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

These 2 comments succinctly describe this forum, to me:



The following isn't directed at anyone in particular:
I am here to share ideas and acquire more perspective. I say tell me more about how the game (or the program) can be better. If there is something I don't agree with I'll ignore the thread or comment. If you think people are complaining too much on the forum start a thread where you can complain about people complaining on this forum (or point me to it so I can read, please ).

With that out of the way...

I think "inspired by" has a different connotation than "based on" (this is from the perspective of a speaker of American English, to be precise). Regardless, had I discovered that my description of a product was not accurate I know that I would try to correct it because I wouldn't want to mislead people. Maybe Larian Studios shares my way of thinking and appreciates that people bring it up so they can do something about it. Maybe Larian Studios doesn't agree and, you know, it is what it is. I can get over it. The fact that it comes up in discussion, however, is enough to show that it is worth discussing, no?

Woah deja vu.

I want more D&D rules because I believe the gameplay - combat, exploration, class balance, immersion - will be improved over Larian homebrew in many of the cases and make BG3 a better game. Furthermore, it will more easily allow for people to play their favorite PnP characters in BG3 & vice versa, as well as enabling custom D&D 5e campaigns to be created using any possible BG3 editor.

The discussion on Larian's (original or more recent) advertising of BG3 is somewhat relevant to the topic of "Is more D&D rules good?", as people could be (and are, as expressed by various posters) disappointed at the lack of 5e rules which might affect enjoyment. But more 5e rules doesn't necessarily make a better game, so it's best to make arguments as to why/how rule X would improve BG3.

It doesn't have anything to do with being insulting, it's a statement of fact. If Hasbro or WotC weren't happy with the direction the game is heading in, they would insist on changes, or pull the plug. Your dissatisfaction does not mean we're playing soccer, instead of American football, it just means that your expectations weren't met. Of course, we're who knows how long from release, with who knows how many difficulty levels to accommodate most people's requests, so a lot of this is premature, to say the least. However, trying to claim that you bought apples, and got oranges is demonstrably false. This is what I'm referring to. You can wish that the game was anything you like, and post as such. But when you try to advance your narrative with false statements, you're not helping anyone want to support it.

That's great, did either of those games advise you to skip their purchases if you were looking for a polished experience?

I didnt, i was just pointing out that it is only an opinion.

That is exactly the thing ... they didnt.

Exactly ... "based" ... that is important word here.

Also Steam is completely different company, they only care about you buying stuff from there ... they dont care what kind of stuff it is, or if they are advertising properly, as long as you pay and dont refund.

Maybe ...
And then they would probably say something like "this is what we play, take it or leave it" ... world can be harsh. O_o

The problem is that quote i posted earlier ...
No matter how much you dislike it, they made it pretty clear ... its not their fault you didnt listen. :-/

And also totally true.

And you are trying to say what exactly here?

That its their fault, that you run for all your gear while they were explaining all those things you "never had the time to listen"? O_o
Or that they all have to submit to what YOU wanna play? Gosh imagine such world. :-/ Horrible.

Oh then you would have time to listen?

But it isnt ...
So that would be the lie you are acusing them from ... thats really fascinating btw.

And what those interviews were, if not advertising?
I would really want to know.

I mean if you refuse to listen to actual developer team leader, and you are listening to some 3rd side companies who just want to sell you some product and dont care at all (on the contrary to that developer) if the product will be satisfying or sucessfull for you ...
I think i have just found the core of your problem and once again, its not Larian fault. :-/

Well, bad luck for you i gues that you buyed something without knowing what it is ...
Funny fact: You didnt have to watch "all" of them ... "any" of them would be enough, since Swen keeps repeating it since their AMA on Reddit.

"Everyone everywhere" ... while nobody (except you) never seen any of them ... and nobory (including you) was ever able to show here at least one of them?
I must admit i would expect it to be a little more known if there was so much of them.

Try not blame me ...
But its hard to believe you, since you are unable to support your opinion with anything else than "i thought this mean" ... yes you thought, and you thought wrong ... that happens even if its (how is the expression? hard pill to swallow i believe).

This is first sentence i kinda like in this post ... except seems like reasonable feedback.

