe a bear, etc. Right now, the Grove is where you encounter most animals. They don't have to be talkative. Just have them scamper off and squeak at you or something. BG1 and 2 didn't have talking animals. They just roamed the landscape.

It's about the little things. They all add up.

#4 is a thing that i hope they have already been working on as it would be good for depth and immersion. And if not its not too hard to add in if they have the time.

Everything else in the list if they haven’t already been working on its prob too late in development cycle now speaking from game software development experience.

I agree with those, who want a bit more faithful adaption of the 5e rules and the D&D world.
It's not about having the rules a hundred percent implimented, but have it feel more like 5e and less than a total homebrew.

I think it's within the scope still to make the game enough like D&D.


Mostly it has to do with stuff like...

- make Long Rest more restricted so it's actually a meaningful choice instead of a free ability and spell reset button

- nerf Jump height to 5e standards and add climbing as the main way to reach elevation

This is VERY important from a tactical point of view. Climbing should halve your movement and Athletics and Acrobatics need to matter. Terrain should be much more than just giving you a +2/-2 to attack.

- revert Shove and Hide to Actions, give Rogues their unique abilities back

- nerf Shove distance to 5e standards so combat doesn't turn into a ridiculous shove fest

- fix Wizards leaning other classes spells and every class using scrolls (and before anyone says it's more fun this way... that's what multiclassing is for and we don't have it yet)

- add saving throws to homebrew stuff like surfaces and bombs and whatnot, no inescapable damage

... instead of reading all oficial info properly and that is their misstake.

This could actualy be source of our disagreement ...
"As close as possible" ... do you even understand how loose frase that is?

One person could implement strictly every rule, as we say here litteral transcription of rules 1:1 ... and still feel that he didnt do good job in his effort to make it "as close as possible" since he didnt manage to imeplement something that would allow Illusion Wizard to create ilusion of anything he would like ...
Wich is possible in tabletop, but certainly not in videogame.

Other person cound implement only turn based combat, copy races and classes and that is it, and make everything else just they way he see fit, no matter what original rules say ... and yet feels like he did the good job, since in his eyes the game is "as close as possible", bcs making it more like 5e dont fit his idea of fun.

I mean ... its all about perspective ... "as close as possible" can mean both "as close as videogame system limitation would allow us" and "as close as we dare, while we still like the outcome" ... and neither of that is breaking any promises, its only matter of our own expectation. :-/

I think one of the things that need to be said is that Larian wants this game to also be accessible to people that have never played Dungeons and Dragons table top (which is why they may be using a lot of DOS mechanics). If you bombard a new player with rules and rules and more rules, you can wind up alienating them by making them feel like this is more for hardcore DnD 5e players. We all know that every company always wants new customers as many as possible. Which is why they will make changes in order to attract new customers/players even if the ones that have been there from the beginning may not like it. They should understand that in order for a product to remain popular the company needs to attract new people. In regards to wanting Baldur's Gate 3 to be RAW DnD game, you risk limiting access to players that have not played a DnD game but may be interested in this world setting. In order to draw someone into something, you have to gradually introduce them you don't want to bombard them.

You are comparing the numbers of a table top game to a video game. Those are two different fan bases with different numbers in different platforms. You say that the majority have not asked for 5e RAW which I agree, especially if you look at Reddit but there seems so be some here in these forums that do. I also agree that some may want more 5e type rules but there are those that want exact 5e rules at least in how I have seen it. If I'm wrong in that assumption then I'm wrong but as of right now that's how it seems.

Okay, I think you misunderstood my initial comment that you responded to. I wasn't referring to DOS players coming into DnD. I was referring to the general audience that may not have played a tabletop game. The reason why I mentioned DOS is because Larian is using those mechanics as its what made them popular. In terms of people coming into DnD, that has to do with the general audience and not DOS fans.

I think Larian implementing DOS mechanics is to attract the DOS players. Larian changing some of the 5e rules or reinterpreting them by maybe making them more easy in some way may be to attract the general audience that have not played the tabletop DnD game.

The 5e rules are not complicated. What we have now is 10,000 times more complicated.

Like Short Rest. Hit Dice is not complicated. You get unlimited Short Rest, but you have a number of dice to heal with based on level.

Instead, they homebrew it and limit you to 2 Short Rests. How many HP do you recover per Short Rest per character? I don't even know with their current system. 500+ hours and I have no clue. I just know I get some HP back, and usually a lot.

And only 2 Short Rests then force me to long rest more frequently, with a tadpole eating my brain.

And 1 year later, we're still trying to make the resting system make sense.

No. 5e is the least complicated D&D system ever made. It could translate so well to computer.