After a few hours of play, I can say that I really enjoy the DnD dice rolls for conversations and passive world checks, but the combat seems forced to be focused into the rules instead of being enjoyable.

Divinity Original Sin has the best combat system I've ever seen in any RPG and this new Baldur's Gate game just isn't up to par. I think that an action point based shared by all types of action (including movement) allows for a much more tactical management of resources. Allowing the player to have to make difficult decisions such as having to choose between repositioning and attacking once or more.

I understand that diehard DnD fans might be triggered by any changes in the rules, but I hope that maybe in the future we could see something closer to Divinity's combat system in a Baldur's Gate world. The point of a Baldur's Gate game is the world and story, they just used the DnD ruleset because that's what was available at the time. I don't thing the game should be defined by that.

The lack of basic things like feats, skillpoints, made up with a simplified DOS character build system, only justified by the turned based tactical fights? I don't know about that... thats's a big issue for me, because the customisation of a character is as complex, as the world DnD is set in. See DnD relies on dice 20 rolls you will need evasion, deathward, freedom of movement, skillpoints for skillchecks like use magic devices for wands scrolls, tons of feats and such. It's basic features...<- this part is out of date as I was told sorry. you build for the campaign, but here you build for tactics.

I wrote about my issues of the merge in the DOS and the DnD thread but... it may be "more" tactical for a video game as it is simplifiied for balance. As i stated many times DnD as for the campaign, DOS for the combat. But how to realize this is beyond me. See the DnD worlds were developed over decades, to weave a ruleset into different settings. The guy who gets DOS working in a full DnD game, would ba a genius.



(edit) I am not up to date with the new DnD, they made some basic changes. Maybe it will work, maybe now there is a change in place, video games can adapt to. (As it is for now i guess everyone playing DnD video games, is noob right now if he does not play Pen & Paper so i will just shut my mouth).

I do prefer the combat in DOS 2. There are things about BG3 I like more but overall I feel martial characters are a little 1 dimensional with just attack, attack & attack. Also with spell casters we don't know what the gameplay consequences are for returning to camp to rest.

To combat this I'm hoping they implement more magic items that let you do more things in battle. (Like a swords and wands with charges that do things).

I understand this is how most D&D games are run early levels however I don't know if that simplicity translates well going from tabletop to video game.

It should be win win as for a video game... As for the fights noone likes a pure fighter you cannot multiclass, because he would be plain boring, so the tactical view is most welcome to me... again I know, I edited my post a bit late but.. The guy who gets DOS working in a full DnD setting, would ba a genius.

(edit) stuff gets implemented, as well as multiclassing.

So basically you hope they implement some core DnD items. Some pieces of equipment already grant you special spells.

Exactly this.

I like the core mechanics but your arsenal very limited, especially with the lower level cap. So I'm hoping they make it more of a high magic setting. Giving Boots of Speed, Dancing Sword, Mace of Terror, Illusionist's Bracers, Moonblade Wand of Fireballs, or just being able to craft spell scrolls. Theres a huge plethora of items that can affect your build and gameplay. A number of these items you usually won't find in tier 1~2 (levels 1~10) but I think it helps make combat more engaging in the video game version.

Either way, what we have now is the worst of both worlds. No tactics, one-solution-fits all problem solving.

Skill points haven't been a thing in D&D for at least 12 years (2 editions).
The build system in BG3 is taken directly from the PHB.
Everyone in 5e can use scrolls.
Modifiers are intended to be less than +/-6 so as not to 'overshadow' the die roll - WotC introduced 'bounded accuracy' in order to 'make enemies relevant longer', which is to say, 5e is incredibly swingy and relies entirely on the d20 roll.
Combat was intentionally left fairly shallow, so as to be easy to run.

The core 5e rules are free (as in beer) and the PDFs are available from WotC's site. It's short, well, the rules are, ~65% of the document is spells, as is tradition for every edition but OD&D & 4e.

5e was openly developed. We have the dev diaries to refer to. There was a planned "Tactical Module" to add back in complexity into the system, but that was abandoned. 5e is designed to 'feel' like people remember AD&D playing with unified rules, but the catchphrase was 'rulings, not rules' and it expects a human DM to be there to make fights interesting.

We're already seeing people reporting using hacks that WotC responded to saying "A human DM would never allow that. You can't white room D&D combat." works when there's, y'know, no human DM to go "no. that's dumb." - See how Warlock is the best class to blow through the first map because you can aggro, attack, retreat, break LOS and wash/rinse/repeat.

I was hoping Larian would be allowed to do that, instead we have some environmental effects + shove added in. Maybe some exploding barrels. And Initiative still being God; see the reports of "I took 76 hp to each party member before the first person had a turn" which is a True D&D experience available in most edition.

You now have 0..... I repeat ZERO credibility.

It has a very good combat system for a turn based rpg, but that claim is just..... oooof not true by any measure unless you hate anything that isn't turn based.

Technically true. Everyone can use magically enchanted scrolls in a general sense.

Spell Scrolls, on the other hand, are limited to classes that can actually cast the spells on them. That's a huge difference.

I know you are jabaiting me to ask this, but what game do you think has the best RPG combat system?

I honestly don’t get this as a response. 5e’s subclass system means that there’s plenty of ways to make martial classes unique, in what personally I think are much more interesting than 3e’s obsession with multiclassing. Even pure martial builds are more interesting with things like superiority dice.

