Somewhat. Though the great thing about suggesting "give us D&D" mode is that the D&D rules already have all the specifics. I guess, if I had to specify, I'd argue for: give us a "D&D combat mechanics" mode.
Yup that would be better ...
You know the problem here is just wording ... you are here long enough to know that unless people specificly say what exactly they wish to change and how, it allways turn into "pure transcription 1:1 of tabletop rules" ... wich was multiple times confrimmed by Swen himself that is not going to happen.
Also there are things that are really fun, and other things that should be changed ... so it would be fine to be clear on what do you really wish to change ... just stating "give us DnD more" means litteraly everything in game ... state "i want DnD combat mechanics" is a little better, but it would still mean everything related to combat.
Few examples ...
There are things that are not acording to rules, but should remain as they are:
- Allowing people to cast second leveled spell after they cast Misty Step, even tho rules forbids it ...
- Allowing people to use bonus action to drink potion, since i dont think that give something to your mouth and gulp is so complex task so it would require full action ...
- Allowing people to have +2 to AC from shield at all time kinda makes sence ... since the shield is still there its just protecting your back, instead your front while you hold Bow ... also if you are not profficient, you get Disadvantage to everything at all time, not just when you are holding it ...
Etc. etc.
- Allowing people to use Barrels ... i will not start this conversation again, there is topic about that
Yes, I have been here long enough to know that "unless people specifically say what exactly they wish to change and how, it always turns into a 'pure transcription 1:1 of tabletop rules'." But many of the times this happens, it's because
other posters strawman OP's argument, which is not something the OP should have to consider when posting. It's (usually) not their fault others interpret their words in an extreme light. In this exact thread, OP posted
I would suggest that Larian develop a "D&D mode", which actually attempts to implement 5E rules as closely as possible
The highlighted part allows for slight differences between BG3's "D&D mode" and 5e RAW for things that are needed,
nearly exactly matching Swen's initial statements on BG3's 5e rule implementation. E.g., the Ranger (which is so bad that there have been multiple revisions to it), weapon ranges (to accommodate Larian's map style), and all the things relating to the lack of a real-time GM to make judgement calls. But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Shove=Bonus Action or grenades dealing damage twice (on a hit and from the surface) are "needed" changes.
The rest of your post (regardless of which points I agree/disagree with) is your opinion about what should be changed. Which again, shouldn't affect what other posters post. People are free to want and argue for a "full D&D mode literally everything in the game" even if you/I/others disagree. Hopefully, you would then post your suggestions in response, and others would disagree/agree and the conversation would iterate. Instead of responding saying that OP's opinion is unreasonable because it doesn't match what Larian initially said and/or X players wouldn't want it.
In conclusion: I agree that OPs should be specific about what they want, but a lack of specificity gives room for further discussion, not dismissal of the argument. And "D&D mode"
is specific; only OP can say whether they were exaggerating or if they really do want all 5e rules.
