|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Jul 2023
|
OK, so Larian doesn't care one iota or really understand how to implement a D&D system, so the question being "will it still be fun".
I have watched two videos of people, who like The Red Queen, have played into act 2; WolfheartFPS and Fextralife.
Fextralife is definitely less biased and reports that act two ramps up in difficulty, complexity of combat, and story. This is encouraging as every time I get used to Larian's combat they start to change the rules.
Normally rule changes are implemented very slowly and cautiously. First it is "Unearthed Arcana" and tested for months before it is canonized. Larian's approach seems rushed at the end, so we'll see.
By first hand reports though, Act 2 should be intriguing and fun.
As far as the story goes, it has its bright spots and completely falls on its bum in other areas. Grymforge, is stunning in its construction, but the story is a complete fail.
The Deurgar have no culture or character, neither do the deep Gnomes in sharp contrast to established lore.
Deurgar meme: Vulgar, uncultured, angry, and excessively cruel.
Deep Gnome meme: Bitter, vengeful terrorists, simpering, pitiful, and boring.
These races do have a rich cultural history and its a shame Larian didn't bother to do their homework, assigned them an evil tag, and wrote them in their own cruel image.
That whole area is a wasted opportunity.
Fextralife reports that act two is great story telling, this will be welcome.
I look forward to seeing the Githyanki encampment, the Harpers, and Moonrise.
As far as Multi classing, it is rarely worth doing, but their are a few great synergies.
I myself have decided to stick with Pure Valor Bard to be more durable and get my 6th level spell and attribute boost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2023
|
^ The amount of sheer hubris that just radiates from this is honestly staggering.
Tunnel vision does not even begin to cover it, You are using yourself as an example brosif...try looking around you represent the _MINORITY_ not the _MAJORITY_ Guess I'll have to live with that. The irony of you saying this to me while ANGRILY defending the narrative that "casuals need to be catered to" is not lost to me, anyway. Sure, let's go with that. You even typing 'angrily' in a thread (created by yourself) where probably 95%+ of the posts you've made in it will have you insulting someones intelligence. Uhm, pot you're black. You're strawmanning massively, it's not 'catering' it's making it accessible so that people will buy in, if you make the buy in, ''hey here's a wall maybe you can climb it'' ALOT of people are just gonna call it a day there and go play something that is more user friendly, no amount of money in the world has ever bought a single second of time, people tend to value what they spend theirs on. Again, this type of game with this level of presentation SHOULD NOT exist in this day and age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2021
|
Wedding stats to races is in fact the only thing that actually does make sense, though of course it isn't political these days, nor is it newbie friendly. But if you step out of D&D for a moment and consider, say, Star Trek, then please don't tell me that you think Klingons and Humans should have the same base stats. Please don't tell me Klingons and Ferengi should have the same base stats. Just a rapid research and I can find that in the last ttrpg about star trek species have stat bonuses too, but these can be easily compensated by "environment", "upbringing", "academy" and "career events", making them just a drop in the ocean between all the stats you can distribute on your character. If 5e implemented such an elaborated system to make every class work thanks due to bonuses coming from class, background, ideals and whatnot, something that has been implemented by Pathfinder2ed, sure racial stats would be cool, but at the moment they are just a nuisance and an arbitrary limitation. I haven't checked any Star Trek rpg system. And I'm not sure why that would be relevant to what I asked. I watched the movies and the tv series, because that's what defines Star Trek lore. Now tell me, are you suggesting that a Ferengi has the same potential for raw strength as a Klingon? That a human has the same potential for constitution as a Klingon? Those are both yes/no questions. And they're not hard yes/no questions either. There's no trap in them. Except of course for the absolutely unavoidable fact that Star Trek species are allowed the freedom to be physically different in meaningful ways. I don't see why D&D races should be denied that freedom. I literally never saw even just an episode about star trek, just the "lower decks" cartoon series. So I can't honestly answer your questions. The only thing I'm saying is: here, you are talking about star trek, here it is the system. Species have a tiny +1 to a few attributes, and the rest of their lives make for the remaining ten or so points. Do what you want with that. I you have not seen the show or the movies and don't really know the world then perhaps it isn't unreasonable to say that your ability to answer the question is somewhat compromised? I am shocked, of course, that someone hasn't at all seen anything Star Trek, but then people say the same when I've never picked up on Lost, Game of Thrones (read the books, never got around to the tv-show), or that living dead show. But just to clarify, Klingons are generally bigger and bulkier than humans, they are consistently depicted as significantly stronger than even trained Starfleet humans, and they have all kinds of nifty things in their body to help them survive battle damage. Ferengi are significantly smaller than humans but similar in proportions, they have no tradition for hand to hand combat, and they are not very strong at all, which is a fairly insignificant problem in a sci-fi setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
