I am a big fan of the Baldur's Gate games and the Divinity games. I also regularly play tabletop 5e.

It seem to me like Larian doesn't really understand the appeal of tabletop 5e and isn't giving it a chance.

It feels like they are trying to adapt Divinity rules with a 5e paint job rather than starting with 5e rules and working from there. It was mentioned early on that they didn't think people like to miss so they added a bunch of extra rules to improve hit rates or give advantage.

The problem with meddling with 5e rules that it unbalances things. Elevation bonuses benefit ranged characters, but punishes melee. Then more rules need to be added to counter the other rules and more and more. Jumping/Disengage as a bonus action spits on the rogue and monk who lose a class feature.

It isn't necessary. Playing on a tabletop it doesn't feel like you are always missing, there's bounded accuracy and monsters designed to be either low AC/high Hp or higher AC/low hp.

I also think that if instead of showing a percentage attack change and people goiing "HoW cOuLd i MiSs aT 99%?!" just show the roll. It gives more feedback than just hit/miss. Missing three times in a row could be rolls of 1, 2. 3 or 8, 9, 10. It just feels better when you miss by less.

I think that Larian has made everything much harder for themselves trying to balance things and could potentially alienate fans of the 5e ruleset by having things that would never appear in tabletop play.

An example that bugged me was an open wound disease that over a few turns progressed into a disease that gave vulnerability to all damage that required a second level spell to remove at level 3 play. Diseases are relatively rare in 5e, and usually progress over days, not seconds. it shouldn't be a thing that every trap does.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts.

The more faithful they are to the 5th edition rules, the better. The ruleset is excellent, and should be adhered to as much as possible.
I will of course accept some adaption for video game purposes, but it should be where they can't adhere to the rules for technical reasons. Not just "because we think we can make it better than the currently huge success of 5e indicates that it is".

If they wanted to make characters hit more, they failed because I feel like I'm missing more than I'm landing hit.

+1

I am not sure why they shifted so much from the rules. The rogue classes where well balanced in 5e but it seems like Larian felt they needed nerfed because sneak attacks are much harder to get now, every one has access to bonus action potions which was originally a thief only feature (fast hands) and then the dumping of expertise... all big rogue hits and I see nothing added to compensate.

This is early access so may be more is coming?

I’m gonna disagree on one thing in particular:

Warlock and Ranger in TT are trash mechanically without homebrew or the current UA. I’m so-so about showing the dice roll, its in the current patch of Pathfinder Kingmaker, and I actually despise it. It communicates too much to the player. I’d go even further and say Don’t Show Chance to Hit at ALL. Just give us a proper combat log to see what happened after.

I’ll agree that Rogue needs its features back (expertise) and the Advantage sources need to be cleared for Rogue (its still doing 60% of my party damage by itself).

This game isn't DND, and doesn't have to follow the ruleset and it's their choice. Larian have creative freedom, and after playing DOS2 quite a lot i think they know what they are doing and have faith. Trust the method behind the madness, but understand no matter which way they go, not everyone will be happy and if you come to the game expecting a 1:1 DND clone you've already set yourself up for disappointment.

Well if its not going to be 5e I might as well refund right now, because thats what they communicated what this was going to be and thats what I expected.

"didn't think people like to miss so they added a bunch of extra rules to improve hit rates or give advantage."

Certainly doesn't feel like it, if I want my hit chance to seem on par with what it should be in 5e then I need to hit it from the back.

Exactly. Again I don't mind them not sticking to the 5e rules as written but everything they communicated beforehand gave the impression that they wanted to make this as close to the tabletop experience as possible. Maybe they didn't say those exact words specifically but given what they said they gave us more reason to think this was going to be D&D than to think they were going to take what they liked form D&D and apply their own creativity. And if you want to suggest that we're bringing our own baggage to the table by assuming that was going to be the case without their explicit confirmation, then let me reiterate; everything they communicated up to now made it more reasonable to assume this was going to remain faithful to D&D as much as possible, and there was little evidence to make us assume otherwise.

+1

5e has some flaws but on the whole is an enjoyable rpg experience with plenty of room to expand tactical thinking and investment. Reworking this much open a door to a whole new layer of unbalancing hell. Everithing is fun and games until high tiers ara achieved (11+ char level) and then the amount of complexity can unexpectaly explode (like careless homebrews explode in tabletop). Surface gameplay comes to mind, i wonder how a full party of wizards can melt hordes of everything just by stacking flames and keeping enemies there.
Sure Larian realize we dont have DOS2 armor and skill system anymore, aint that easy to counter surfaces and status effects..



they seem to have introduced facing variant, but not flanking variant. Im fine for elevation but not as an advantage, +2 /-2 modifiers to hit within bounded accuracy is well enough (just like archery FS)

+1

they should stick a little more to the basic 5e rules.

Giving this topic a +1. Agreed. 5e is a great system that is fun to play. They should trust it.

That's DnD for you. Pray more to RNGesus

They've obviously never tried to land sacred flame if they're always hitting, jeez. <20% success rate i recon! How much dex do these beasts have?

Totally agree to be honest. We need more 5E stuff, we need to see the dice rolls on the screen. Its a D&D game so lets do this!

+1

Agreed.

You CAN see the combat rolls. Open what looks like a chat window on the lower right side of the screen then hover over the attack that was made

+1 more DnD

I am going to disagree, they are marketing this as Balder Gate 3, If what they wanted is to ignore the D&D 5e rules, they should have made DOS: 3

I can never understand why people license a ruleset then choose to ignore that. It's not like they are getting to use D&D 5e for free.

For people stating you can never use a Pen & Paper rule set for a CRPG, go look at Pathfinder Kingmaker, they seemed able to use the rules as written.

BG3 seems like a game with way too many house rules. That OK if that what you want but since this is the first D&D 5e CRPG, I would rather be be more core rules and not homebrewed everything.

Generally agree, BUT ...

a) In 5e, terrain conditions like elevated ground can give Advantage, but it is a DM's call. So Larian is not really bending the rules here.

b) the percentage to hit is a nice feature / much easier to evaluate. At best, there could be an option to show the rolls over AC.

Addendum for bad readers : I support the percentage presentation. It is only a visual choice : it does not change the rules.

