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

Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself. He actually said that BG3 is meant to be "first and foremost" a video game in an interview from last year. In a recent interview with Eurogamer, a month ago, Swen even said that they can't do everything in tabletop DnD or they will never finish the game because that would require more people to be hired. In the gaming industry, you have a deadline and things need to be done before then. He also said that they have been given the freedom (most likely from WOTC) as with previous BG games to do what they want with this game.

I have an entirely different perspective. I don't care what rule set it is, or how closely tied to it the game stays. I didn't buy BG because it was DnD. I didn't buy BG 2 because it was DnD either. Upon thinking about it, I initially didn't buy BG anyway. At the time I was playing DOOM and Mortal Kombat. My girlfriend brought BG home one day, and after playing it a bit, I barely looked back at either. Although I did, I must admit, play a lot of MK up to the third installment.

But I played BG games, and IWD games because I liked the stories. DnD had nothing to do with my enjoyment of the titles, at least beyond superficially. Then came Neverwinter Nights. I played that game for 5 years, but it had next to nothing to do with DnD, other than it happened to be the setting, loosely. I say "loosely" because I didn't play the campaigns for 5 years, I played the online modules that people were producing. I played on RP servers, I played on high magic worlds, and in the last year or so of that 5 years, I spent time making my own low magic world, created to tell a story that I wanted to tell in the toolset. While I'm not looking for the NWN experience here, I'm not sure we'll get a toolset, considering the MP aspect, that would be great, I am looking to be engaged by whatever the story is going to be, once it's fully fleshed out.

When I read "not BG", I'm not "like yeah". Instead I see "not the Warden" in Dragon Age, and "Mass Effect is Shepard's story". Bhaalspawn is, after all, the only thing that ties BG to BG 2 in so far as story is concerned. It's a rather important bit there, but that story has been written. I didn't see BG 3 and think that they were going to just remaster the previous two games, or try to retcon the old stories out for a new one. There's a lot more to the FR than just that one storyline. So, I'm waiting to see what they do. This was a pre-alpha test of basic stuff, not a finished product. I didn't get my dice out, and get new books, to go sit at someone's house to start a 5e campaign. I saw BG 3, and nostalgia kicked in for games that meant a lot to me when they were new, and got some hype going. I've been in on the ground floor of modules, especially in NWN, where I wrote story lines, drew up some maps, and even wrote some scripts for existing modules, before going on to create my own. So I didn't come in expecting a polished experience. I still don't expect to have the entirety of the story laid out in the Prologue and Act 1 so that I can say "not a BG game". Even with all of that assumed, I'm not sure I could do that w/out also going "not the Bhaalspawn"...

I haven't read a single post from anyone about wanting an exact tabletop ruleset conversion for BG3. Why are people thinking in such extremes? The vast majority of D&D players are open to homebrew if it plays by the spirit of the rules. If only we could discuss the homebrew rationally without dismissing each other outright with extreme opinions like "Larian should do whatever they want" or "don't change anything". And again, I've not read the latter from anyone.

The problem that many are voicing is Larian not understanding the spirit of the rules. They are simply going too far with their homebrew additions. Surfaces are a good concept for a video game but the implementation is over the top. Same with dipping, high ground and backstab before change. Shoving. Good concepts with poor over the top implementation that promote repetitive tactics. Then there is the type of homebrew that gives out Rogues' Cunning Action to everyone for free that just fails to understand the spirit of the class based system (and multiclassing) on a fundamental level, and is completely unnecessary to enjoy the game.

Maybe it's because their initial advertising campaign, and their original comments, on which the game was first advertised and sold, was the statement that they were making baldur's gate 3, which they would be making in the fifth edition ruleset, which they would be translating into the game, and I quote, "As faithfully as possible".

So, many folks who bought into the game on that premise are rightfully annoyed at how completely disingenuous that statement has shown to be. Funnily enough, it's really hard to find the earliest articles and interviews, where these statements and others of a similar nature were first made, nowadays, and their tune has dramatically changed as well. Many folks are annoyed because they used a premise and an advertisement which they never even intended to honour to draw people in and generate sales.... and are in fact on record elsewhere as admitting that what they really want to do is use the branding, legacy and high-profile nature of D&D and the BG series to pimp Their style of games to a new audience... when that's not what was originally advertised, and not what brought many of the folks here to the game in the first place.

