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

And that's their prerogative. That doesn't however, erase issues that they are creating.

Still, a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation. Larian doesn't want to make table-top simulator but a good computer game? Good, fix your game then. Bad mechanics and balance problems remain just that, no matter what were the reasons for their creation. I don't think that many of us would care about how BG3 compares to 5e (though I am sure some still would), if it worked.

I think you will also find quite a bit of inconsistency as to when Larian thinks that BG3 should feel like a tabletop dice game, and when it shouldn't. If there is one thing I am not entirely conviced about is that if Larian has defined, focused vision. BG3 seems to me to be all over the place.

???

Those are first person hack/slashers with dialogue options. Totally different mechanics and I don't think they're crossing tabletop with any elements of those games. What elements from those games says, "My character can jump 30 feet forward and 20 feet up and shove enemies 300 feet off a cliff and Rogues don't get Expertise but everyone can do anything so no class is special"?

None of the homebrew even closely says Dragon Age, Fallout or Skyrim. It's just changes to rules for the sake of changing the rules because they think the change is fun. I mean, seriously, what about stripping an Intellect devourer of its very signature Devour Intellect ability even remotely indicates they are crossing TT with any other VGs? Same question with stripping Rogues of their uniqueness... And clerics... And mages...

It sure doesn't seem to me that they are crossing anything. What it seems like is that they are trying to cater to players who just want more casual gameplay and not a challenge. Most who defend the "Larian Vision" don't seem to me to want their Rogues to be restricted from using scrolls and spells, Clerics from casting Magic Missile scrolls, etc. They want everyone to be able to do everything so nothing is special, and they want to fight super awesome monsters that are way beyond their characters' abilities because they are somehow gods, but in truth they aren't, the enemies are just extremely nerfed so that they only SEEM super tough when they're not. In no way ever should a party of less than 5 should face 3 even wounded intellect devourers at level 1 or a demon or cambions. Level 4 or less party of 4 or less should never face a Bullette or two minotaurs or a party of 4 githyanki or the mud mephits and wood woads...the phase spiders... SO many things.

Every encounter in the game is Deadly. Deadly! So they nerf them and strip them of their abilities to make them Easy or Medium Challenge Rating. Makes no sense. Why not make the encounters using different monsters that are legit Easy or Moderate? Why take Deadly monsters and extreme nerf them? And again, how is that even remotely a "video game" thing?

I'll tell you what that is. That's the DM at a tabletop session throwing a dragon at level 4 players and then flubbing the rules because he realized he is gonna kill his players. So he makes the dragon wounded and strips all of its special moves so that it doesn't wipe the party in one round. And the players are all like, "Oh yeah! We just killed a dragon! Woo hoo!"

You didn't kill a dragon. Fools! You killed an illusion dragon with NO real dragon characteristics. The DM just flubbed everything because he screwed up."

I've been there. Done that. Never forget the Darth Vader appearance I had during a Star Wars RPG session. I expected the players to run. They didn't. They attacked VADER! So, I severely nerfed him and then had some sort of lame "Stormtroopers rush in and save him" crap because they wound up killing Vader because I nerfed him. Bad! Bad! The players were like, "Come on. You let us win, didn't you?"

Yep. Sure did. Threw something too hard at you. Had to or game over and everyone's mad.

Let me make myself clear to you and everyone else here. I do in fact, agree with what you want for BG3. After you explained earlier in the thread and your list of the things that would make the game better. I agree and that would make the game better. What I'm trying to explain in regards to what Larian has done is a mixture of rpg type storytelling like you have with Neverwinter MMO, that game doesn't utilize the mechanics of tabletop but real time fighting. That's what I mean. Plus, Larian seems to have used DOS2 as a base for BG3 with a twist of DnD tabletop mechanics. This seems to be where a lot of us are having an issue because it's either they make a tabletop video game or they make an rpg with no tabletop like Neverwinter.

I agree it's all over the place because it seems they have used difference sources as a base for their game and just like mashed it all together.

And they also have said more than once that they are the GM/DM in this game. I take that as them saying, "This is our game with our vision, ect. whether you like it or not."

Ok. I understand what you're saying, Lady A, and I realize that. I do. I also do respect them as DM, whether it seems like it or not.

But they're asking for feedback from their players, which any good DM should do.