Wedding stats to races is in fact the only thing that actually does make sense, though of course it isn't political these days, nor is it newbie friendly. But if you step out of D&D for a moment and consider, say, Star Trek, then please don't tell me that you think Klingons and Humans should have the same base stats. Please don't tell me Klingons and Ferengi should have the same base stats. Just a rapid research and I can find that in the last ttrpg about star trek species have stat bonuses too, but these can be easily compensated by "environment", "upbringing", "academy" and "career events", making them just a drop in the ocean between all the stats you can distribute on your character. If 5e implemented such an elaborated system to make every class work thanks due to bonuses coming from class, background, ideals and whatnot, something that has been implemented by Pathfinder2ed, sure racial stats would be cool, but at the moment they are just a nuisance and an arbitrary limitation. I suppose, at least you're honest about hating world building affecting combat for the sole reason of minmaxing. You'd dislike Warhammer so much. I should get something about the warhammer world, but I've seen that there are many different systems that I honestly don't know which one I should pick. I honestly don't think that "worldbuilding" means solely what you are saying. There are various ways to build a world, and the world building in 3.5 (hard dungeon crawler) is different from the world building in 5e (narrative oriented), which is different from the world building in world of darkness ( hard narrative), or any PbtA (hard narrative) for the matter. EDIT: just narrative for WoD, because PbtA is far more narrative. What I'm saying is that the philosophy of "every species should be equally good at everything" would... well, not get you a very positive response. It's the exact opposite of what people like. So I'm here now, imaging future fans bragging about how the franchise finally moved on from that limitation. It should be funny, but I can't, because that would never, ever happen. They've got their own issues, but they're winning on this point. If you say "x are trash because it's not meta", prepare to be swarmed by angry simps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
OK, so Larian doesn't care one iota or really understand how to implement a D&D system, so the question being "will it still be fun". I mean, I never had particular doubts about the game being overall "fun" and still worth playing. That's not what this thread was ever about, that's not even a point I've ever made in three years of arguing the virtues and shortcomings of the game in its beta state. I know that some people (here and elsewhere) seem to be under this massive misconception that if you have to express any criticism toward a game, this must mean you think it's all irredeemable garbage and that you probably hate everything about it, but that's frankly their problem.
Last edited by Tuco; 12/07/23 09:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
[quote=zarchaun44]I think I will pass on this now. At least BG 1 and 2 stuck to the d&d rules and not change everything for the causal whiny players. To be perfectly honest, nowhere did I read, that people want the game to be easier, no one voiced concern about multiplayer by RAW would be too complicated. So I don't know, If there are whiny casuals or if that wasn't solely Larians Idea. I'm playing Guild Wars 2 at the moment and there are a lot of casuals, but the game never holds your hand and some fights ( Caudecus comes to mind, because I did that fight yesterday) are downright sadistic. And still people, casuals included, play it. So I don't think, that people necessarily demand a game to be easier, but the studios think, they should make them easier, dumb them down for the masses. The concerns about the NEED to appease the casuals are generally bogus, anyway. No one will stick through a 150+ hours RPG REMAINING a "casual", to begin with. People will either get bored and bounce off or they will get invested and then start noticing the eventual flaws and cracks on the system by the sheer amount of times they'll interact with it. No system needs to be "dumbed down" to have an appeal, that's a myth. Where the difference is made is in the on-boarding, on the other hand. We are all constantly "newbies" for most of the things we approach in this hobby. Without going to far, I never played a single game of Pathfinder before approaching the two Owlcat games and I'm now playing (very sparsely) the Rogue Trader beta, based on a system I didn't even know existed until few months ago. I just don’t understand why people are so fixated on your stats being tied to your race. This change gives you more role playing options. I’m ecstatic that i can play my dwarf arcane trickster without feeling like I’m shooting myself in the foot. The choice between do I want my character to be good or do I want to play what I think is a fun idea is not an interesting decision. Races still have unique traits. The game is reportedly highly reactive to your race with lots of special roleplay options. And there is apparently even race specific equipment and gear.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but this objection completely eludes me. Wedding race to attributes is dumb, was always dumb, just like restricting classes to specific races back in the day. I’ve been playing D&D so long, I need to play weird characters just to keep it interesting. How is have each class possess a few mathematically superior race options an interesting choice? How many half-orc barbarians and gnome wizards do we need?