Except i have seen in other topic (and posts) what would you like to change to achieve that and it seems to me like sumarize it with single word would be: Everything.
Im affraid that is not going to happen.

Serious question: "doesn't make sense" to whom?
And how is he going to decide that?

But are you able to draw a line?
So far i didnt seen it ...

Speaking for myself on THIS particular topic ...
- I would certainly not change spells they should stay as RAW as possible. (Chromatic orb, Elemental Arrows, Cantrips, but also reactions)
- I would certainly not incerase HP of creatures manualy, instead if i find combat too easy i would simply add another creature. (Githyanki patrol, Halsin, ...)
- I would certainly not allow everyone to use everything (not just scrolls, but also weapons and throwable items ...)
- And finaly i would certanly not strip certain classes from stuff they are suppose to know.

But abowe that? Most things seems quite fine to me. Or at least i cant think off anything else.
So claiming that game that would need so little changes "dont feels like DnD at all" seems quite harsh to me ... not like actualy objective criticism, more like upset complaining, while blood is still hot and person is just kicking around without true purpose. :-/

And back to angry kicking ...
They are not "stripped of just about any purpose" ... the differences between classes are a little more blurry right now, that is true ... but there still are differences, sometimes big sometimes smaller ...

But if you wish to claim to me that you are able to create single class that is able to do everything the other class can do without any special threatment ... please tell me your example.
I will then show you where you are wrong.

You mean litteraly two monsters?
Imps and Phase Spiders?

While Imps were purposely nerfed by Larian bcs they find out of their gathered data that Imps were too strong for tutorial?
Now you demand to return them back to their strong version to achieve ... what exactly? Except pleasing you specificaly.

And Phase Spiders ...
Yes i know you are upset they are spiting poison, yes i agree they would be much better enemies if they would attack with bite instead ... but where is difference between them misty step towards you ... and them dissapearing to another plane of existence and then reappear next to you?
Also note that might easily be just placeholder, we dont know.

Yeah surfaces are kinda Larian thing, we all know that by now ...
It could be done better, true ... i myself posted few suggestions while i still believe that toggable button, just like metamagic would be the best.
But they are not giving up on them completely.

About items ...
I just have to ask: How is the fact that items are superimportant "nod DnD" ? O_o

Yup ... yup ... nope ... sory.

Cant say it does to me. O_o

Yup ... and we allready have them. :-/

Personaly i dont need another Solasta i allready have it ... now i want BG-3 ... not Solasta 2 made by Larian. O_o
I thought you also want BG-3 and not DoS-3 ... so you should understand this.

This is fine in my eyes ... that is what this forum is for ...
Claiming that they lied to you is not ... especialy since they didnt and you should know that.

For reference, the following description is on both Steam and GOG (2 separate companies that are not Larian) which suggests that Larian approved of the description in these places where the game can be purchased:

Evolved turn-based combat,
based on the D&D 5e ruleset. Team-based initiative, advantage & disadvantage, and roll modifiers join combat cameras, expanded environmental interactions, and a new fluidity in combat that rewards strategy and foresight.

For reference, the following is a snippet of the description for Solasta on GOG:

True to the Tabletop
Wizards of the Coast granted Tactical Adventures a license to use the Dungeons and Dragons SRD 5.1 Ruleset, further anchoring our will to make the most faithful video game adaptation with the Tabletop Ruleset and craft the game you are hoping for!


Those snippets are just to save people some time.




This is an interesting question. How much change is too much? When is it no longer "based on". And how do you define "based on" is important to understand as well. To me, based on means there will be little derivation; if any. That is only my interpretation.

As a customer I can say that I, personally, did not go looking for all the interviews. I read what was on GOG and paid for the game. I also am not familiar with D&D 5e so my point is only that some people just read the description presented at the store. I believe it can also be argued, however, that a person should do their due diligence and research before they buy. That would be fair to say, right?

Ah whatever. Your arguments are invalid and inaccurate, and that's a statement of fact. I know you are but what am I.

Come on. Cut it out.

Look. Like it or not. My opinion: The game would be better, feel more like D&D, which was what Swen stated was the goal, if they implemented more D&D 5e.

