Originally Posted by Ethreix
> And i have to ask ... Why?

In short, because D&D is poorly suited for video games, it's actually possibly the worst tactical combat system used in video games ever. Why?

- you have to rest between spell casts (wtf)
- you have to prepare spells (why???)
- you are extremely limited in what one character can do in one round (too slow and boring)
- health pools and damage numbers are too low which takes away fine grain progression from the game, and they're low because the entire system is designed for a physical dice
- in general combat is very slow and clunky

So, what's better? Any turn-based tactical combat that utilises action points, for one: Fallout, Fallout 2, DOS2, Jagged Alliance, Gears Tactics, XCOMs, Mutant Year Zero, Wastelands, and so on. Action Points are the golden standard *in video games*. Because it's the most fun and satisfying.

Now, I do realise that Larian is building a D&D game, which is a huge mistake in the first place, so deviating from D&D looks silly on their part. Because they go against their audience. But for DOS2 fans, BG3 will be a huge disappointment, not just because companions suck, but because of D&D systems. So maybe Larian is trying to not alienate the major part of their audience that comes from DA:O, DOS2 and other non-D&D games, because they realised their mistake, but I think it's about 5 years too late.

I guess people will have to endure D&D *if* the story is truly good *and* combat is smooth enough, but then there's the problem of companions, so I'm not holding my breath. Personal prediction: BG3 will be a bad flop in terms of gameplay hours (not in terms of sales), compared to how overwhelmingly good DOS2 is.

Oh and by the way, my guess is why they're making changes: they've got metrics over how long people that bought early access actually played. Something tells me if those game hours were high, they wouldn't be making these changes. So there you go.

Oh god, I never agreed and disagreed so much with a post at the same time.

For start, what do I agree with?
Translating a PnP game to a videogame is a recipe for clunckiness. You can obtain good results if you ignore the source material enough, but it's like translating a book to a movie. Sometimes you obtain a great movie, sometimes it just don't work. These system takes full consideration of the presence of a GM, and without it the system crumble. That's also why the Lawyer GM that follows RAW like a religion is not a good GM in my opinion, but that's me.

What I don't agree with?
D&D being poorly suited for videogames. Ironically, despite being a PnP game, D&D is among the most videogamey ttrpg I know, and it can be translated pretty much RAW, rule by rule. If I think about dogs in the vineyard or any powered by the apocalypse it would become impossible to translate them.

Things that don't matter?
Pretty much anything else. Vancian system, action economy, health. All these things are just preferences and have nothing to do with the videogame environment. The only thing that matters is just the resting system, that honestly it's hard to manage without a sentient GM.


... because it's fun!