We all know this is a video game, and that the rule-set can benefit from many and various changes and adaptations when transitioning to a video game format - both for pacing and for general quality of life... no-one is denying that at all. In many of my own focus threads, I take special care to point out and note rule deviations and adaptations that are actually very good calls and nice improvements or concessions to video game format where adaptation improves the experience. Those aren't the things that people are making threads about, for the most part.

All you need to do is ask ... i was hoping i get to use this quote ... but i didnt expect opourtunity to come so soon.

Thank you.

I've said before, and I'll say it again. I'm not opposed to homebrew but:

The more homebrew, the more you negate certain base elements of 5e that make different abilities and classes unique and fun. Rogue fast hands is virtually meaningless if everyone can drink a potion as a Bonus action. Cunning Action is pointless if everyone can hide as a Bonus. These are just 2 examples.

The more you deviate from the D&D 5e rules and stats and world of Faerun, the less the game feels like D&D and Baldur's Gate.

I actually like that they have some homebrew goblins, for example. That's fun. Not every goblin has to be a grunt or boss. I'm fine with almost every goblin in the game. What I don't like is the monsters that have virtually no characteristics that make them unique and therefore fun.

So don't tell me something is an intellect devourer and then not give them the ability to devour intellect. If it is an intellect devourer, give it intellect devourer stats. If you're going to make it a newborn intellect devourer which then explains why it doesn't have the proper full-blown stats, then call it an Ustilagor, which is an infant or newborn intellect devourer. Also, give it the appearance of an Ustilagor with stubby legs and so forth.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ustilagor

But I think most are not understanding about what I'm trying to say is that I don't have a problem with some Homebrew monsters and stats and so forth as long as there is a solid foundation of monsters with normal stats and abilities. The problem I have is that virtually no monsters have their proper stats and abilities and there are so many Homebrew rules that negate very basic special abilities four different classes.

So essentially, by creating so much Homebrew they are destroying very basic elements of what makes different races and classes what they should be based on established world-building that is been in existence for over 20 years.

Rogues are probably the biggest victims a Homebrew. So many of their special abilities are being made obsolete because every class can do but only they should be able to do. No. That's not true. Everyone can use Revivify scrolls and other cleric scrolls, everyone can use every wizard scroll, everyone can use every druid scroll, etc. Therefore, no class is unique and special because everybody can do everything.

So does it feel like D & D? No. Why? Because what makes things unique is being stripped from each class, each monster, each item so that nothing is special.

Here's something that I think is an acceptable homebrew. You have partial cover, therefore you get a + 2 to your armor class. Another Homebrew that I think makes sense is the flanking advantage Homebrew. Don't misunderstand. I'm not referring to backstab. I'm referring to if you have more than one person in melee with an enemy, you should get advantage on your dice roll to hit. Why? Because if you have two people trying to attack you at once from two different angles oh, it is incredibly hard to defend against both. That to me is a Homebrew that makes sense especially because it works well with the Rogue sneak attack.

But when you start to make special abilities and characteristics no and void with your Homebrew, you begin to destroy the entire rule system.

Anyway, I'm just trying to clear up the misunderstanding because it always seems like everyone who is opposed to what I have to say seems to take the extreme position like I'm against absolutely all deviations from the rules of DnD 5e

Rag, you obviously didn't read the first two paragraphs of niara's response did you.

You're welcome!

In regards to rules of DnD this is what Swen Said last month to Gameindustry.biz

'You don't want a game to be complicated, you want it to be very natural and very intuitive and so there's a lot of work being done on the background that we haven't shipped yet, where we're trying to say: what is the best and easiest way for a player discovering this rule so that they intuitively take it into account? This early access is clearly obviously a very important platform for us."

"I think when you'll see what we will release compared to where we started, you'll have this feeling of: holy shit, this is very, very accessible, I don't have to think about it, it just makes sense. And that's exactly the experience you have if you play D&D in real life. If you have a good DM, they're not going to bombard you with 300 pages of rules that you need to learn, they're just going to be: hey, you enter a dungeon and there's a door. What do you do?"

"We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time. It's really about us removing the barriers to entry and shoving it in front of people's noses really so that they just give it a go, and then usually it clicks. Because if you go to the reviews of BG3, of DOS 2, one of the things you really often read is: 'I never thought I was going to enjoy this, but here I am, a hundred hours later!'"

Interview with Swen Vincke

I agree with every word.