I've already stated specific examples of things I'm referring to:

Monster stats and abilities more closely aligned with actual 5e stats and abilities so monsters act like they should according to established lore.

More class distinctions based on 5e so that classes are more appropriately defined and special, as opposed to items ruling the entire game and making classes virtually pointless.

More 5e rules actually followed because when you don't follow them you quickly deteriorate the entire game mechanics that were built in a balanced fashion, like Rogue Expertise making Rogues better at certain things than other classes, thus making them valuable, and only clerics being able to use revive scrolls and such (other classes as well, but just making a point), and on and on and on and on like I've said for the last 16 pages.

This isn't about me not getting what I want. The whole point of the football analogy was that the names of the games are the same. Football. But the rules are vastly different. As a result, if you play one version of football, you get something TOTALLY different from the other version. It's still called football. It just doesn't feel like the other type of football at all.

You guys are so adverse to D&D 5e rules. I've said on more than a thousand occasions, all I'm asking for is that they give us D&D players the OPTION to play actual D&D 5e rules with proper stats, etc. Give all of you the OPTION to still play the game however you want with all your DOS-like rules and gimicks with classes all jacked up and so forth, but at least give us who like D&D the ability to play the game that we were told we were going to be playing; D&D 5e. Some D&D players don't like all the rules. That's fine. Like Fantasy Grounds, give us options to tweak the rules.

Basically, I came to play some American Football. You came to play European Football. Fine. Give me an oblong ball and let me and my friends play American Football over here while you and your friends play European Football over there. Blending the two is not going to work. In the end, one side or both is going to be unhappy, and it's going to be bad for the game.

I love this game's story and premise and characters and so forth. What I don't like is the rules they are using. It's D&D-ish if you stretch yourself real hard, but it isn't really D&D.

So, I'm asking for them to create the OPTION to allow players to have the rules set to their preference. Things like this:

High Ground = +2 by default to AC and Attack. Option to make it Advantage. Option to turn it off. (Notice, this provides players the ability to decide whether they like a homebrew for high ground at all. I kinda like it, even though it's not RAW 5e. So might turn it on.)

Cover = No benefit by default. Option to make it +2 to AC. Option to provide Advantage. (Again, notice, by default, cover should have no benefit based on 5e. So currently, it is RAW 5e. However, I might like a homebrew for it because I think it makes sense. Still, what I'm asking for is that they at least give us the OPTION to choose to play full blown RAW 5e if that's what we really want.)

Long Rest = Unlimited by default. Option to make it Restricted. Can only Long Rest at certain Rest Areas like Emerald Grove. (You might say this isn't a RAW 5e rule. However, no DM would allow players to just randomly long rest whenever they want wherever they want without some sort of consequence or restriction at all. "Say, Mr. DM. We just killed a goblin leader. Hmmm. But we're pretty banged up. Can we Long Rest right now inside their goblin base?" "No! Are you insane?" says the DM. "There're goblins all around you, and they're super pissed. Get out and then I'll maybe let you find a safe place to rest.")

Drink Potion = Bonus Action by default. Option to make it Action like the 5e rules state. This makes the Rogue's Fast Hands special ability meaningful and more beneficial. Otherwise, why really take Fast Hands... oh... well... unless you homebrew like they currently have. So, the ask is to give us the option to set Drink Potion to Action so that Fast Hands doesn't need a homebrew but can be used mostly as it should. Also, drinking potions as a a Bonus Action makes clerics even less valuable to the party, because anyone can still attack AND heal themselves with the plethora of potions in the game without any real consequences.

Shove = Bonus action by default. Option to make it an Action like the 5e rules state. Why? Because I can literally shove someone off a cliff and kill them and then run up to another enemy and attack them with my sword and kill them; effectively killing two enemies in one round. Oh, and btw, the enemies can do that to you too BEFORE you can even act. This very seemingly small thing completely throws off combat, making it more volatile especially as you gain higher levels. 3 out of 4 times when I start the Githyanki Patrol fight, they are attacking twice AND still doing things like shoving my characters around; 3 actions, basically, in one round, and since they are standardly fast, that means they are usually having at least one or two go first, seriously beating the snot out of my characters even before I get a chance to go once. Cutting down on these kinds of homebrews limits both players and enemies more, thus stabilizing combat better and balancing it out better. But, again, I'm only asking for the option so I can play a more stable, realistic combat without enemies making two or three attacks per turn (shove also being an attack whether you call it an attack or not).