And my feedback is: Please don't nerf enemies and please make the game more realistic by removing a lot of the unrealistic homebrew, and make the classes and monsters unique again by giving them back their proper stats, and please create better ambiance with day/night, and please remove all the rays of sunlight in places that are dark, such as the Underdark, and all the other things that we've been suggesting.

I can agree with that.

Lady A. I appreciate you. I know we don't always agree, but I feel at least we can have a conversation without bashing our heads into the wall.

Thank you.

Fully agreed. Which is why I don't understand the pushback the OP is getting. The legwork is being done, a lot of good suggestions are being provided.

It would be great if the discussions converged towards the specifics, rather than debating the intent.

You're welcome. I think it always helps a conversation to find a common ground.

Here's another, shorter example of what I'm looking for.

You approach the gith Patrol. It's night. Ominous roar. "What the heck was that?"

"Dragon," says Lae'zel. "My kin are near."

Shadow of dragon created in moonlight seen on the ground. Ominous music begins.

Gith sequence happens at night (well potentially if you choose to travel by night). Dragon lights up the area with flames and lands.

You approach. If Shadowheart is with you, she suddenly refuses to go any further, and before you can say anything, she flees. You have the option of another character to add instantly to your party to replace her, or you can choose to go after her.

You replace her. Voss determines you must die but uses Detect Thought. "Ah! The weapon is in the hands of their cleric companion. Beretha. Kill them. Quedenos! To the sky. We will find their companion and retrieve the weapon.". And THAT'S why he leaves. He goes after SH who has the weapon.

If you go after SH instead, she absolutely refuses to go with you. Lae'zel, however, demands that you go. You must choose. Who will you listen to? Whoever you choose might impact your relationship and so forth.

The point: solid reasoning for why Voss leaves and also creates tensions in the party. Kinda like how Jaheira and Aerie would fight. We need better, sound reasons why Voss wouldn't just kill us himself and claim the credit for finding the weapon and we need more companion interaction that is full of flavor and tension and drama. Not to the point of being unfun, mind you, but some where it makes sense, like this scene.

Ah, I see and I totally agree with you there.

That's just an example of how characters aren't behaving like they should, but that one is outside of combat.

A Kith'rak would NEVER let a subordinate claim such a prize. His own pride would demand he kill the heroes and claim the weapon for himself. If anything, he'd have sent Beretha off to inform the others while his dragon torched us.

I also think it'd be cool to have to go hunting for SH afterwards and find her hiding someplace like Waukeen's Rest. Then you have to try to get back to the grove or something without being spotted by the randomly passing Quedenos. If you get caught, you have to try to run for it and find a place to hide or something before he catches and kills you. There are plenty of things they could do with this that would be scary exciting and lots of fun.

It's an opportunity missed in my opinion.

This. You really can see how they struggle to let go of some things that are really diametrical to the overall quality of the game. In one patch they tone down the surfaces just to change up a 5e spell to give it surfaces again. They need to come to terms that this is not and should not be DOS3. I also feel like they could not iterate and improve on their engine much more than they have and so they try to rely on things that worked before. Hence a lot of mash up from DOS2 mechanics into BG3.

They should work hard to rectify those things. The potential is huge for this game, but if we have 2 opposing design philosophies in one game it will feel bad.

And THAT is really what Lady A, I think, is referring to when she says a crossing of video game and tabletop. The truth is, BG3 is a blending of DOS2 and tabletop D&D because they took DOS2 and tried to make it D&D=ish probably for budget purposes and to see how well it was received. Then, realizing it wasn't received very well by many, they started to sort of implement more and more D&D 5e rules and such because so many fans on Steam, Reddit, this forum, and many others were screaming, "Why is this game a DOS sequel and not a BG sequel! It feels too much like DOS3 and not BG3."

So, they have been getting better in some ways, but we are still missing so many more elements, and that is my point. It feels MORE like a BG sequel, but it is still missing so many many things.

The biggest, for me, is the monsters. I'm telling you, one of the things that makes D&D what it is, it is the variety of monsters and their special abilities. A red dragon that can't breathe fire is not a D&D red dragon. It's some sort of Ice Drake from Lord of the Rings. (I'm just throwing out an example that's not in the game to make my point. If they threw a red dragon into the game and it didn't breathe fire ever, people would be like, "What the heck!")

