Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why Larian did not understand D&D tabletop

Finished the game now and i have to say that the combat system is bad and sometimes even unfair. You have to fight large numbers of foes in each battle but you have a limited amount of spells so you have to rest very often or you have to use Larian DOS stuff to succeed (bombs and potions, explosiv barrels etc.). Because there are so many enemies on the battlefield the concentration spells are useless, better to have fighters with you. The problem is the same with PF:WotR:
you have to feel like a GOD (or like the greatest hero), so the story is completly ridiculous and infatile. But in PF:WotR you are almost a god (lvl 20 and Legend path) so in this case it fits better. In my run i diceded not to be an octopus but the game forces you to become one. So if you wanna be special you have to be an octopus. In PF:WotR there are many differnt options (Lich, Azata, Angel...) which are much cooler than an octopus. Either the game only uses the normal D&D rule set with a down to earth story and challange or i wanna be a cool godlike hero but not an octopus.

A big problem is that they kept a lot of the mechanics that the DnD players here BEGGED to be changed. So the cobat feels more like divinity rather than DnD to me. There is tons of threads in here with logic explanations but larian chose not to listen. Too late now i guess...

The combat problems start with unlimited Long Resting.

They failed at introducing any kind of resource management into the game which skews the D&D classes that have been designed around a limited Long Rest.

It really sucks when you finally reach 11th level as a Wizard, only to find out that Chain Lightning doesn't kill minion level enemiea because their HP has been pumped to 50-60 and above. It feels weak. Martials are still fine because doing 60+ damage per turn and killing an enemy feels powerful.

The whole system for regaining resources is made for tabletop. As a Video game the older rules where you had powers per encounter would work better (if done properly).

Take skills like pommel strike and such moves that are basically easy fighting maneuvers...once per short rest...really? But it had to be done so melee characters have restrictions as not to get too powerful compared to casters.

The issue with shove beeing a bonus action and the way jumnping works is a bigger problem because you can circumvent a lot of skills. Take sleep. Useless because the opponents just run around and shove them awake the next turn and can still attack.

Spells that create a surface are mostly useless since you can just jump out. Ever tried spiky growth? does next to nothing.

It has all been said and ignored and it seems the majority of players has no problem (maybe becaus it feels like divinity) so it will not change i fear.

Talking about damage...having enemies one-hit my 90 HP/AC 22 Paladin is also not really something i want to experience if its not from saomething like a huge monster. This is not a souls game^^

Taking on every encounter with full powers is just lazy design. It's not something a CRPG needs. It's easier for developers to balance. It also leads to massively repetitive combat and less dynamic classes. DA combat sucks because of this, and DOS took a puzzle approach, which I personally hate. The D&D resource management system is more interesting, more dynamic and more rewarding. It's really cool that classes really play and feel different. You have the more straightforward Fighters and Rogues, and then Wizards that play "smarter", having to make decisions when to use their powers and when not to. That's how you can have powerful spells in the game that feel really good to unleash. Games like DOS where casters are just different skin to do the same 50 DPS are boring.

Or it had to be an action / bonus action you can use each turn... which is possible if correctly balance.

Totally disagree with your statement that "powers per encounter" works better.
The most interresting part of the game combat-wise are the area in which you have to manage your ressources... But it only happen a few times. It would have been a lot better if most dungeons required us to manage our ressources imo.

Totally agree with shove + jump. I tried spike growth a lot and it was really useless. Basically all surfaces are in the end which is sad.

Of course if it's a bad suggestion Icelyn endorses it.

EDIT. anyway, since I'm not on my phone anymore, I'll elaborate.

First things first, NO, the game is not designed nor balanced around the idea that you should spam rest at every fight nor that you should have all your load of spell slot available at any encounter. In fact, that would be a perfect way tro trivialize its difficulty even at Tactician.

That aside, "per-encounter" abilities can eventually fit better in a videogame format, yes (they somewhat worked in POE 2, a system entirely designed around those), but the massive mistake being made here in the first place is the assumption that a CRPG*should* remember you that "you are in a videogame" at any given chance, rather than attempting to live up to the pretense of "being off, living an adventure".

A great CRPG should be in equal parts compelling narrative, engaging combat and "environmental simulation". It should at least attempt to sell you the illusion that you are set loose in a fictional, virtual space with consistent rules, rather than remembering you at any given time that everything is "just a game".
Convenience and QoL features should be something to actively chase from the designers WHEN NOT at expenses of the immersion. Which means that for instance the inventory management should be more convenient, not the options to skip any need for camping and resting entirely.

Tuco ...