Scrolls = Unrestricted by default. Option to make them restricted by class per 5e rules. Again, this adds value to the different types of casters. Clerics being the only ones who are able to use healing scrolls, especially revives, makes them SO much more valuable to the party. If you even have a cleric sitting at camp and you didn't bring them with, but you know you can go get them and bring them to a dead companion to rez them, that cleric is still a very valuable member of the party to have around. If anyone can rez, clerics are less valuable.

Attunement of Items = Unrestricted by default. Option to make it so that you have to attune per standard 5e rules in order to use certain items effectively. This prevents characters from just combing through their inventory and selecting any old item whenever they might need it to use in a particular fight. You have to be more strategic about which items you attune your characters to so that you aren't just willy-nilly grabbing the flaming sword to use against an enemy who is weak to fire and then in the next couple of rounds pulling out your ice sword and using it because you're now fighting an ice vulnerable monster. You might have to strategically spread your items out around your party, making sure at least someone has an item that is of fire and someone has an item of ice and so on and so forth so that you are working as a team instead of just solo-ing everything in the game because you can switch to just the right item whenever you need it. (Again, though, just asking for the option.)

Jump = Crazy Larian jumping 30 feet distances over people's heads by default. Option to make it so that my characters jump actual normal distances per 5e rules so they aren't jumping over people's heads like super heroes, and their distances align with movement speed, not allowing to add additional distance beyond normal movement speed.

Shoving distance = Able to shove someone 300+ feet down a pit in certain areas by default. Option to only allow characters to shove characters 5 feet, like in the 5e rules. Also, ability to shove prone, or both combined. Why? Because ridiculously unrealistic shove distances make the game more volatile. I was literally tossed 300 or more feet by a drow in the Underdark and still somehow my character survived with 1 HP. I was a good 10-15 feet from the edge, but the drow still shoved me off the edge and I continued to soar further away and down to a lower level. That character was SO far from the battle, she never got back into it by the time it was over, all because of the ridiculous shove distances. You all might like that, but I'd like some realistic 5 feet distances please (monsters and characters with greater strength naturally receiving some additional distance since it makes sense that they are stronger and could therefore throw someone further.)

Item special abilities = Allowing players to use special abilities like cleave and lacerate based on weapon choice by default. Option to turn these off because they make the fighter's special maneuvers no longer as special and unique, since now every class can equip certain items and gain special combat maneuvers.

Shall I go on? Over and over again, Larian has stretch or changed the rules. The game barely even seems like D&D because of it.

Seriously. I could go on if you want. I could give you more and more and more rules that are either broken or stretched or changed to exhibit just how much NOT like D&D 5e this game is.

Medicine checks are not there for stabilizing fallen companions. I'd like the option to add this please because by making it so anyone can, Medicine is far less of a valuable skill. Why even bother having it for just those few random dialogue options you get?

Stealth and Perception are broken. Sight cones make it so that Stealth isn't even a thing, AND BY THE NINE HELLS, why can't Astarion or any of my rogue characters maintain Stealth ever when they do accidentally waltz into a sight cone? EVER. I know the enemy gets advantage and all when in line of sight, but I can't think of a time it has ever happened that my rogue or Astarion were able to succeed in a Stealth check when they accidentally stepped into a sight cone. Oh! Wait! Expertise might help with that.

Intellect Devourers have no resistance, no Body Thief or Devour Intellect.

Phase Spiders spit poison and don't Ethereal Jaunt, they have Super Misty Step instead.

The hag's abilities are supremely more powerful than any standard hag. Now, granted, she's a boss. So homebrew is okay, but dang! Why not make the encounter with the hag be that she has some banderhobbs or redcaps to help her and make her slightly less powerful, like a normal hag might be... with maybe a few little surprises as opposed to some arcane bad-butt who can create 3 or more versions of herself that aren't illusions but actual versions of herself that can cast spells as well and blast all of you to pieces each round because they can, like the homebrew phase spiders, teleport across hundreds of feet far enough away from you that you can't get to them before they pummel you to death.