See, part of the issue is that we have a lot of DOS fans and other video game fans who don't know much about the monsters of D&D. Therefore, they can't fully appreciate what is missing. I put the example of the Intellect Devourers in this thread because that is how they are supposed to be. In fact, I would even say that the example I put in here is so NOT even how they would act. The truth is, and the full lore of it is, they are stealth assassins. They wouldn't face you in direct combat unless they had to.

Here's what I'd REALLY like to see as a true and faithful adaptation of intellect devourers.

You meet Shadowheart. You come up the beach towards the nautiloid. Oh! There is a fisherman standing there. "Hi! Oh, am I so glad to see you. There are so many dead around here," he says. "Thank goodness you showed up when you did. Those monsters have been everywhere. Thankfully, I think we've killed most of them." A scream comes from inside the nautiloid. It's a woman's. "Oh no! Moira! She's in trouble. Quick! Please! Help me! My wife, Moira, is in trouble. One of those things must have her cornered or something." He darts into the nautiloid. You follow.

There's Moira and one other fisherman standing there. There is a mind flayer corpse at their feet. "Sorry," says Moira as you approach. "I was startled. It's nothing. It's just a dead one of those squiddies." Perception roll is made. You succeed and suddenly notice the third fisherman is sliding up behind you... with a CLUB! He sees that you spotted him and attacks.

All three attack you. You kill one. BAM! "What in the bloody Hells!" Shadowheart cries. "An Intellect Devourer! It sprang out of their head!" You kill another. Same result. You kill the third, same result.

Now, I'm not sure how you'd survive such an encounter against 3 of them at level 1 or 2 with only 1 MC and Shadowheart, because that would be more like a battle for 5 or 6 characters against 3 devourers, but THAT is how they should act and how the scene SHOULD go if done the way intellect devourers are supposed to act. The whole point of them is that they take over people's bodies. You have all these fishermen on the beach that they supposedly killed. Why would they NOT take over ANY of their bodies and try to use them to lure you and others into a trap like they're supposed to?

No. They act like brute thugs, like brain-washed Kuo-Toas. Or they could even just be human and elven and dwarven and halfling and gnomish thralls, like you find on the nautiloid. That would make more sense as a starter fight.

But, don't get me wrong, facing 3 intellect devourers is an awesome concept and I like the encounter. I just think that the execution is done poorly and doesn't fit at all with their MO. They should have taken over fishermen, they should try to lure you into a trap, and then they should try to kill you, first using the bodies of the fishermen, and then in their true forms. Sure, they could be weakened because there was a huge fight and crash, but then they should only have maybe 2 or 3 HP each, because at level 1 or 2, your characters will still have a hard time killing an intellect devourer with only 2 or 3 HP, because most of your attacks are going to be with Resistance, taking only half damage. And if they can take each character down in a single round, you're pretty much screwed if you roll poorly and they roll well, especially if they ambush you at close range, like they should.

This, again, is why a party of 6 max makes the most sense for the encounters that are presented in the game. Even if three devourers attack your party at close range, you still have a few that might escape to a distance and peg wounded devourers off until they die. A single mage might be able to kill all three with magic, making the mage more special because some enemies are more easily killed by mages as opposed to fighters and rogues. That is, again, WHY distinct classes are so vital to the game. Mages, right now, have very little meaning or purpose because there are no enemies that only mages are truly effective against.

The intellect devourer fight should be grunt fighter and rogue trying to distract the devourers while the mage pounds them even with his/her cantrip Firebolt spell. 1d10 damage each time the mage hits is much more effective because no resistance exists against the mage, while the fighter and rogue are trying their hardest to barely chip away at the beasts with piercing and slashing weapons. The mage suddenly becomes the star of that battle because the devourer isn't resistant to the mage.

Later, the cleric is special because his/her radiant damage and turn undead is super effective against the undead scribes and the undead in the Necromancer's lair. Ah! The purpose of the cleric is not just to heal, but to help destroy undead easier. The undead might overwhelm the party without a cleric, but because they had the cleric, the battle was actually not that hard at all.

