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

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.