Wood Woads don't act like wood woads and don't have their abilities and stats, and neither do mud mephits.

Imps don't have sting and resistances and the ability to turn invisible.

Oh... right. No one asked me to go on. I should stop now because I can STILL go on and on about how different this game is from D&D 5e.

So, again, I ask... are we really playing a game based on D&D 5e? Hmmm. I guess in the sense that it is called D&D 5e with D&D 5e monster names and appearances and characters are called clerics and rogues and fighters and druids, but the point is that there are so many differences that we are not really playing D&D 5e. Are we?

Hey, I could get all over believing this, if quotes hadn't been provided just a few posts up saying something completely different from what you're claiming here.

Dont you just love the irony?

I've got a question for you, are you aware of the myriad of books that are based on DnD? Perhaps you've even read some of them, like the Dragonlance Chronicles series, or any of the Salvatore books? They are intertwined into the lore, and based solidly around their respective franchises, but none of them follow any rules whatsoever. Based on does not mean 1 to 1 representation, it means that it's tied to the source material. It could be through rules, as modules and campaigns for TT are, or that they are set within the setting(s), such as the novels I've referenced. A video game can fall anywhere in between, and still be based on the setting, just as a movie can be, or a cartoon.

The full quote, to be fair, was:

It appears to be sarcastic. The last part is a common thing kids might say (American perspective).

My memory sucks (specifically recall vs recognition). I know that name: Salvatore...

I think the real argument we're getting at here is "based on" vs "adapted from" vs whatever else. I am more familiar with the phrase "...that movie is adapted from the book..." but I also hear people say "based on". Ultimately, it comes down to how you interpret the words, right? If someone misinterprets the description of the game then that's on them and I will blame myself whenever I do. I still am interested in hearing people's suggestions for how they think the game, or program (I am a programmer so I also have this perspective), can be better. If I don't agree, know enough about, or care about the suggestion then I won't try to contribute to the discussion.

Look. You and Raggy both like to debate. I'm not here to argue or debate. I'm here to provide suggestions. If you want, you can be the winner. You have proven me wrong or something. My point is totally stupid and invalid or whatever you want to call it. You're the winner of the BG3 Debate about whether Larian misrepresented everything or whatever. I could really care less about that.

Bottom line = Me and others like me, lots of us on various forums across various gameplay systems, were under the impression this game was going to be based on D&D 5e. We bought the game partially for that reason and partially because it was BG3, a sequel to a very good series of games. We were told they were trying to make the game feel like D&D 5e. So, we expected something closer to D&D 5e.

So all I'm saying is that I am hoping Larian will please please please at least give us some settings so that we can set the game to play more like a true D&D 5e game. I'm not even asking them to strip the game of all of its homebrews that you guys are so fond of that you don't want them to ever change them. Just at least give me and others like me the option to set the defaults to D&D 5e so that we can play the game the way we want to.

If they don't, that's fine. I'll probably still like the game. Will I buy another game from Larian. Probably not. Call me what you want. Say I'm a baby and throwing a tantrum if you'd like. Doesn't matter. The bottom line is, if you, the seller, don't give your customer what they thought they were buying, and then you don't try to do what you can to fix it, and you don't give them a refund either, there's going to be one unhappy customer who is likely never going to trust you again as a seller or buy anything from you again.

I'm asking them to try to give us D&D players some true D&D experience, and if they don't deliver, because they're too stuck on their quasi-DOS/D&D whatever it is that they're going for, then fine. They'll probably just have a lot of unhappy customers who never want to buy another game from them. If they can live with that, fine. Good for them. I wish them all the success in the world.

This phrase threw me off too and I wish they had never said it, because for a lot of us we interpret it as being as close to the original as possible but adding some things. This is not what was done here, and I know I would not have certain expectations of the game if this phrase had never been used.

Most movies/books/whatever that say "based on a true story" mean that the true story is shown as much as possible but blanks may be filled and some events slightly modified depending on the audience. A recipe "based on grandma's cooking" usually means that the old recipe has some tweaks to it but is mostly the same.

