My fear is, that there are too many and too complicated fights. (...)
There are so many classes and races and spells. For a player like me who doesn't know the BG rules, it's very complicated. I'm afraid it scares players who have never played BG.
D:OS2 was the best RPG I playes for ever (My first was Ultima Underworld in 1993) The story in D:OS1 was great too, but the figths there are much harder.
Originally Posted by Alexlotr
Originally Posted by Alix
I fear BG3 would not reach that, because of the to difficult fightings
I don't get it. You really fear it would be too hard even on the easiest difficulty setting?
I think what Alix describes has more to do with complexity, then difficulty per-say. D:OS2 mechanics were very easy to understand and engage with - even D:OS1 resistances were simplified into simple binary armor system. I, for one, believe that those changes made D:OS2 a worse game, but it was definitely easier to understand and engage with. Winning a combat enounter without understanding exact mechanics doesn't make for engaging experience - and fun comes from engagement, not aimlessly clicking on things.
I am pretty sure, that is why Larian is sticking to Larianisms - like push, surfaces, barrels etc. Those are easy to understand concepts that can one use to bypass almost any encounter.
Though I think it is a wrong solution to the problem as:
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Yes, DnD rules can be complicated. But I think the bigger problem is that the game does not use DnD rules but a mix between DnD and DOS. (...) In my opinion it would be better to use DnD mechanics in a way Solasta did. If they keep lots of homebrew stuff (which they probably will) they need to explain things better. Right now both DOS and DnD fans have problems because they are not sure how the game is supposed to be played.
Solasta is a very flawed title, but I strongly believe that where they succeeded is making DnD engagable. Yes, I played DnD RPGs since BG1&2, but I can't say I am well versed in them - mostly because most game do a terrible job engaging players with underlying systems - BG3 isn't no different. Solasta superbly communicates dice rolls both for hit and damage, what is happening during combat, and what effect each spell and ability. This is a first and only DnD RPG I played, where I don't have to dive and analyze the combat log - every thing is there, on surface, visible and understandable. The game doesn't even give us "to hit" chances, and our attack roll will tell us what we need to know.
BG3 on the other hand is afraid to be a DnD game - rolls are hidden, translated through a vague % translation. It favours visual flourish over clarity. By combining DnD and DOS it uses two different rulesets making things rather inconsistant. It tries to look like your traditional, modern XCOM inspired tactics game, but it doesn't work like one. I don't think this is a healthy approach in a long run.
When I heard Larian is making BG3 I knew what we will be getting - a Larian RPG first and foremost. But what I was looking forward to is Larian taking turn based system, and their budget to created most fleshed out, engagable DnD adaptation there is. I find it incredibly disappointing that they decided to hide and distract from the systems as much as they did. On top of that, combat log is so underdeveloped, I don't think one can get a graso on mechanics without foreknowledge, or personal determination.