I hear alot of exteme arguments suggesting people are being D&D "purists" for want of a better word. Sven said...... Yes he said many things euphemeistically and directly but here is the thing, it is a far cry from adding flavor when you change the the core rules to a point where it simply doesn't resemble D&D anymore especially for certain classes. Adding homebrew is good, hp boost for garbage mobs is good, acid arrows that create 5 meter diameter pools of acid around the target not so much. Tweek stat numbers and personalities all you like but core mechanics NEED to remain constant or the entire class balance system falls apart.

I keep saying this, the CORE needs to be implented FIRST then add and remove homebrew stuff. I mean throwing a healing potion at your ally heals them? Come on man! I can undertand throwing basilisk oil at a petrified person but throwing a bottle of healing juice into the mouth of your mate is ridiculous. Little things like this don't add to the game it makes it stupid. Arrows do a bit of extra element damage you dont fire a bathtub of acid on the end on an arrow. A barrel of booze will weigh hundreds of Kgs so rolling it down steps is realisitc where putting one (or 3) in your backpack is bonkers.

The little things make a big difference.

Oh yes i did ...
But it all seemed to me like: "i believe i have seen it somewhere really long time ago and i cant find it anymore" ...
While Composer gives us specific quotes even with link to source ...

It just dont seems to hard to decide wich one to believe. :-/

The truth is somewhere in the middle, like what Niara wrote which many kind of skims across or share seats in the boat I'm in. "As faithfully as possible" - Most people just read 'faithful' and expect a near 100% adaption or in the upper ceiling toward 100%. Some few take it as far as any deviation is a war crime and make false claims (such as the source of that quote of mine where someone insisted as such). Then there's me, and I'd assume the notion that Niara refers to, that would prefer a more faithful adaption in terms of less changes to simple things like shove/hide being a bonus action instead of an action which has a ripple-effect into other aspects such as Rogue losing a lot of its class niche. That's where I often butt in to disagree with some people, not because of what they say, but how they say it. I think most people want the same thing in the end of the day.

It was never said to be a 100% faithful adaption, just somewhere between as faithful as possible to based on but with creative liberty for fitting a video game. I have my own criticisms of Swen's wording sometimes and warned how it'd be received multiple times in the long distant past (and my ego admittedly feels boosted of predicting it so accurately). But it's also our responsibility as gamers to apply some good faith and attention to detail in the information we read as well, and interpret its meaning rather than literal face value.

Most feedback that I've seen and forwarded tend to fall into the category of "I understand it's unreasonable to have a 100% adaption into a video game, but this criticism X and complaint Y are things I think deviates away from PHB more than is necessary" kind of format. And that's perfectly fine and good. At least that's how I choose to view most threads, focusing on the meaning underneath rather than the angry words or emotions that often distorts the underlined intent. My only hope / interest is to make sure those doesn't turn into keyboard-warrior fistfights. Because again, we all just want a fun game in the end of the day I think.

All those Swen Vincke quotes prove that Larian are doing much more than changing what needs to be changed for a video game. They have a different vision of D&D, or a very narrow vision on "what works" in a video game i.e. surfaces, pushing and jumping and puzzles to the extreme where they override the actual ruleset being used.

Rogue abilities are a VERY good example of something that has nothing to do with the platform. They just gave the Rogue abilities to everyone because someone over there likes to do Rogue stuff on all characters without multiclassing a few levels into Rogue. Or some misguided notion that every character needs to be able to do a Bonus Action every turn. They don't. The system wasn't designed that way and stubbornly fighting it isn't going to work. Turn based combat does not get better if you have more actions per turn, especially if they are repetitive or overpowered like Stealth (or Shove). Sharing the Rogue class abilities has nothing to do with being a video game but everything to do with class identity and balance.

Solasta on the other hand proves that 5e RAW combat is very enjoyable and tactical in a video game. It does not need superhero jumps for everyone, or exaggerated shoving, or a million surfaces everywhere or goblins firing knockback arrows. These are things that Larian have ADDED because they seem to have an uncontrollable obsession about that stuff. Those additions actually make the game LESS tactical because you're always better off doing the Larian things than doing the D&D things. Solasta feels more like D&D, and it also feels like a better combat system overall after the sneak, shove and bomb fest that is BG3.

Larian aren't augmenting D&D for a video game platform. They're assimilating it into their own narrow mindset that is very different from the D&D CRPG's we have known and played in the past. And BG3 is a worse game for it.

If they choose to tone the homebrew down a notch, it could be great. Augment D&D, not replace it.

I love how I beat you to it with an exact example, 1varangian :'D Rest my case! ♥

Whether the fight in Solasta is better is just a matter of opinion.

Ok. Fine

How about the fact that Larian keep using DnD 5e as a marketing tool?