Exactly. Dark Alliance is set in D&D, but it is not 5e. No problem with it because no one ever said it would be based on 5e. Neverwinter Online too. Pathfinder says it is based on 3.5e, so guess what, when I play on Core rules setting, I get a game that is truly close to 3.5e. it isn't perfect TT, but close.

Remember also that in their initial advertising Larian said they'd be utilising the 5e ruleset "as faithfully as possible".

This was a poorly chosen set of words for them to use at that time, and didn't communicate their actual intention - they probably should not have said that in the first place, when describing what they were doing; it would have saved a lot of bad blood from people who were pulled in specifically because of that description.

Thats the thing .. people keep saying this around here but are unable to support such claim with any link or other proof ...
On the other hand there is MANY sourced materials where Swen say exact oposite. :-/

That really forces me to being sceptical about its autenticity ...
So far the best explanation seems to be that those words are either cut out of very important context ... like: "we would like to utilise 5e as faithfull as ppssible BUT some things just dont trnslate well into videogame and our first and most important goal is to make fun game." Or that they were actualy never spoken at all and its just someone own interpretation. :-/

Turnabout is fair, Rag: Where are your sources and citations. Prove those "Many" examples you've repeatedly alluded to, please.

Yes, the original statement was that they would be making the game using the 5e system as faithfully as possible. The sentence that followed that was, indeed, a version of "but there are some things that don't translate well, so we'll be making tweaks", which is a non-statement when discussing a PnP to Video Game conversion, because not one single person ever expected that it would be 100% rules faithful, or ever wanted it to be. No-one has ever adopted that stance, Rag. No-one. Of course there will be translation tweaks! That's a GIVEN! Everyone KNOWS that's a given... so people took the actually meaningful part of that statement which was the "we're doing 5e as faithfully as possible" part, and got interested, because even other games that are far, far more authentically faithful to their D&D source never made a statement that strong... so folks were hopeful and intrigued.

Here's some more:


A different interview:


The strong tone of this is that it's being done majority faithful, with just a few necessary tweaks for small minutia-grade things that needed to be adapted due to the medium change. It's a misleading comment.

Another:


Again, strong implication of a reasonably faithful implementation.

Another:



There would not be so many news articles using the phrasing if it wasn't something that many, many people latched onto when it was first spoken.

As I recall you were also watching the thread when Sadurian linked the specific original interview from which the quote was taken... so casting suspicion on its authenticity now ill-becomes you and is deeply dishonest of you.

I believe i did on previous page ...
So here it is once again:
This ...
Plus practicaly any panel from hells ...
And ask me anything event from reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/fhk8iw/the_official_larian_ama_is_live/
(search for 5e and you will be able to find few answers from larian talking about alternations from original rules)

Seems like enough examples to me. O_o

Look at my surprised face :I
I really dont know what else to say, this is quite significant context in my eyes to left out. :-/

I would not be so sure, but lets say you somehow know mindset of millions of people ... for the sake of discusion.

As i asked in previous page, the important question here is where to draw a line?

What is good deviation from the rules and what is bad?
What is cool and what is too much?
And most importanly ... what exactly do you wish to achieve with those changes ...

I mean GM4HIM often mentions Imps ...
Imps in the tutorial never had all their DnD abilities (in EA at least), that is true ... and yet some people managed to loose against them and die.
Therefore Larian tweaked them even more ... and created some "even lesser than lesser version" of themselves ... that was change based on acutal experience.
Now GM4HIM wants them to give Imps their power back and in fact make them a lot more powerfull than they ever were. O_o
What would be purpose of such change?
Yes, we would have "perfectly fiting 5e monster" ... wich would be as perfectly unfiting this particular seting as it even can ... and? I really want to see at least single benefit, since i cant find any. :-/

And yet here we are. O_o
Yet another topic talking about how was bad and evil Liarian ( ) promising faithful transmision of 5e rules and didnt deliver ...

Forgive me for being sceptical. :-/

Exactly what im saying ...
People pick the part they wanted to hear and give it much biger value than it ever had ... not Larian fault tho ...