The game still uses di rolls to determine the hit. You can see this in game by clicking the tiny arrow on the bottom left. It shows your chance to hit in percentage, but you can see what the game actually rolled and verify it was indeed a di roll. I THINK it also shows enemy AC there, but I can't remember 100% if the AC is part of what it shows or not.

+1 to more traditional DND rules!!!

Attack rolls vs. AC basically is a % chance... still, I don't like seeing it like that, to be honst. It should be completely optional. D&D games usually don't deal in %, unlike say, the Fallout series. It's a game of optimizing your character, and meeting each new enemy without knowing your chances.

I think you're very much right that this feels like an attempt to adapt D&D ruleset to the game engine, rather than adapt the game engine to the D&D ruleset. A minor, but crucial distinction and in my opinion the wrong way to do it.

I suspect that Larian has made a bit of a mistake in modifying the D&D ruleset before beginning Early Access, since now all of us that actually knows the D&D ruleset might feel that it would have been better to implement the rules as directly as possible instead of some of these odd adjustments. Combined with a lack of a available roadmap/design document it's really hard to tell which D&D features have been removed or modified, and which just haven't been implemented yet. And then the paranoia starts....

Edit: I won't comment of the parts of OP that misunderstands either of the systems as they seem to have already been corrected by others

Just posted something similiar, I think instead of the percentage it should show either armor class or the save required and when you shoot it then shows you what you rolled.

I wouldn't mind if they moved things more back in the direction of the standard rules. It doesn't have to be an exact match.

I don't mind things like Firebolt lighting someone standing in oil on fire. I do mind Ray of Frost targeting a person, dealing damage, creating ice on bare ground beneath them, then they immediately go prone.

I would not mind Fighters getting Shove as a bonus action. Shove being a bonus action for every single class is far too strong.
The similar thing with Jump/Disengage. It's too easy to avoid AoO.

Surfaces need to be more like 5e also. Let's look at spells like Wall of Thorns..

The way that this game would handle it, is you take damage 1. When the spell is cast. 2. When you start your turn there. 3. When you move out of it. Do you see the problem here? In 5e, you take damage from Wall of Thorns when 1. When it is cast. 2. When you end your turn in it. 3. When you enter it for the first time on your turn. You also get saves to see if you take half damage every time. Larian, please implement it like this. Right now, you take damage from firebolt 3 separate times and mostly cannot avoid it.

Shove is an optional attack action, I think it should be implemented as it works in the rules. This already makes it more relevant formartial classes since they get extra attacks as they level up, while a rogue would haveto chose to forego their one and only attack to shove someone.

I love they shove is in the game, but it shouldnt be so freely acessible that it becomes a nobrainer to always shove every tuyrn you have an oportunity to do so. It just becomes silly like the jump thing. You get further if you jump so a lot of the time jumping is a free movement boost and makes the oportunity attack rules almost irrelevant.

I mean last I checked Baldur's Gate is a setting in Wizards of the Coast's D&D 5e setting of Farune. It is marketed as a sequel to BG2 by about 500 years I think was what they said. Marketed to use the D&D 5e ruleset. Sure they have creative freedom, but that's not what we were promised. If they can do it in BG 1 & 2 and make them a clone of D&D 2nd edition then Larian can make a clone of 5e for BG3. I have faith in that.

They literally use 5e ruleset as a selling point on the Steam page.

I think it's ok for them to modify the rules a tad. After all D&D is not a system made for video games - you can't just slap these rules in as they are and expect them to work.

All games based on D&D rulesets have modified them one way or another with the blessing of the licensers, because some systems simply would be not workable for a video game without being a massive pain in the ass.

Then, as always, you have outright crappy stuff in D&D that begs to be changes, like Rangers for example and I am glad Larian got a green light on that.


As a whole, giving more bonus actions to characters around is good, because you can then create more interesting encounters with more enemies and action, so it's fine in my (player)book. Screeching that it's not D&D is silly - show me who follows those rules to a last word.

I totally know and agree. I only said that the percentage presentation is a "nice feature / much easier to evaluate" as in more player-friendly.
And I add there could be an option to show it differently (roll vs AC). Yes, the % is just a conversion of the D20 (5% per unit). Rather obvious. The rules are not changed there.

The extra attack comes at 5th level. I believe one reason for all these free bonus actions is that Larian is concerned about Fighters feeling bland with not much to do at low levels.



I agree.

This is and always had been sold as "a computer game based on D&D 5e rules" not "a DND 5e computer game". I think it's an important distinction to make.

I don't understand the changes either. BG3 is quite a close adaptation in many regards, but the changes they did make all feel like they were for the worse.

The bonus action disengage by jumping. First of all, it's a ridiculous concept. Doing silly things in melee should provoke AoO's, not escape them. Secondly, it nerfed tanks' ability to control the battlefield (which are really wide and scattered already in BG3, tanks are struggling to get to melee range with anything). It nerfed the Rogue, giving their perk to everyone. Why was this needed?

Jumping height and Shove distance have been buffed to Marvel superhero levels to the point where it's a bit immersion breaking. And OP since there are so many cliffs to push enemies off of and it's really easy to do.

Eating food has magical healing effects. Why was this needed? If there is a larger problem with the HP economy, make Short Rests heal enough, or let everyone heal some amount of HP after every encounter without a Short Rest. I wouldn't have an issue with a house ruling so that the game can flow better. But I do have an issue with characters eating pork chops in melee as a bonus action and healing 11HP from it. This is not a platform game, things need to make sense.

+1 to go closer to 5e rules.
WotC actually did a very good job balancing the system until lvl 11
I don't understand why Larian feels the need to reinvent the wheel, if it's already there.
I don't mind changes, because of game engine and UI limitations, but making disengage, hide and use item a bonus action, together with not having expertise, makes rogues just a worse ranger, at the moment.

What I am saying is it DOES show the AC, it's just not in your face. There is a window you can pull up to see the actual dice rolls for your "to hit" and it will show what you rolled vs the enemy AC. So again, you can see it, the game shows it, as well as all damage rolls and such. You just have to expand the little window on the right side of the screen and hover over the attacks to see it.

+1000 For more DnD Style.
Seems like many things have to go back to the scratchboard when it comes to this point.
It's a great game so far, but doesn't feel like DnD by now.