I will admit, with how free long rests are, and how a lot of encounters seem to be balanced (for MOST players) around having most of your resources, I wouldn't be against a system that you simply had 'x' skills, and you could cast them every fight. That said, the more I play and get comfortable with the system, there is a strategy to using your resources wisely. I've noticed myself playing more tactically because I wanted to save my big boy spells for the boss, and so I'll retreat a bit, pulling the henchmen into a doorway where I can tank them and then snipe them off with cantrips/my ranger/etc.

I think the more I improve, the more I'll appreciate the DND resource system.

Well,

eveyone can have their opinion. You and me also. So in your opinion it is bad? Is that what you wanted to say?

Also, that is why i said "if done properly". The example beeing a simple comba maneuver like pommel strike. Why the hell would you need to rest for that? So some skills would work better as per encounter as other, more powerful or specialized skills should indeed need a rest. Be it short or long.

Since long rests are not restricted or have any negative effect you can just go into every encounter fully loaded, which indeed defeats the DnD idea if resources management. But again D&D 5e are PnP/Tabletop rules. So some changes would be neccessary to have fluid gameplay.

Larian made changes already that messed up the core rules...so why not change something here too so it feels a little better?

I think my post fits here better than in the other thread, so I will link it:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=879089#Post879089

But in general:
Divinity original Sin 2 has a MUCH better combat system. I think there is not much point in thinking how to improve/balance BG3 combat, instead simply replace it by the divinity 2 system and you are good to go. You may add some things that are an improvement to it, eg. a limited and balanced use of concentration spells is ok and I like that moving 0.1 meters does not cost a whole action point anymore.

But the most important thing that BG3 should use to balance stronger abilities/spells would be the COOLDOWN system divinity had. That one strike from barbar is powerful? Then allow it only once per 3 turns in combat (and not per short/long rest). But most likely this would not be "DnD"-like and therefore this super important feature is not implemented?

edit:
an since this thread is not only about combat:
I also think the lock/trap system in divinity2 is much better. In BG3 I did not need a Scoundrel yet (lvl4) to be able to unlock something, while in Divinity there are hard limitations, you can not unlock a higher lvl-lock regardless how much luck you have. And the Scoundrel can not place traps in BG3, thought this would be also a DnD mechanic?

Totally agree. Finished the game and steam said 0.1 % of all players only finished the game. The large majority will never finish the game because the battles can be unfair. They praise the game because they can see genitals and have sex with animals in the first act. Played on tactician with save scumming during battles. But even on normal or low difficulty the game can be unfair because of the above reasons. Larian was unable to implement the tabletop rules properly.

Bg3 combat has its share if flaws but it is 10x better than dos 2 combat system. In fact, 90% of bg3 combat system flaws are because a) larian changed a dnd rule needlessly or/and used a dos rule/way of doing things.

AMEN, had a discussion around the firepit last night about this. In table top our Clerics and Wizards always carried prepared packs with numerous scrolls in them. They also made using spells for everything a no-no. The Clerics always dual worked as a tank and healer. The Wizards would cast maybe one spell early in the fight and then save spell use for when it would matter.

The new generation of gamer think if they are not delivery massive damage the character is somehow not worth having. In my current play through my Bard does almost no damage in the fight. Instead he works the edges, providing buffs and debuffs. While not doing any damage, he is a force multiplier that makes everyone else better and is in my opinion the most valuable member of the party.

I think D&D assumes 4-6 combats before resting.
In BG3 though you at best get to, because Larian wanted to make each combat "special" and a puzzle which means you have to go all in or be destroyed. Even for combats in the middle of nowhere not connected to any kind of objective, quest or story like in Act2 the combat with

Trying to play bg3 dnd style makes it 'artificially' more challenging. I try to rest as little possible. That makes certain battles harder than Larian intended because I'm not spamming my best attacks. If you rested after every battle, I'd wager fights would be relatively easier despite the dos style cheese.

Hells NO, It is a D&D game and not dos3. Been a while since i played DoS2 and the system itself maybe better but it is also a thing of preferrence. But this is based on D&D 5e and it should stay that way. Problemn is that they changed out some things and that kinda compromised the whole combat system.
I have said it before: If you change things the whole ruleset might not work anymore. Just thing what would happen if in chess your king could move 5 squares instead of one? The whole game would change.

No DOS2 is a terrible game. Tried to play it three times. The combat is awful all your party member constantly burning. Erverthing constantly burns. There are explosiv barrels everywhere. And what i hate most: Spells are like abilities! Terrible.

Agree. DOS2 combat especially the health/armor system was awful. You had to go for one damage type and max this out to not fall behind already in early act 1. Combat in BG3 is much better.