I would never ever expect myself to quote Tuco but as he said:
There is nobody as deaf as the one who refuses to listen. :-/

First of all (and feel free to aply this to all quotes you posted) ...
Usualy people add source link, since this way is still just something you claim Larian said ...

Then, while this might be my poor english ...
I dont see here anything contradicting curent situation ...

I mean the first paragraph is about what they "started" with, meaning probably from times even before EA, and allready there Swen litteraly said "as we could" ... meaning they allready started to change things for some reasons ...
Also as we know, development a game is work in progress ... you implement rule, it doesnt work ... you change it.

Perfect example would be those imps in tutorial:
At first they had more HP and Resistances ... people were dying there ...
> Reduced HP > people were dying there
> Remove resistances > people are no longer dying there
From this perspective we could easily presume that they might have even poison sting and invisibility at first ... but Larian quite fast find out that facing such enemy is suicide on level 1.
Therefore it was "as faithfully as we could at the begining" just as he said ...

Second paragraph, wich is aproximately 3,5 times longer, is whole about changes ...
How did you managed to get feeling from this that this part is about insignificant minor feats it beyond me. O_o

Im sory but i dont see any word about majority ...
I mean yes, im aware that Swen used word "a lot" ... but 1 000 is also "a lot" but out of 1 000 000 its certainly not majority. O_o

Dont get me wrong, this time i see where this gets from ...
I totally understand that as someone who WANTED faithful translation, you wanted this sentence to be told the way you explain it ...
But its simply not said that way ... so once again, that is just your own interpretation. :-/

Its the same as when we were talking about voiced protagonist ...
Most people i know is able to say the word "Hello" in at least 10 different ways from wich every have different meaning ... sadly, when written there is only one.
And this is the same case ... words are there, but everything else you add youreself. :-/

In this particular case i totally agree with you, this indeed it a strong implication ...

Yet the autor, whoever it is ... is talking about Larian in third person ... so i dare to presume its just some redactor own opinion (quite unprofesional if you ask me btw)
And therefore i dare to say that this certainly isnt Larian fault, but that person who witten that article ...


Same problem as abowe ...
This is how Gossip is made ... one came to conclusion and pass it on as a fact ... another come to conclusion based on that and pass it on as a fact ...

We have expression in my country:
You fart at one side of village ... and people will tell you shit yourself on the other end.

I watch many threats ... i dont even know who Sadurian is right now. :-/

I am suspicious about everything that is not sourced so i can check its autenticity ... that is why i keep quoting that post from Composer, since i have no doubt about its autenticity and anyone who does can easily click the link and check it for himself.

Dunno what is dishonesting about not thrusting someone i dont even know, i would call it being carefull ...
And im especialy carefull when someone claims something that is in direct contradiction with something i have seen and heared from valued and trusted source (Swen himself).

So I'm with Rag here, who wrote that article? When Sven talks about what Larian's doing, it's "We", not in the third person. So, someone made some assumptions, published an article to get some clicks, and all of a sudden it's "But Larian said". In short, the last two quotes are meaningless, because despite the premise of the post, they're not quoting Larian, they're making assumptions based on what they want, much as you did, when you cited them as "proof" of Larian promising something they didn't.

What this tells me is that a lot of people are basing what they expected this game to be off of misleading information from a game journalist, and some of them are now finding fault with any and everything Larian does based on that. I provided a map of Faerun to demonstrate just how far off base GM was in their thread about a "missing village". Based on that thread, 99.99% of Faerun is problematic, because we can't travel there, because apparently the SE corner of the map is the limit of the world, instead of the limit of that area.

You're right, my mistake - it was Composer, not Sadurian. Wrong mod, sorry.
Yes, I should have cited the articles. It was a grab bag of various news and game-reporting journals drawn from a quick search of BG3 articles from the first half of last year. I didn't save the addresses, and I should have; my mistake.

Either way - the phrase in question has been direct linked in a thread you've actively participating in. You know, unequivocally, that it was said, so it was wrong of you to cast aspersions on its authenticity.

That is the only point worth discussing in this particular diatribe, especially since you're also now misrepresenting the speakers in the other topics you're bringing up in your post. You like to pick apart irrelevant minutia and happily 'forget' information given or points conceded in previous discussions as it suites you; I'm not playing today, Rag.