And the best part is, if you really feel that your half-orc wizard should have +2 to STR, you are free to make that choice. But if when given that choice, if you would always obviously always pick not to, why would you want that forced on everyone who wants to play this combination? A half-orc wizard isn’t benefiting from Savage Attacks and is missing out on the option to get a more useful racial trait, so there is still a strategic cost being payed. But at least you don’t need also lose out on a feet because you start with a defect in your primary stat.
Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk. There's nothing "roleplay-enhancing" about removing intrinsic differences and possible barriers to appease immediate convenience. There's a reason if the "play pretend" at the foundation of roleplay across decades moved away from toddlers screaming at each other "Then I'll be X and do Y better than you!" without rhyme or reason to wargame-like setups, where people build characters according to fixed, well-defined parameters and manage combat scenarios (and more) through a set of shared "rules of engagement". "But I wanted to have my cake an eat it too" may be something people can be very emotional about, but it's hardly the strong argument in favor of improving immersion. For instance one could argue that rather than having half-orcs and gnomes be basically identical in terms of physical and medical potential (which to make sense basically requires for these archetype to stop meaning anything), your rules could be designed around a way to make a physically less powerful gnome viable as a barbarian leveraging his own innate characteristics. I will never be convinced by any argument that boils down to "I strongly feel I shouldn't be limited in any way". Anyway, this is a bit of a digression at this point, since what's done is done. And not even part of what the topic was about, anyway. The old race stat bonus don't make any sense in the first place though. Humanity has had the highest concentrations of apocalyptic level wizards and sorcerer in lore. The idea gnomes or half elves are inharently better than them in these classes is laughable. Heck one of the descriptions of the barb in dnd beyond is one soloing a frost giant. The idea that these immutable stat difference exist is laughable. Lol no. The diffetence are numbers. There are a lot more "apocalyptic" human wizards because there are a lot more² humans than gnomes. And what the barbarian has to do with this topic only you know.[/quote] There are more high level human wizards, and they are stronger than gnomes. It makes no lore sense to have gnome be inharently better wizards. Barbarian's consistently ignore tradional biology and overpower things they shouldn't be able to all the time. Wulfgar does this. Acting like ASI are some intrinsic lore thing is just plain wrong. It's a gamy thing that only existed to artificially create party diversity, that isn't reflected in lore at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2023
|
E.g. Larian have stated they have put more items like Headband of Intellect in the game that replace an ability score, to make multiclassing easier and to enable item-centric builds. That alone makes respec an integral part of gameplay if you want to play well. Find a belt that gives you a Dex of 18 > respec your Dex from 14 to 8, wear belt, enjoy your new buffed Dex AND Constitution and Wisdom scores. Such items already devalue character ability scores, but with respec it just becomes really stupid. What you are saying here is really interesting, but also nobody is forcing you to do that. I personally played DOS2 without cheesing, AND I played DOS2 carrying a deathfog barrel up to alexander. You choose when to cheese the game or not, and how you want to have fun. I doubt I'd respec my character for such a reason, but if others want to do it good for them. Knowing you can always respec takes away all weight from decisions when building your characters. You are mentally lulled into lazy gameplay mode where learning the rules and planning have no meaning. It's subconscious, but I argue that it makes the overall gameplay experience feel less rewarding. You have this feeling in the back of your head constantly that decisions are irrelevant in the end, you can always change into something else. Few things in my gaming experience has been more fullfilling than beating ironman tactician in DOS2, and I had a respec there. Respec ruins replayability. Why would I replay the game for a whole different experience using another class or build, when I can just respec into said class, or any class, nilly-willy during my first playthrough? I honestly like to bring a character from start to finish other than a few exceptions. Sure, I can respec in that build or another in any moment, but how would have been to play that build at level 3 instead of respeccing at level 9? What about "that" fight? How would it be with that class and party composition? And on top of that I think you are ignoring the fact that most of BG3 replayability comes from the story rather than