"AN EXPANSIVE, CINEMATIC RPG WITH UNPARALLELED DEPTH AND PLAYER FREEDOM
Baldur’s Gate 3 is an expansive, cinematic, player-driven RPG based on 5e D&D. It features a rich character creation system where players can create an avatar based on many different D&D races, select their cantrips, skills & abilities, and enter a world where their actions truly define the story.

Baldur’s Gate 3 expands on Larian’s award-winning narrative gameplay both through the advent of cinematic storytelling, and with dice-rolls for key decisions throughout the game, in and out of combat. Dialogue options often have multiple responses, and some responses may require a dice roll to succeed, defined by both luck as well as the attributes of the player character, or circumstances of the situation.

No one play-through will be like another player’s, with a massively branching narrative and meaningful reactions to player actions, and happenings. It features a fluid, high-stakes turn-based combat system incorporating the rules of 5e D&D."

"incorporating" not inspired by or influenced by


"EVOLVED TURN-BASED COMBAT BASED ON 5E D&D
Play through levels 1-4 as the tabletop rules come to life in the videogame
Switch to turn-based mode at anytime to solve puzzles or sneak up on characters
Manipulate light and darkness with our dynamic shadow system for non-binary style stealth action
The next generation of turn-based combat featuring hundreds of D&D spells and actions
Unlimited freedom to explore and experiment"

Hmm, tabletop rules....

Both excerpts above is taken from Larians own homepage. https://press.baldursgate3.game/

There is no doubt that Larian has and still does use DnD 5e for marketing purposes. It's no coincidence that their announcement of BG3 was together with WoTC, the creator of DnD. It was to give their game legitimacy. Not as a good rpg game, larian is already known for that, but for a good DnD game.

And let's have a look on the second quote that The composer gave us

"BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions."

What worked and didn't work - because it is a videogame. Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?

Now. What Niara wrote isn't false, and The Composer did summarize the subject perfectly.

The game itself is BASED on DnD. The 5e that is being incorporated is for combat.


Larian did say that there may be some rules that they will not incorporated into the game because it doesn't translate well into a video game, so you may not see it. Swen has always said multiple times that Larian is the DM of this game and they are making this game for everyone. They also don't want to make it complicated for players that may have never played a DnD game. They want to make the game accessible and not seem complicated.

Why wouldnt they?
I mean this game IS based on DnD 5e ... its not their fault that some people wished for something else. :-/

Indeed ... and also not "litteral transcription" ... what is your point?
We could find dozens of synonims they didnt use.

And since their game is based on DnD 5e its perfectly fine ... again, what is your point here? O_o

And owner of Baldur's Gate trademark.

It indeed is no coincidence, but i would say you presume too much.

Question here is: Does it matter?

I mean Swen obivously leads this project ... if it would be movie, Swen would be director ... his job is to mediate(?) his vision for us ... and purpose of EA is to find out how much that vision is close to our expectations, possibly even bend it a little somewhere, so our goals get closer together ...

But he still sells his vision, his product, there is his name on it. :-/
And in the end he (probably not litteraly, i presume he have people for that) will decide wich of our suggestion goes good with his vision, and wich are completely off.

Yes it matter. Very much. It matters because we have laws against false advertising. It matters because we have 3 year long university programs with focus on media management. It matters because Larian isn't some indie studio with three people that never has spoken with a journalist before. They are an international multimillion company fully aware that everything they do, everything they say in regard to an ongoing project, is marketing. Not just what a single spokesperson say but everything. They are fully aware that using the BG trademark and keeping mentioning DnD 5e would attract fans of the franchise. Just as you use those quotes from Sven to justify homebrewing you like, I can use the rest of their marketing to justify why I don't feel it right.

This thread was about GM4him requesting for them to consider sticking closer to some things he liked with the previous BG games. He didn't ask for a . Instead this thread turned into whether or not Larian has used deceitful tactics in their marketing. I claim they have, you claim they haven't. That's where we stand on that subject. Now, maybe time to get focus back on OP's suggestions?

Let me but in here, you are seriously misinterpreting what Larian has said or what they have marketed. They have not falsely advertised anything, so there are no legal implications. They used the term "BASED ON", that term does not mean a literal translation. "Based on" means that they are using what they know from DnD 5e as a foundation for their game. When you mentioned the word "incorporating", they were talking about the 5e rules of combat not the whole game itself. They use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. They mention DnD 5e because they have incorporated 5e rules, maybe not every single one that you would like but they have implemented some.