Currently the character creation for this game needs considerable work to make how these options will open up further down the track more visible. Not knowing about Eldritch Knight possibilities when you select Fighter at lvl1 seems like a big oversight.

This. 5e classes really start getting interesting after lvl 3, when all the archetypes come into play.

Well, the martial characters have to wait until level 3. Everyone else gets more toys earlier.

Which is by design. WotC's belief was that Martial classes should be simple and for 'new players', and Wizards/Clerics/Warlocks/Druids/Bards are for people "with more experience" - This is why characters were significantly weakened and level 3 is now the equivalent to level 1 in all other editions; but casters still keep the same spell progression. At the time when fighters/rangers/paladins are getting signature class abilities, spellcasters get signature abilities & 2nd level spells.

There was intended to be a 'tactical module' released for 5e that would give us the complex fighter and rogue but that changed when WotC decided 5e was going to be an 'evergreen' product with minimal changes and hire 3rd parties to do ad-hoc releases and an occasional book of 'optional' rules every so often.

Subclasses alone are not going to fix the fact that the core fighter is intended to be "i hit it with my axe" and occasionally, "i hit it with my axe multiple times". Champion does tons of damage, but this is your turn, every turn.

Without additional rules to hook into, that's about all 5e fighters get. Especially with return to 3.x's nerf to AoO's (They weren't called that in OD&D->2nd ed, but every edition but 3.x & 5th if someone did something dumb in front of you, you got a chance to attack. In 4e fighters got riders on this attack, in AD&D they got their full attack progression with no limits. As many people discovered in the SSI Goldbox games). Currently there's no reason for NPCs to not focus fire on the casters, and then deal with the fighters because the fighters do single target damage, but the casters cantrips are long ranged, have riders, and they can spend spell slots for AoE.

It's not so much that they made "basic changes" but rather an overhaul of the entire way D&D plays based on changes made over 3+ separate editions of the game since the last Baldur's Gate was out. This game is based on 5e, and as such is much more streamlined. If you are coming into this only knowing of the rules from the first two BGs, you're going to be in for quite a shellshock.

Well, I am indeed partial to turn-based combat. There are tastes for everything, but seeing as this are two turn-based games it makes sense to compare them within their genera. And I think BG3 loses this comparison in almost every front to DOS.

I actually would not mind turn based combat. Remember there is a 20 dice system so... there might be instant death stuff too probably... summoning, dispelling, a lot of flexibility at higher levels. It might get out of hand quickly, if you don't run the right setup and play your cards well.

Casters can be tanky. Right? I feel like min maxing allready. I don't wanna spoiler builds or anything if it is the DnD I know there will be plenty of options. I am not familiar with 5e anyway. If there is an ingame balance for gameplay, ofc it would be good. As for the gameplay it can be a boon, if you can balance the complex. You gotta grow with challanges, but you cannot confuse mechanics is my point.

I also agree that they should be looked at in similarities to what they have to offer, but the original statement was "... in any RPG..." it wasn't just comparing the 2 properties by Larian. Using that as the basis, all of the arguments then just become subjective any way.

My 2 cents: I didn't like the combat in either of the DOS games and, while clunky yet, BG3 has brought a familiarity that I love. But that's just the old grognard in me.

Depends on what you mean by tank.

Clerics can get decent AC, and have OK hit points, mages can use Mage Armor to not have horrible AC but dem d4's really start to hurt after a few levels.

Paladins are, as always, perfectly decent tanks, but that's half casting.

5e did a reasonable job removing 3.x's "Save or Suck" buffet from casters, and getting rid of CODZilla (one of the broken Cleric builds that was PHB only - Better BAB than a fighter, more armor, more HP, plus full cleric spells). You can still super min/max but you are looking for specific spells that target little used and seldom proficient saves which is easily solvable in BG3 - just don't put those spell combos into the game.

5e is intentionally more streamlined - again, it was designed to 'bring back' that AD&D feeling. You can optimize, sure, but min/maxing is difficult because the really broken combos aren't in BG3 (like the machine gun light crossbow fighter).

Right now, use Warlock with the repulsing eldrich blast. Walk backwards every turn. Hit your enemies with a push and kite them forever.

ti dont wanna spoiler a tanky build... but it is high acish and a lot more nothing is perfect ofc.

Both franchises are great IMO.

It is true that in divinity you have more freedom/choice in combat and character progression.
This allows for more flexibility of items, allowing more builds. Which is IMO what made DOS the best RPG of its time.

It does feel very limiting at first playing BG after divinity.
However, this is not DOS 3. This is BG3
The game is overall really well balanced (if not more-so than DOS) and possibly more tactical because you can't "break" the game like you can in DOS.
No its not DOS 3. But if Larian was going to make a game with the same ruleset they probably would of called the game DOS 3.

There are people that are on both sides of the fence.
People who want it to be more like D&D 5e.
People who want it to be more like DOS 2

I hope we see a continuation of both franchises in the future.

TBH what dnd game mostly lack but ddo wich is an mmo (don't hate me for it but it IS a video game) is a serious endgame i can build for. After the story is done. I know you can always replay. But maybe there can be an addition to a game like Baldurs Gate...
And it would add to it a possible way to get into action without the need of the level process. It was just an idea i just had it doesn't fir the topic... nvm.