the gameplay, at least by what Larian showed us. For someone who really enjoys character building, planning and tactical combat, Larian are making a terrible gameplay experience. It seems like the devs want to make a dating sim with puzzle combat and the D&D ruleset is just getting in their way. When they should embrace it and understand it's a tried and true ruleset that is the game's greatest strengths. I'm sorry if I sound gatekeeping with this, but then 5e as a whole is not the correct game if you are looking for that. Character building and tactical combat in 5e is deep as a puddle. I'm sure Larian added so much things to make it work as a crpg, but in general I'd say that that's not the ultimate goal of a 5e inspired game. I can be wrong though, I dont know!
... because it's fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
The concerns about the NEED to appease the casuals are generally bogus, anyway.
No one will stick through a 150+ hours RPG REMAINING a "casual", to begin with. People will either get bored and bounce off or they will get invested and then start noticing the eventual flaws and cracks on the system by the sheer amount of times they'll interact with it.
No system needs to be "dumbed down" to have an appeal, that's a myth. Where the difference is made is in the on-boarding, on the other hand.
We are all constantly "newbies" for most of the things we approach in this hobby. Without going to far, I never played a single game of Pathfinder before approaching the two Owlcat games and I'm now playing (very sparsely) the Rogue Trader beta, based on a system I didn't even know existed until few months ago. ^ The amount of sheer hubris that just radiates from this is honestly staggering. Tunnel vision does not even begin to cover it, You are using yourself as an example brosif...try looking around you represent the _MINORITY_ not the _MAJORITY_ He is right though. If you stick to something, you will become better at it, maybe even an expert, If you get hooked. If you play 300 hours of a DnD game, you will pick up mechanics, lore etc. And most likely, the game will become easier to you. You start as a casual, but you most likely pick up skill and knowledge along the way. It's the same with every Hobby: you stick with it, you most likely will become better at it. And in BG3, you have different difficulties. So someone, who isn't sure might start in storymode and when they get the hang of it switch to normal mode and maybe in the end they enjoy hardmode.
Last edited by fylimar; 12/07/23 09:38 AM.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Doctor Who
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
I do worry that people will play these monster builds, then complain that encounters are too easy, and then Larian will balance off of that. I'd be surprised if Larian didn't balance normal difficulty round single class, reasonably default PHB-type characters. Especially given that they said that they expected mainly experienced players to multiclass and weren't trying to draw a lot of attention to it in level up (which I can attest to as it's just a relatively small "Add Class" button at the top right of the level up screen that could easily be missed if you weren't looking for it. What wouldn't surprise me is if, at some time down the line, once they have had chance to see just how exactly players are able to exploit their systems to wipe the floor with the game, they add a further nightmare difficulty mode designed to make the game challenging even for those players (and probably failing, given that an engine with as much complexity and flexibility as BG3's is probably unavoidably going to have loopholes). This is the concern, really. They start building on a shaky foundation of bad homebrew and then keep adding to it, getting further and further away from D&D. When they should simply offer an authentic D&D experience (mechanically) and build on that. I am by no means any kind of a rules purist, but I have read the 5e rules because of BG3. Larian are like a bull in a china shop with D&D. Breaking the game with reckless changes is not going to be "better" or "fun". It feels like the changes always stem from a personal preference rather than player feedback or experience with the D&D system, or necessity for a video game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
What exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree that the person who plays the game for considerable amount of hours seizes to be a casual and starts exploring the deeper layers of the game systems? Do you disagree that switching your perception of the game from casual to post-casual makes you more aware of the flaws in design? Right? it shouldn't really be anything controversial. There's no expert of anything that hasn't been a "newbie" and a "casual" at some point. It's something I have to remember constantly to people in my line of work as well. As people sometimes enter my gym sheepishly and tell me "I want to try but I never boxed once in my life" I'm always there reminding them "That's precisely where we all started".