It's not only the combat, it seems like they took some stuff from the book and try to push it into a predefined DoS pattern instead of going from scratch and then look what have to be added/changed for a CRPG.

I agree completely with making it as close to 5e as possible. Remove the freebie bonus actions, make only the bigboy spells like fireball create surfaces (or those that specifically do it RAW), remove like 80% of the oil barrels, make reactions usable, and it will be an actual D&D 5e game. So far it feels like they took Divinity, which was great don't get me wrong, and decided to reuse half their stuff in a completely different context that doesn't really work. After going "wow, let's make jumping and pushing the core mechanic of the game".

Yes. Please be more faithful to 5e rules. Gives our classes their appropriate features. Another thing I feel is missing is tools and tool proficiencies. Herbalism to let you make health potions and antivenoms. Alchemy to give you resistance potions, potion of invisibility, etc. Poison kit says it in the name. Brewer's supplies, wood carver's tools, smith tools, tinker's tools, etc. With tinkerer's tools you could craft thieve's tools and trap disarming kits (which I think should be the same thing.) Give us more to do outside of combat than looking for the next person to talk to or fight.

I'm up in the air about this.

There is more wrong with 5e then just Warlock, and Ranger. Take for instance (not applicable in game or I haven't noticed. not paying attention to it matter of fact.) It takes half your movement to stand in 5e. for a level one halfling thats around 10 feet, fiifteen for humans. Later as you level up the difference can be from that starting 10 ft. to over 30 for certain characters with certain feet at level 4. Then it continues to go up depending on feats and such. At one time it was costing one of my characters twice the movement of a rogue to simply stand up.

This is just one instance where me as a DM, and the DM who runs a game I'm playing in has here it comes House Ruled. Yes house rules are even stated as optional ways to run the game if a DM (in this case Larian Studios) deems them necassary for what ever reason. In this case some of 5e rules as stated in the handbooks may not fit in with what Larian wishes. Yes I really dislike that I can't have a 6 intelligent Fighter with a strength of 18, because of the caps that larian has put in place currently. Again this is similair to a House Rule.

Much of my limited yet thorough play through has felt like the standard rules, and my standard plays in pen and paper. None have felt to out of whack (except the familair/animal companion list) from any other times I've played a pen and paper. Beastmaster Rangers are still useless (this do to fact they don't get any combat animals currently). I am unsure as to what is wrong with warlocks (I've yet to play them on pen and paper, and haven't thoroughly looked through them ig. add to this I've seen no statement as to what OP felt is wrong with them.)

I did play a Warlock on this game and when I hit was destroying pretty much everything on ship, and doing some nasty damage after that. I was only using my Eldritch blast.

Clerics in game are imo odd and the one thing I've noticed is seperate from 5e rules. This being in the Domains that each god has, every god has the same ones. This may change, I'm hoping it does, but this might also be to lessen the confusion of those that don't play 5e. Again my opinion.

I don't mean to seem to be ragging on people. just wanted to point out that 5e books state House Rules are okay, so OP himself just invalidated himself by what he said. to sum it up. 5e handbooks states House Rules are fine. Larians changing of some things can be viewed as House Rule, which is fine with 5e.

It would be better if he states which things he has a problem with, and why. So Larian can add it to the data their collecting In Example I have a problem with the way your handling Ranger beastmaster and their animal companions. You are currently using the same noncombat familairs that wizards and others use.

Now Larian knows which rules he has problems with, and why. Other players can chip in then Larian has a greater amount of feedback then an abstract you should stick to the rules, which in voided by the House Rule itself.

5e expects the DM to houserule. The 1/2 movement to stand up rule was introduced because, again, 5e was meant to be easy to run - WotC having a vested interest in getting as many new DMs as possible running as many games as possible.

It was not built to be fiddly and fine tuned (3.x/4) but instead deliver decent performance to a wide range of people. They took out some of the more abusive exploits from 3.x, ignored others (declaring them something DMs can solve if it bugs them).

"Rulings not Rules" is a great design strategy and slogan for building a human run engine. Not so much for a computer game where ambiguity is The Enemy.

Right now I find combat to be very shallow and luck-based. I either win by exploiting LOS/shove or getting the initiative or get dumpstered because every enemy goes first and crits on every attack. A great many of the abilities and features that seem cool are far less effective than exploding barrels or shove, and every encounter is designed to require ruthless abuse of these new features or CRPG "AI"

One of the best turn-based tactical games has exactly that problem. X-COM is not unfair, but it feels extremely unfair and punishing exactly because you will miss a 99% hit change from time to time and an 85% in 3 out of 10 attacks.

Just show the attack roll and attack stats.

+1

I also think it would be soothing for a wide audience to be transparent with the rolls this way, and not use percentages. The rolls are also already accessible in the scrolling window, but the UI needs some tuning in demonstrating the rolls becouse it aint pretty at the moment.

I also think this should be implemented in dialogues - show the actual DC you need to beat and your bonuses to the d20 - people have no problem learning this the very first time they play d&d tabletop, and tabletop is way less intuitive than larians UI for dialogues that already looks really promising.

Personally it feels as though they made changes to 5e mechanics for seemingly no reason. Helping out underperforming classes such as ranger is fine, but stuff like cantrips making surfaces and forcing saves is just totally broken. Its especially grating to people that have played 5e as they expect something to work a certain way and it doesn't. Not saying that they not make any changes ever, they just need to be reasonable and consider balance.

Pathfinder Kingmaker started out as 1:1 rules as written. The game was hot garbage. Now, in its definitive form, the game has made numerous tweaks (both optional and forced) to the TT rules. Surprise! no TT game transfers 1:1 to a video game. Only a very small audience enjoys that experience, and under capitalism this does not make a successful product.

Yeah, thats one of them that I'm like eeeeehhhhh, to many things causing surfaces. As stated in my list of feedback in the stickied topic, all these surface things are well and good if it makes sense. Yet it's being overdone.

No, don't make a Baldur's gate game if you are not foloowing DnD rules. Otherwise, just make DoS 3

No, don't make a Baldur's gate game if you are not foloowing DnD rules. Otherwise, just make DoS 3.

+1 for the topic

Gotta agree there, sadly... but I've written enough about that issue, already. You take up an IP, you have limitations and responsibilities. You want to do your own thing, than make your own thing. It's no rocket surgery.

