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

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."