==

There are, were and continue to be a very great number of people across many platforms who are criticising their translation of the system, and generally feeling misled, deceived or lied to. They didn't all make this up as some kind of mass hallucination; it is a simple truth that for this great volume of plaintiffs, the information as presented in the news they consumed, be that interviews, news articles, live streams or any other, left them feeling like a particular thing was being delivered, and that expectation was contra to the company and the game's actual design goals. You can split the hairs as much as you like, and you can point to the logic of variable interpretation if you want, that's fine - it doesn't change the fact that there is a large volume of voices who received the information that way, and that did not happen by chance, or by mass-selective-hearing. When even media and news articles were throwing around the same phrase in their headings and descriptive openings, you cannot claim that it was just one or two people selectively hearing what they wanted. This was a problem in the advertising itself - certainly many people didn't and don't care... they would not have cared if the advertising had been handled differently as well, so the are not the relevant group to consider here.

Regardless, blame me for interpreting incorrectly if you want to; that's fine. Truth is - I read news articles, saw interviews, and read reports from a small variety of sources, and what I saw, before ever looking at the game, was a whole lot of talk about us finally getting our first really solid 5e video game, as true to the system as it could reasonably be, and I was excited by the prospect, because - and here's the thing I want to impress upon you - We didn't have one. 5e has been out for many years now, and we didn't have one, at all. So if you're wandering why so many people seem to have jumped at that suggestion, that's part of the reason. That's what I saw; The phrases about changes were always "a few tweaks" "some little things" and other phrases like that. They never, not once, implied that there would be any large-scale, substantial departures from,the system. They always caged talk of deviation in 'small' language. Always. And we all know that a to-video-game translation will necessarily have some elements that either can't translate or that can benefit from QoL tweaks, and so on. So I believed them when they said 'as faithfully as possible' and I believed them when they said 'small tweaks' and 'a few little changes', and then I got to grips with the game itself, and saw that it was not at all what all the discussion and news articles and interviews had led me to believe, and I was disappointed.

And every time I see Larian reps talking about the things they are doing, and exercising their art of smoke and mirrors, I see more and more elements of their generally deceptive advertising practice that oversells, under-delivers, misrepresents and always makes everything out to be more and better than it is... when not outright lying.

I'd really like a nice looking D&d game that runs on 5e rules, ported as faithfully as is reasonably feasible for a video game.
I really wanted BG3 to be that game.
It looks as though it was never going to be in the first place. Was never intended to be.

Perhaps I should just listen to you, accept that I'm to blame for hoping for this, and for wanting this in the first place, and just give up.

You put so much work, and time and effort into defending the game's design choices, and nay-saying people who put their own time and effort into highlighting where the game diverts needlessly from the system it claims to be emulating. You do a lot of other things too, of course, but you put a lot of time and effort into this. Would it make you happy if I stopped?

I've put so much time and effort into bug testing, reporting and analysing this game; doing break-downs of systems and features as implemented, examining how they differ from core, and examining whether the changes are good for the game or not, and the issues that the changes cause, or will cause later, in the hopes of being seen and nudging the game towards what I was hoping it would be... Even you might be a little horrified by the amount of time and otherwise-employable work I've put into this over the past year. I've worked with 5e itself for years, and my skills at analysing game systems and assessing balance are something that I've done, and been compensated for doing, for longer... I don't like to make arguments from authority and I avoid doing so when I can, but generally speaking, I know what I'm on about when I do these things... but it may be that I've done as much as I can, and no-one is listening any more.

I've tried hard to keep the forums here a positive space, and friendly and constructive, no matter what side of a debate different people may be on, but even that isn't working out so well any more, and it seems like every week there are one or two new faces that just come here to pick fights, argue, or condescend abrasively at one another, over topics that have already been discussed into oblivion many times before, in different threads that are long buried - and they keep getting discussed because the issues that make people discuss them are still there...

Maybe I've done all I can. Maybe it's time I gave up and moved on - and turned back to the "no nice-looking, character-driven, reasonably faithful 5e game" space and hope that something else will come along to fill it one day instead. What do you think, Rag? Would it make you feel satisfied if I said you've convinced me of that?