This. I'm fine if they just show the math better, but the implementation is fine. You can see the dice rolls if you want to. I know I look at them all the time to see if I rolled a 2 or a 3. Because I do a lot.

5e rules is released after careful design about action economy, and it's pretty balanced in low level party, I also wish they can stick more to the rule instead of modifying a big chunk of it and causing a lot of following balance issue.

I'm going to have to agree with you Merry Mayhem. I don't understand why they market this as 5e but just put in so many house rules or ignore many of the 5e rules.
I loved Pathfinder Kingmaker, probably the closest modern CRPG that follows the 3.5 rule book. They only thing Kingmaker needs to do to enhance it is to add more and fun elevation from the environment and better stealth mechanics.

I know some people will probably get upset for me for saying this but this feels more like DoS3 than BG3. It's fun but it feels like 5e with finicky DoS mechanics that I was hoping would be improved for BG3.

I agree with the rogue part. What's the point of cunning action when everyone can simply use their bonus action to use item and disengage easily.

Changing aspects of 5E is completely understandable if they are hard to translate into a video game. I get that. But as others have said, many of the changes seem to have no reason whatsoever. Turning so many actions into bonus actions take away the identity of certain classes. And giving so many of the spells environmental effects make it feel more like a video game and less like a TTRPG. Why does a firebolt set fire to the cobblestone beneath my feet? Why does small puddles of acid burn through my boots and damage me? Why does a bolt of ice fired at my chest create ice under my feet? Stuff like this, feels like Larian is too fond of DoS mechanics.

Not only that, but certain spells become overpowered (cantrips), while the environmental effects from 5e (Like Cloudkill and Fireball), loose some of their flavor since everything creates environmental effects.

I do like that you can set fire to grease etc, because that is something you would ask your GM if you could do. And Larian did state that they wanted come close to the TTRPG experience. Which is why I am confused when it comes to some changes.

I think one of the frustrations here is that there is a certain genius to the D&D 5th Edition rules. Those rules were in large part designed around turn based miniature combat and should be very very implementable in the type of video game Larian Studios is famous for. I believe a far more pure implementation of the rules would be well received and prove to be very fun for both D&D fans and DoS fans alike.

What I'm seeing in the current EA version sometimes makes me think the Larian team did not understand the use one rule or another means to the overall gameplay in D&D. That being said, I know it is easy to criticize from my couch and that it is a hard thing to merge D&D and DoS. Sacrificing some rules may be necessary to keep the overall game a fun and fast-paced experience.

My overall point here, then, is to strongly encourage Larian Studios to lean in favor of a purer implementation of the D&D 5th Edition rules wherever possible. I honestly think the DoS fans that aren't familiar with those rules would embrace them once they get a taste of the strategic and entertaining balance they have in turn-based combat. I've had great adventures using these rules.

Thank you, Larian Studios,

TriggerJock

+1

I understand certian ideas like re-working the ranger class so they have more utility without a DM.

However, a bunch of the rules shouldn't have been messed with.

+1 to Topic.

Not sure I agree about some of the stances being taken here (Warlocks being underpowered in PnP...there is a reason that a Warlock dip is pretty much a standard in any multiclass Charisma caster), but Larian seem to have tried to 'fix' things that they perceived needed to be fixed (giving everyone bonus action disengage, hide and shove, having cantrips to less damage but have additional effects, flipping the roll +prof vs target format), which has either broken a bunch of things that were not broken before, or has generally made the experience feel less like a D&D/Baldur's Gate game and more like a Baldur's Gate emulation/mod running on top of Divinity Original Sin 2.

There is a huge difference in a class being viable for a dip an the class being viable for higher levels.
Warlock is a very good dip class, the problem with them is their scaling for higher levels.

I don't mind some rule changes to make DnD fit into a video game, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 did that as well and it worked out fine.
I kind of do mind how far it's been taken away from what DnD normally feels like. Dipping, surfaces, cantrips that create surfaces out of thin air, infinite bonus shoves, food healing, help action healing...

I was actually kind of OK with the abilities given to each weapon as they were once per short rest refresh, then I saw how useful tridents were at closing the gap on round 1 and now every melee character walks around with a trident equiped and changes to their normal weapons on round 2. Maybe not a terrible problem but doesn't speak to the DnD theme, maybe another pass, but I do think short rest refresh abilities add to this as a video game.

I like when the terrain plays a part, verticality seems pretty awesome if we can tweek the AI to be able to deal with it. I like ranged being effective and a good reason to dash your melee up next to them to punish them for trying to remain ranged. I like the idea of shoving, I think it's worthy of a full action not just a bonus action, battle master's can already include it in their attack so fighters have their increased ability with maneuvers taken care of.

I like to CC as an arcane caster, fog clouds, sleeps, color sprays, greases and webs fill many of my memorized slots. I just don't think cantrips should be doing just as good CC as actual spell slots.

Yeah, this.

I know that the standard Warlock dip is a 2-3 levels for Invocations and/or Pact Boon, but I've played warlocks into level 10/11 range without them feeling weak or underpowered, it's all about maximising the utility of your invocations and spell choices.

Once you get to 12+ and there isn't much else there beyond the Mystic Arcanum, but honestly I've never had a game that started at 1 get much beyond the Tier 3 range anyway (and dipping 2-5 levels into Rogue or Fighter for Cunning Action or Action Surge is almost always worthwhile).

I'll completely agree that mechanically speaking the class is pretty front-loaded and that you get most of what you want from it in the first 10-11 levels or so, but I don't really consider it one of the weaker classes in the game (particularly if Hexblade is being permitted), though I suppose a lot of the class's utility is dependent upon how frequently your group can/do short rest (at the time in question I was playing with a Monk and a Fighter as two of the other three party members, meaning that short rests were fairly regular throughout the gaming day).

+1

Every change from the 5E ruleset neccesitates another change Larian needs to come up with and causes a chain reaction. 5E has been enduring constant balancing for several years. Game design should start with 5E ruleset and then adapts from there. Not make arbitrary changes like giving phase spiders ranged attacks on top of their already high mobility and poison resistance. Quarterstaffs and spears no longer versatile. Not sticking to monster challenge rating by using low level "Wood woads" but keeping their damage and resistances the same etc. Worst is surfaces guaranteed damage as it wrecks concentration checks for casters when enemies can always cause a concentration check by dealing 1d4 fire dmg without a dex save.