Later, during the fight against a horde of goblins at the camp, the fighter and rogue are suddenly the stars. The fighter and rogue, working together in tandem, wipe the floor with the hordes because the fighter has higher attack and defense in melee and the enemy keeps trying to take the fighter down, but they can't hit or do much damage. The rogue is popping in and out of the shadows using sneak attack and pulverizing their numbers while they are focusing on trying to kill the fighter. The mage is using all his/her defense spells just to keep the enemies at bay during this fight, and is attempting to support where they can. The cleric is healing everyone as much as possible and supporting with buffs. But ultimately, it is the fighter who shines during this horde battle because each time the fighter hits, he/she is hacking a goblin's head off because they are mob fighters, and the fighter at level 4 is a brutal force to be reckoned with.

The rogue shines as well when sneaking and breaking and entering and stealing vital things from enemies and SETTING TRAPS!!! Where is the rogue setting traps thing? We can't even really find traps in the game that we can have the rogue use. The rogue should be able to sneak around the entire dang goblin lair and set traps and then the party lures Minthara and Ragzlin and such into said traps and BOOM! or SNAP! Ugh! 10-15 HP lost for Minthara or Ragzlin because the rogue set a trap that he/she walked right into.

THESE are the D&D elements that are truly missing. THESE are the things that make D&D what D&D is supposed to be. Unique classes. Unique monsters with unique special abilities and combat strategies that you, the player, must learn and must figure out how to overcome. THAT is the true fun of the game. You, the player, don't always know every monster and how they are supposed to behave and act, but you learn real quick when they utilize their special abilities and such against you in combat. It is, then, the DM's job to teach you these things through combat experience without killing you.

And here, again, we return to the max party size of 6. This is so vitally important because it is much easier for a DM to accidentally wipe out an entire party of 4 than an entire party of 6. Even in the intellect devourer ambush scenario, a party of 5 or 6 would have at least a few members who were able to escape the ambush and fall back using disengage to put some distance between them and the intellect devourers. Then they could peg the devourers from a distance and keep their distance so that the devourers can't get up close enough to kill them. If you only have 4 party members at the most, or if it was really just 1 MC and Shadowheart, the ambush scene is in no way possible. 3 Devourers would easily wipe out 1 MC and Shadowheart. Thus, the game's ability to present you, the player, with really cool encounters like this one is completely limited because it doesn't take much for 3 devourers to wipe 1 MC and Shadowheart, not if you keep them true to their characters.

So, again, I say the game needs a party of 4 to start, whether in single player or multiplayer, the base starting number of characters should be 4. Then you can add up to 2 more, or switch some of the 4 in and out with some of the other origin characters as you proceed through the game for a total max party size of 6. Why? Because then Larian could truly present players with more awesome combat scenarios like 3 intellect devourers ambushing them in the form of fishermen up close and personal, and the player would still not be totally wiped out at the very start of the game.

A team of four is standard in multiplayer games.
There is a fairly simple reason for this, it's hard to find more players.
Another thing is that a lot of arenas are completely not adapted to more characters and will end up being extremely tight. Of course, if you increase the number of characters, you must also increase the number of enemies.

As for the intellect devourer they had to be weakened, I can't imagine fighting them on level 1 if they had instant kill ability (instant kill abilities is a bad project).
Intellect devourers are quite famous monsters that are associated with mind flayers, so putting them in the prologue makes perfect sense.
Changing opponents to match the campaign you want to launch is not unusual or even wrong.

Clarification: 4 players, max party of 6 (2 NPCs). That is the suggestion.

And the point is that every encounter in the game right now works with party of 5 or 6 if you use proper stats and abilities. The reason encounters are severely nerfed is because they tried building it for party of 4 or less max. Thus, they severely hinder the game and limit encounters to fit the 4 or less party max mold.

The game would benefit therefore from a party size 6 so they could actually legitimately have players face what they designed the game for them to face instead of stripping monsters of abilities and behaviors that make them what they are.

This discussion reminds me of the debates about what happens when great books are made into movies. Ultimately no matter how good the movie there are always debates about the screenplay (which is the adaptation of book to movie) and whether or not it has done justice to the book.

That's nice, but that's not what this is. This is a suggestion to Larian about changing elements of the game to make it better because they asked for feedback while developing the game.

So, it's more like having a prescreening and then asking the viewers what they thought and how they should tweak the movie to make it better. I'm telling them to make it more like the book if they don't want fans to be disappointed.

I on the other hand cant help the feelin that Ranxerox hit the nail.