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2023
|
What I'm saying is that the philosophy of "every species should be equally good at everything" would... well, not get you a very positive response. It's the exact opposite of what people like. So I'm here now, imaging future fans bragging about how the franchise finally moved on from that limitation. It should be funny, but I can't, because that would never, ever happen. They've got their own issues, but they're winning on this point. If you say "x are trash because it's not meta", prepare to be swarmed by angry simps. I don't get it, sorry. It's a different game with a different design goal, it's obvious that it goes in a different direction. I don't like 3.x, while I love 5e, but I don't go around telling 3.x people "your game is shit you should play it like this. Grapple check? Nha, just roll the dice.". I don't understand why people tries to make 5e into a whole different thing than it is. Maybe when 6e will come out it will be again a thick and grindy dungeon crawler, and I will decide if I'm interested or if I will continue playing my narrative focused games.
... because it's fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
|
"Its just an option" is too often a cop out for lazy or weak design. And, the insulting attitude people fir new players who may be interested in a dnd game is rather dumb. Dumbing down the game won't make any new dnd fans. Not a one. I have introduced plenty of people to dnd. Never need to dumb it down fir them. I learned dnd at 10. I'm not a genius. I figured it out. Can you imagine if chess got dumbed down to attract 'casuals' or new players? Ridiculous. New players should be presumed to be capable of learning how to play the game without dumbing it diqn. Afterall, if they are willing to pick it up abd play they'll likely be willing to learn. Isn't that how it is supposed to work whenever you try something new? Learn how it works. The gatekeepers are the ones who think non players are too dumb to understand the game all of likely love. Well, unless you are a Larian first dnd second kind if fan. Then I get it. Laruan doesnt really like dnd or bg anyways. They've made that clear in the oast all the while claiming this will be a 'super accurate depiction of dnd' while changing major parts of it. Now, this post is harsh, but it's not all bad. I've enjoyed previous Larian games. I'll likely enjoy this one flaws and all.  *sigh* Larian made a game centered around a story, they want as many people as possible to see their story. It's the strongest point of the whole game. It got pretty obvious a few years back already. The game is an *adaptaion* of the D&D system, set in the Forgotten Realms lore. Seeing everyone (on this forums only, mind you, all 10 of you seem to be here) bicker about D&D mechanics and whatnot makes no difference to the throng of people that will play this game as it is ment to be by Larian - to experience a story. Litte to no one will care about party composition because they will choose companions that they like. Little to no one will bother with building the perfect character because they will pick the flashiest skills of the bunch. And yeah, sure, there is a vast inbetween - consisting of people who take the changes in stride and think how to work with it, not dispairing "nooo, my D&D experience is ruined forever, I'll go back to playing BG2 now". Could they implement different difficulties consisting of a range from "story - little to none restricting D&D mechanics" to "hardcore - you will die on your first fight 3 times becuase the rng hates you". They could have, but they didn't. I like to think they had a reason, having all this data from EA from the last few years - an ample opportunity to actually see how people play and what is too difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
If those changes were good, I wouldn't complain. The right decision would have been to add more depth.
What they ended up following, and expanding on, was removing more and more groundwork. Yes, this game will be all about convenience, gimmicks and enemies applying shove to cancel out any status effects. Which is still a bonus action, by the way. Logic? What logic? Why not trash terrain altering spells through adding massive jumping distances? Why not give everyone fire arrow and bombs? Oh, you liked druids? Well, at least every species can have 16 wisdom now! Isn't that fixing it perfectly?