I love the game but every single balance issue thus far has been because they deviated from tabletop for unknown reasons.

To me it appears they have tried to balance the game like DoS2 with every fight being a decently hard challenge. That works when you can bedroll after every fight but that isn’t how things should be in 5e. Not every fight has to walk the line between and close victory and a TPK. Imo they should limit long rests to certain locations and greatly reduce the difficulty of non boss fights.

Agree, this game is basically reskinned DOS. I won't recommend this game to anyone in its current state. There are just so many things wrong

I'm also curious, what exact thing did Wizards of the Coast even do at this point? Lore? They definitely didnt ensure that Larian stuck to the 5e ruleset.

Disagree. I think the game is good as is.

That's some hot take there.

Overall this is definitely 5e D&D, sure it has tweaks, but show me a D&D video game that does not, heck show me a tabletop game that does not.

I think they will tweak things plenty, like amount of short rests or long rest being at will as it is now anyway. But some stuff will stay, such as surfaces - you can count on that one, it's Larian's pride and joy and for a good reason, frankly. I also bet they will keep cunning action for all too, I imagine it allows for more difficult encounters in turn, which is where much of the fun is in turn based game.

That's a bit of an overreaction. It IS the 5e D&D, but it is also a video game - there will need to be some compromises. This shouldn't be a surprise.

I don't think anyone is asking for a 1 to 1 adaptation of 5e (which would be nearly impossible to make a video game adaptation that's fun), but the surface system, as currently implemented, is just so backwards from what 5e combat is about that it doesn't even feel like 5e anymore.

Creating hazards/surfaces in 5e was usually special and impactful, but not the name of the game. Now, surfaces are so prevalent and impactful that it doesn't even feel like playing D&D anymore. Especially since the player isn't afforded any kind of saving throw when passing through a hazard (unlike 5e). Nevermind that the action economy was butchered by making disengage a bonus action.

This seems to come up a lot in the most viewed threads on this forum - and I entirely agree.

I loved BG1 and 2, and I love DnD 5e. I have tried to play both Divinity 1 and 2, and no matter how many hours I put in to those, I keep being disappointed with them. So I was worried when Larian were the ones to be developing BG3, but I figured they were developing BG3 based on DnD 5e, not just Divinity 3.
But this feels a lot more similar to Divinity than to either Baldurs Gate in tone/atmosphere. And it feels a lot more Divinity than DnD5e when it comes to game mechanics. I get that they'll want to reuse some of their own stuff, but there are many choices here where they could have chosen to be more true to BG and to DnD5e.
- Color scheme/visual feel - you could make a more modern version of the BG "look", rather than what still feels quite Divinity.
- Party management - the weird chaining thing drives me insane, why can't I just get party management like BG1 and 2? (And Pillars of Eternity, Pathfinder Kingmaker, etc.)
- Items/abilities - what's with all the weird extra abilities added to items? There are plenty of cool and diverse magic items in 5e, and that can be made following 5e rules (as demonstrated by many homebrewers). There is no need to make Divinity Items here, you could be true to the DnD5e system instead..
- Class abilities - For most things, I'm pretty sure you could stick to the actual class abilities and progression, rather than add unbalancing complexity by insisting on doing Divinity Stuff before even really giving the DnD5e way a chance..
- Combat mechanics (why can everyone disengage and shove as bonus actions?)
- Rests - why is it only possible to do 1 short rest? And why can you just freely do as many long rests as you like, even while in very dangerous locations, with seemingly no effect on time passing or anything?
This thread by "Sirius Wolf" covers much of what I have also been thinking in my 20 or so hours in EA so far: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=686488#Post686488

Anyway - I hope Larian will take it seriously that they promised a BG game based on DnD5e, instead of making what is mostly a Divinity Game adapted partially. I sense that they've pulled quite a lot of people in who wanted BG3 in DnD5e, and I think they will lose a lot of us if they end up making a game that feels in tone and mechanics more Divinity.

He's right though. It is a mess. I am finding it more frustrating than fun right now.

And I think part of the problem is the 5e ruleset. Not the ruleset itself per se, but the implementation and information. I have no experience with 5e and lots of experience with 3.5e, so I realise that things are going to be different, but Larian seems to expect us all to be completely familiar with the 5e ruleset. I have no idea what is going on and with no adequate tooltips, I will continue to have no idea. I can't tell if I am seeing bugs or things working as is designed. I am constantly trying to perform an action or cast a spell and finding it does something I didn't expect.

I went away and read up on the basics of 5e, and actually I really appreciate the differences - I think they are all great ideas. But that doesn't make BG3 any more comprehensible. It is quite weird because the game is actually quite easy, but I have to keep reloading in order to learn by trial and error.

I think they started EA too early. They should have polished Act 1 a little, put in tooltips and made things more or less work. A casual first play through reveals tons and tons of bugs that should have been squashed right away. And who in their right mind designs an inventory system without an auto-sort? Surely the algorithm is just a copy-paste from DOS2 (God knows they copy-pasted almost everything else).

They should diverge even farther from the 5E rules. Just about little annoyance I have with this game stems from the 5E ruleset and the things where I've thought, "oh that's a cool thing" have been divergences from it.

Put another way, I'm not looking for a faithful adaptation of a tabletop RPG ruleset. I'm looking for an exciting and dynamic party based CRPG. D:OS1+2 show that Larian can deliver on that. The parts of the early access that feel slow or boring or unimaginative have been things that cleave too closely to the tabletop rules. Make a good game first and worry about the tie-in after.

I fully disagree here, the primary reason I was hyped for this is exclusively because I was looking for a CRPG that used the 5E ruleset. So the more diverged from that the game ends up being the less value I will find in it. That said, so far its a LOOOONG way off of anything but a thin veneer of the 5E ruleset. Well beyond the category of "reasonable compromise for adapting it to a video game". There is so much that isn't even close to right. Weapon and spell ranges are way wrong, classes are only partially implemented in alot of places. At best, EA is a good start, but its way not as close to where I personally think it needs to be mechanically to satisfy anyone even remotely concerned with how it implements the 5E ruleset.

BG3 could be a fun CRPG if you don't care at all about 5E mechanics, but if you do, it is disappointing thus far in that regard. It was also pitched to us as being a 5E game, implementing those mechanics, and I don't see that delivered here. That is on them, because I consider myself mislead if it doesn't significantly improve from where its at now in that regard.

It sounds like you just don't want to play a game based on 5e. This argument is like playing Halo 3 and saying "Can you take out all the stuff that makes it Halo 3 and make it more like Call of Duty Black Ops?"

I feel like the game you want already exists. It's called Divinity Original Sin 2.

I disagree, so far I hear the idea that you can't implement the table top rules to a video game argument at this point as a cop out, or at best if it is true, developers just adopt that posture before actually getting anywhere near the point that it doesn't work. Also the mechanics in BG3 are not a "tad" off of 5E rules, they are way off, applying more of a light dash of 5E rules, than anything close to a faithful adaptation. Its 5E derivative, not depictive.

So ask for DoS 3. That is not a Baldur's Gate game

If I'm honest, yeah, I don't much care for 5e. Faithfully adapting it to a video game would create a dreadfully boring product, and fortunately Larian has explicitly said they're willing to make adjustments in the interest of making a good game. I skimmed the thread and saw all the "+1 more tabletop" replies and wanted to provide a divergent opinion, lest Larian think everyone playing the game cares a lot about fidelity to rules designed for a completely different format.


Hi Larian please shelf all the work you did on BG3 and instead make D:OS3 tia

Absolute +1, especially because those like myself familiar with 5E wanted/hoped it would be faithful enough to the ruleset to let us recreate the characters/builds we've played in the tabletop. So far, that is absolutely not the case, and not just because of the lack of 5E content available in BG3 yet. Warlocks for example, overwhelmingly often use Darkness/Devil's Sight as a combo, which isn't even possible because Darkness in BG3 arbitrarily disallows ranged attacks into or out of it. That is just one of many examples littered all through these forums where the ruleset isn't implemented correctly and borks character concepts and builds that people may have hoped to reproduce in this game, which was advertised heavily as using 5E ruleset. I am holding out hope that Larian can ultimately deliver on that promise, but right now, they haven't, and I am disappointed in what we have presently in that regard.

I've played dozens of games that adapt DnD and even the hack and slash action games are closer adaptations than this. So far this game is just the DnD character stats and skill checks partially overlaid onto the D:OS2 engine. Outside of basic to-hit calculations and in-dialogue skill checks nothing uses a D20 to resolve - including terrain effects, trip chances, and most other instances where a save would take place. DnD almost never lets you do damage without rolling (outside of a tiny handful of limited-use abilities) but the party I used to play through the EA content almost never rolled to do damage because it was so easy to just not.

Please please please this.

Why is there no dodge? Why can everyone bonus action disengage?

Verticality is strong enough as a way to gain cover/LOS enemies. It doesn't need to also make it WAY easier to hit enemies from as well, because it makes there be no point to playing a STR character when you could just run DEX with a heavy crossbow, take highground, and never miss a shot or take damage. Every single encounter overground allows this: The Gith patrol, the Gnolls, inside and outside the goblin camp, Blighted Village incl. the ogres.

Why is there so much access to healing via food, potions, and short/long rests? Why bother with a cleric? (Compounded by the ability for wizards to learn healing spells)

% to hit vs dice roll just feels way worse, especially because sometimes you'll get numbers that are just mathematically impossible to get on a d20 system. 99% to hit? Sure. How?

Why are throwables so common? Why does everyone have alchemists fire/acid/bombs? One to two a fight from a unique enemy type among goblins would be fine, I guess, but its way too common now. Fire Bolt and Acid Splash should NOT be the way they are now. Conversely, I will say I like the throwables you get from the Nautiloid - they're unique and you won't find them past the starting area (for at least a long while). Extremely limited unique effects for players to play with is fun! Having 19 alchemists fire, one for every combat in the game, is not!

+1

I was really surprised the combat didn't make me feel like I was playing DnD at all. Kept running into spells and mechanics that didn't work how I expected. Some of this was no doubt due to all the stuff that was missing because of the game being in alpha but a lot of it was weird design decisions too.

This is a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?

Wait...what...

Okay, if that was intended and isn't a bug then this is no longer any form of DnD, let alone 5E.
Wizards (and Arcane casters generally) should not be getting healing spells (except for Bards, but they are special snowflakes :)).
Really hoping this is an error and will be patched out, Wizards are already one of (if not the) most powerful classes in the game, they don't need to steal the cleric's schtick too.

I'm not sure if others have mentioned this, but some of these non-5e things could be toggles. Surfaces, Bonus Skills etc so those that want more traditional can have that.

The people who defend the rebalancing of classes, changing of abilties etc are jumping through hoops and looking kind of silly. The game was HEAVILY advertised as an adaptation of the TTRPG experience of 5e. 98% of us understand changes need to be made to translate the game into a videogame form, but the changes they make to mechanical aspetcs and classes and abilities have no grounding in translating gameplay. The changes just brings the game closer to DoS. So either the designers lack 5e knowledge or they lack respect for the IP they are pushing. I find it ridicoulous that a company that makes wacky and bad combats, feel they need to rebalance D&D because they know better. DoS2 combat consists of standing still in a sea of fire because moving tanks your HP (I know I am oversimplifying, but it needs to be done). Now they want to bring their gimmick to D&D.

It will probably be a decent and fun game. But I doubt it will be an amazing game for us 5e nerds. I just hope the devs can swallow thier pride and make a 5e purist game mode. I doubt it will even require much programming time. Options make people happy and let them play the way they want.

Yeah but it's way easier for idiots to keep arguing against the idea that we don't than it is to actually address the glaring issues with game design, so don't expect to get anywhere with this.

Giving a +1 in hopes this thread gets more notoriety. Some of the mechanical changes made to the already great 5e rules are a little concerning.
Ex.: I don't know if this a bug or not but wizards learning and casting cleric spells? and being able to change their prepared spells whenever ? it's almost like spontaneous casting e.g. sorcerer
Also currently there is too much emphasis in surface effects.
and many other concerns that I believe have already been covered in previous posts.
Echoing this thread : make it feel more like D&D

+1

I can't comment on all the specifics that were mentioned in this thread, but I strongly support the general message of sticking to the 5e rule set. It would be amazing if I could go over my player handbook "design" a character and be able to create it in-game with little to no difference.