Larian must have passed control onto a hyperactive squirrel which is somehow in charge of balancing. This isn't as enjoyable as it could have been. For many reasons. Some of them, the lack of appreciation for world building. Most of them? Invented by the hyperactive squirrel of balancing decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I do worry that people will play these monster builds, then complain that encounters are too easy, and then Larian will balance off of that. I'd be surprised if Larian didn't balance normal difficulty round single class, reasonably default PHB-type characters. Especially given that they said that they expected mainly experienced players to multiclass and weren't trying to draw a lot of attention to it in level up (which I can attest to as it's just a relatively small "Add Class" button at the top right of the level up screen that could easily be missed if you weren't looking for it. What wouldn't surprise me is if, at some time down the line, once they have had chance to see just how exactly players are able to exploit their systems to wipe the floor with the game, they add a further nightmare difficulty mode designed to make the game challenging even for those players (and probably failing, given that an engine with as much complexity and flexibility as BG3's is probably unavoidably going to have loopholes). This is the concern, really. They start building on a shaky foundation of bad homebrew and then keep adding to it, getting further and further away from D&D. When they should simply offer an authentic D&D experience (mechanically) and build on that. I am by no means any kind of a rules purist, but I have read the 5e rules because of BG3. Larian are like a bull in a china shop with D&D. Breaking the game with reckless changes is not going to be "better" or "fun". It feels like the changes always stem from a personal preference rather than player feedback or experience with the D&D system, or necessity for a video game. What even is an "authentic d&d experence"? Rulesets change all the time and the creaters openly promote homebrewing. The rulesets are imperfect things that get changed up and homebrewed all the dang time, see varient human. 2 diffrent games set in the forgotten realms could play almost entirely diffently depending on when they were made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
The point that things need to be "dumbed down" for casuals also ignores the fact that 5e is the most popular version of the game. It's a system that has already been proven to attract new players and keep them. It doesn't need simplifying to attract folks. It just needs a good tutorial. There are certainly issues that could be brushed up and improved but there's no way Larian is found any of this for the sake of casuals. Respeccing is a pretty standard inclusion in these games and you don't need to do it justbfor min-maxing. Someone might start a game as a rangers thinking they'll really like it, but then ten or more hours in realize they dont like the way it plays. So now they can change to something else and their time isn't wiped out. Simple.
Maybe casual players benefit, but Larian just want people to make stupid builds and do meme stuff. They never needed any of this. Blaming casual players for wanting this is diverting the point. Larian isn't doing anything Larian doesn't want to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
This is the concern, really. They start building on a shaky foundation of bad homebrew and then keep adding to it, getting further and further away from D&D.
When they should simply offer an authentic D&D experience (mechanically) and build on that. I am by no means any kind of a rules purist, but I have read the 5e rules because of BG3. Larian are like a bull in a china shop with D&D. Breaking the game with reckless changes is not going to be "better" or "fun". It feels like the changes always stem from a personal preference rather than player feedback or experience with the D&D system, or necessity for a video game. What even is an "authentic d&d experence"? Rulesets change all the time and the creaters openly promote homebrewing. The rulesets are imperfect things that get changed up and homebrewed all the dang time, see varient human. 2 diffrent games set in the forgotten realms could play almost entirely diffently depending on when they were made. As far as I can tell a lot of the changes seem to be matching what Wizards of the Coast are doing with the next generation of D&D releasing next year. So it seems to me like WotC are likely involved in some capacity in how the rules are handled when deviating from 5e and I very strongly suspect they want BG3 to reflect as much of the next gen player handbook as possible. The problem I have there is I have no faith in what WotC are doing as some of the early changes they proposed were catastrophically bad and worse they want to say the next generation of D&D is backwards compatible with 5e...they're not even willing to leave 5e alone. The next gen rules are still being tinkered with all the time and BG3 launches in the middle of that so it will probably end up in a weird limbo where the final product is neither 5e nor 6e.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2023
|
As far as I can tell a lot of the changes seem to be matching what Wizards of the Coast are doing with the next generation of D&D releasing next year. So it seems to me like WotC are likely involved in some capacity in how the rules are handled when deviating from 5e and I very strongly suspect they want BG3 to reflect as much of the next gen player handbook as possible. The problem I have there is I have no faith in what WotC are doing as some of the early changes they proposed were catastrophically bad and worse they want to say the next generation of D&D is backwards compatible with 5e...they're not even willing to leave 5e alone. The next gen rules are still being tinkered with all the time and BG3 launches in the middle of that so it will probably end up in a weird limbo where the final product is neither 5e nor 6e. Just a point here: WotC isn't working on a 6e. It's working in a 5.5e. Everything will be compatible to 5e material exactly in the same way 3.5 material were compatible with 3.0 material. Nothing new on this front. They said that this edition (5.5e is unofficial and oned&d has been scrapped) will be their last and will live in perpetuity but this is just laughable. By 2030 I bet there will be a 6th edition.