The feeling of the game is important.
I want to feel like I'm playing D&D (and or classic Baldur's Gate).
They're already having some issues with the fact that the game feels too much like DOS for a lot of people (I also think it's not the best business decision since they're relaying on the same audience rather then expend it by providing a 2 different experiences).

But.. I'm enjoying myself currently, and I trust Larian to provide a great game even if it won't match my "vision" of it.

another person putting their hand up hoping for the game to get closer to the 5e rules, its a good ruleset, there really is zero need to change any of the core mechanics, sure by all means add some others and perhaps have options to turn on house rules. But wherever possible, please stick to 5e rules.

Surfaces are good as an addition to the game, but they should work on saving throws for entering and each round you're in it. Fewer things should create them too.
bonus actions for certain things might be nice to have be something you can toggle (bonus action healing potions ala Critical Role for example), but using items should be a standard action by default, as should disengaging etc.

It's funny, because by and large the same people who are defending these adaptations are the same people who, prior to early access, used "faithfulness to the rules" as an argument against things like RTwP and 6 person parties.

I requested this thread and the similar one be added to the feedback compendium: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=687814#Post687814

I'm with you on this one. While I do expect it to be a D&D game with D&D rulings, I do want them to tweak things both to increase usability and correct rough edges.

Yes, the purists will be mad and bawl, but the reality is that 5e is not some D&D perfection - it is a ruleset that is meant to streamline a lot of BS and a lot of unnecessary rolls, checks, knobs and so on of previous editions and it's also a work in progress by the makers themselves. It's kind of funny people are asking for a faithful 5e representation with all the variants and extensions there are to begin with and changes coming up.

I do think, for example, Larian does good by changing some stuff. For example Ranger 100% needs changes and whatever they did there already was greenlighted too. And yes, I'm down with them spicing things a bit with surfaces, weapon abilities and so on - far from everyone who will play BG:3 is some purist maniac and many others will take it up and be like "why this class is so boring" when they try out a fighter or rogue, which are as basic as they get by gaming standards. So it's cool there are extra few options there whether it's weapon specific skills, dipping, illithid powers and maybe a few other tricks to spice up the blandness.


So yes, in between religiously sticking to 5e ruleset is not worth it if the end result will be super stale or way too annoying in parts. I'm not asking to axe the die, that's as core as it gets, but some necessary convenience changes for the sake of more pleasant experience sure are welcome - all in all what I want out of BG3 is story and experience first and then D&D second.

Having surface stuff optional sonds neat to me. Configuring the damage values of spells should be easy enough (and part of the balancing process anyway), and there alreasy is code for surface versions of the spells. One of the things I always liked about the divinity games were that they had many different and meaningfull difficulty settings, so stuff that switch things up sounds fun to play with.

(as default however Id like the game to be as close to 5e as possible.)

This is a bug and should probably be posted as a thread in the bug reports forum if you'd like to see it fixed.

This kind of messages is not helpful, just dismissive towards the dev. If you don't like Larian studio generally, I think it's pretty bold to come to their forum saying how they are shitty about game design and how they not respectful with the IP (they have the confidence of Wizards btw). As some people understand, this is an adaptation of d&d, not a game for d&d players only. You never put yourself someone new to this or just a beginner. For some people it feels already maybe a lot too much like a tabletop game.

Obviously there is some changes to be made. This is the first week of a very long early access. But I trust Larian to make the good decisions here, between the demands of purist and others gamers alike.


A d&d and Divinity enthousiast,

It is a difficult task for sure to design a class that is both fun and rewarding to play as a pure class or fun to do as a multiclass without being stupidly overpowered when combined with certain stuff. Warlocks however are definetly one of the classes that has a somewhat weaker lategame if you aim for the higher levels of the class. The combination of their slimmselection of high level spells and how they transition from spell slots to the mystic arcanum stuff make them a lot less versatile and potent as high level casters. Im not saying they are unplayably bad, its just that a lv 17 warlock is a lot more lackluster than a lv 17 wizard, bard, druid, cleric, sorc is as a high level caster.

Looking round at how warlocks are being played in various groups its very common for people to not pick up a lot of stuff beyond a certain level. Some leave the class early after having picked up some eldritch invocations, warlock unique spells and quickcharging spell slots, some stay in it a bit longer but ultimately multiclass into something else. The reason for this is that higher level warlock stuff isnt very rewarding and they are worse at being high level casters. The one perk of short rest recharging magic you mention is powerfull indeee, but it doesnt scale beyond 5th level magic.

+1

Yes, in several of these instances, it would not hurt the balance (with no major technical issues I guess) to follow a bit more d&d 5 rules...

One has to admit though none of the designs changes and balancing decisions are that huge that they couldn't be easily changed back to 5e. I think Larian should trust 5e balancing a lot more and only address things that have well known issues there (rangers) and things that absolutely can't be transfered properly.

I understand that they are worried that you won't be able to do more than 'move and attack' with many classes at the beginning and thus many non-D&D-players would complain, but that is part of the ('questionable' ) charm of 5e. Action economy has to be closer to 5e as its such a key aspect of the game design that changing it can damage balancing too much (as we see).

Biggest issue to revert back to 5e is going to be jumping distance as the environment design is based on that. Still jumping has to be nerved for combat. Its annoying how much jumping is in there.

Cheese tactics are so readily available.

Shadowheart the clumsy Cleric is engaged in melee with 1 enemy. Typical combat turn:

1) Circle behind enemy
2) Attack with advantage from "behind" even though it's a clean 1v1
3) Jump 5 meters to a safer location and Disengage as a bonus action without triggering AoO.

I think the addition of game play elements of divinity is a good idea, but I think they focus to much on them. It feels to much like divinity.
For me following the d&d rule set is optional but the game should feel like BG and playing around surfaces for example feels not like BG. It feels like divinity.

I agree, Divinity has a lot of good stuff to offer DnD in video game format, just not too much and I think its an especially bad idea to start rewriting corner stones of class mechanics in favor of jamming in divinity mechanics everywhere possible.
Like the ranger and rogue changes. I liked what they have done to the ranger class, it feels versatile and somewhere in between a rogue and a fighter depending what you focus on, but the rogue on the other hand has been completely shafted. Giving every class a bonus action disengage and removing expertise from rogues makes it almost pointless to play a rogue when the ranger can do the same job but better.

+1 on sticking closer to the 5e D&D rules.

I'm cool with Larian giving their own spin to it After all, the original BG series wasn't a 1-on-1 copy of 2nd edition aD&D. However a lot of the current spin looks really badly thought through. The surfaces on cantrips are my personal pet peeve. Not only because it makes cantrips really strong, but also because they cause interference for the melee classes.

That strategy between a melee front line and your wizard artillery is really important. As is the hammer and anvil tactics between the frontline and the rogue. That guy with sword and board is the linchpin. I know he's not glamourous but he's very important in D&D tactics. He's supposed to be in the way of the bad guys! In BG3 you don't really seem to need anyone filling that role. Just hop around, splash some goo on the ground and get the height advantage. I think you'll be hard pressed to get this game to feel like a Baldur's gate game without respecting the class roles and how they interact with each other.

The thing is...combat in DOS2 is fun, combat in BG3 right now is frustrating and kind of boring (1 action, 1 meeeeh bonus, move).
PnP D&D works because of the human element (DM). So Larian need to spice things up. Add some unique mechanic to counterbalance that cold, by the numbers computer DM. Maybe a DM bar/button which fills up as you battle (maybe because of too many critical misses, bad rolls, being slaughtered etc....), giving you bonuses or extra fun light rule braking abilities..."as the goblin lunges towards you for the killing blow, he slips on comrades corpses blood and impales himself..." kind of stuff. Basically a D100 of fun "larian touch" effects that can happen

Well - whether combat in DOS2 is fun is a matter of taste/perspective. To some it is very fun and enjoyable. I tried to play 20+ hours of both DOS1 and DOS2 before I gave up because I did not enjoy their combat systems, it was just wacky and cheesy and annoying to me. And I get the sense I am not alone.
Combat in BG3 could be fun, but the annoying surfaces and jump disengage are mechanics that take the fun away from me. If some bugs were fixed and those things were reduced/fixed, then I think I'd actually really enjoy combat in BG3.
The turn-based mode for Pillars of Eternity Deadfire is also a good inspiration that could be used.

I think the game/Larian needs to figure out if it wants to give DnD5e a serious chance (with some adaptations/changes where necessary) and make what they promised in most of the advertisements. Or if they want to make another Divinity game. The weird hybrid is not working for me at all. I am sure both could be good games - I know I won't enjoy it if they choose the Divinity path, but many others will. And I'm sure some won't enjoy it if they choose the DnD5e path, but then many others will. The hybrid seems to just make most of the people from both sides of that "divide" annoyed.

The "5E is not perfect" argument is silly at best. And in reality it is just another straw man. Nobody is claiming the system is perfect. And yes, we can ask for a somewhat faithful adaptation of 5e. The core rules stay mostly the same if you add optional rules, and saying it is a work in progress is stretching it. TTRPG's have always released new books, but they mostly add options.

That being said, I find it funny that you think 5e needs to be perfect. DoS is far, far from being perfect. And "spicing" things up with surfaces does not help the game ... people complained about the surfaces in DoS2 too. So why do you have faith Larian will improve upon the mechanics of the most popular D&D edition to date? The changes to rogue does not make the class less "boring" as you put it. How sneak attack is applied is actually unintuitive and clutters up the UI with abilities. I would strongly argue that the way 5e applies sneak attack is superior for a video game. And removing expertise from the rogue does not make it more fun either. Being a skill monkey is part of the fun when playing a rogue. Not only that, but rogue and monk also lost some of its coolness factor by giving everyone access to a bonus action disengage. And if you fear some martials will be boring, then give them more actions from 5e instead (grapple etc). And does every game need to cater to the lowest common denominator? The people who get bored unless there are tons of swooshes and bangs everywhere?

Many of the changes to the core rules have cascading effects too. Most of 5e's systems are tightly knit together, so when you change 1 thing you are going to have to change 3-4 more. At some point it stops feeling like D&D. And the balance becomes even worse than what it is in 5e. Firebolt applying damage 3 times for example. Because Wizards need help ... And look at how easy it is to abuse advantage now that they have have added facing.

Like I have written in this thread and others, I think game mode options would solve these problems. A game mode more in line with 5e rules (No surfaces from cantrips, shove as an action etc), and a game mode for the crowd that wants explosions and seas of acid everywhere. This wouldn't even require much coding.

Agreed... yes, D&D combat can be tedious, much less so in 5e then in earlier editions (looking at you, 3.5), but - especially in early levels and with certain clases - it can be kinda dull. Good thing, though, it's quick - at least it should be - and it's getting much more engaging in later levels. The infinity engine games had a similar "issue", but since they where real time with pause, the fights where over much quicker in the early game... and I think that where Larian has to get to. Find a way to speed up the flow of turn based combat. It's possible! For instance: Automatically end turns when characters have exhausted all their actions, shorten animations. drop some of the eloborate fireworks, hide enemy movements when they aren't in line of sight of the characters, there are many options.

Don't just go: "Yea, we know it's dull, but look, splosions!"

A D&D 5e can be FUN without being like DOS2. Bend the rules a bit, like a human D&D DM. 100% by the book computer DMs (PnP) are the most boring games around...from my experience anyways.

I agreed with this statement. From their statement about how they want to stay faithful to DND 5e, the resting mechanic is not even close. Being able to long rest anytime and anywhere negate the concept of spell slot, resources management. Shoving as a bonus action is too strong, and shoving anything is nut. My weak medium creature should not be able to shove a giant robot off a tower. Even if his chance is low it does happen often. How does a low strength char shove a thousand pound stuff through the air 4.5M??? what? Everyone having disengage as a bonus action is not like 5e... this nerf attack of opportunity especially for melee class when everyone can hop out of the way without provoking attack of opportunity. The ground affect is way too much damg. I like it, but right now a cantrip (fire bolt) can do so much damg even if it miss!!! In 5e if it miss, then it misses, but in this it's a guaranteed damg because it will set the target on fire and cause damg when they move through it.... There is so much more i can go into, but I agreed the MAIN CORE MECHANIC of DnD 5e is not being honor right now.

Oh god...this just made me realise what my first proper playthrough felt like...

Michael Bay the CRPG