Last edited by Sansang2; 12/07/23 09:59 AM.
... because it's fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
The point that things need to be "dumbed down" for casuals also ignores the fact that 5e is the most popular version of the game. It's a system that has already been proven to attract new players and keep them. It doesn't need simplifying to attract folks. It just needs a good tutorial. There are certainly issues that could be brushed up and improved but there's no way Larian is found any of this for the sake of casuals. Respeccing is a pretty standard inclusion in these games and you don't need to do it justbfor min-maxing. Someone might start a game as a rangers thinking they'll really like it, but then ten or more hours in realize they dont like the way it plays. So now they can change to something else and their time isn't wiped out. Simple.
Maybe casual players benefit, but Larian just want people to make stupid builds and do meme stuff. They never needed any of this. Blaming casual players for wanting this is diverting the point. Larian isn't doing anything Larian doesn't want to do. The sad thing here is that dumbing down seems to be coming from Wizards of the Coast who are currently working to finalize the rules for the next generation of D&D releasing this year and I absolutely believe they want greatly simplify and remove a lot of the difficulty from D&D to make it more appealing to casuals. The initial changes they proposed where: only players can crit and natural 20 rolls guaranteed success no matter the task difficulty or even the player could even reach the required roll with a nat 20. As far as I understand these ideas were scrapped after backlash but it give you a general idea of where their head is at when crafting the next handbook. I believe the awfully butchered multiclass system in BG3 is also their idea as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Just a point here: WotC isn't working on a 6e. It's working in a 5.5e. Everything will be compatible to 5e material exactly in the same way 3.5 material were compatible with 3.0 material. Nothing new on this front. They said that this edition (5.5e is unofficial and oned&d has been scrapped) will be their last and will live in perpetuity but this is just laughable. By 2030 I bet there will be a 6th edition. I think that's a farce though...some of the changes they want to bring are too drastically different. This 5.5e will be unrecognizable from 5e.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
As far as I can tell a lot of the changes seem to be matching what Wizards of the Coast are doing with the next generation of D&D releasing next year. Yes, I think this is a point that I've seen mentioned before as well and I think it's a good one. I'll admit it took me by surprise to see these changes that do indeed seem to reflect some of what we've heard about the direction of travel for the next generation of D&D, especially this late in BG3 development. Though I guess earlier might have been tricky as that next iteration of D&D is still in development itself. I'm generally in the camp that kind of wishes Larian had just stuck to 5e as much as possible, though personally I don't mind so much as long as I can at least replicate 5e even if I'm not forced to. As a result the changes I'm most concerned about and want to know more about are the changes to spell progression (and possibly other stuff) for multiclassed characters and balance for races/subraces that don't have +2/+1 ability score bonuses in 5e (like humans). I'm trying to reserve judgement until we actually hear what the changes are, but I very much hope Larian will offer us more detail very soon. Especially as, as far as I'm aware, they've not yet commented publicly on the change to the ability bonus approach and this is just something I and others noted in our playthroughs (though I guess you can deduce from PFH given I don't think the ability scores change for the barbarian character as the presenter scrolls through the races). And the one quick chat in one interview about multiclassing feels like it raises more questions than it answers.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
