Larian Studios
Posted By: Milkfred After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 12:53 PM
Having put twenty-five hours of playtime into the early access version of Baldur's Gate 3, I've hit the point where I feel like I have a firm opinion on the game as it stands. Overall, I think it's going to be a great RPG when it's complete. However, I feel like there are issues with it that are going to cause problems down the line unless they are rectified. For context, I'm a huge fan of the Baldur's Gate series and enjoyed Divinity: Original Sin 2.

I'll start with the positives.

The story begins well and has a wonderful opening hook: you've been captured by psychic monsters who put something in your head - escape! Then you end up in a few alliances of convenience with prickly guys and girls and things go from there. Everything with the Grove and the Goblin Camp is great, and it leaves me wondering where everything is going to go next.

I'm a big fan of the party members, too. They all feel like people who've been abducted and abused and have been thrust together with a bunch of random people whom they must rely upon to survive. They're not the usual Bioware heroic fare, and I think that's a good thing. I'm very interested in learning more about them and seeing where their stories go. People are judging them too harshly. Perhaps people don't remember the early bit in Divinity: Original Sin 2 where the Red Prince tries to make you into a slave, for example.

'All the characters are evil' is a fandom meme. Like all fandom memes, it's not really true. Gale and Wyll are both decent people, although the former is secretive and it appears the latter made a deal he regrets. Both of them have approval ups when you help people, pet dogs, and so on. Lae'zel isn't evil either - she's got a goal-focused mindset (with the goal being 'get this psychic monster out of my brain.') Astarion is the closest thing to a typically evil party member, and is pretty much the only one who approves of you doing heinous things. But it only makes it more obvious that he stands out compared to the others.

Oh, Shadowheart? Honestly, I can't stand her voice acting and don't have much of an opinion on her yet. But she doesn't seem evil, just kind of rude and haughty.

I think people will have to get used to this bunch. I'm not convinced there'll be many more companions, if there's any at all. Consider that D:OS2 had you meet everyone initially, much like BG3 has done. Unless Larian has been running an extremely long game of only previewing the party members they'd show off in EA, I wouldn't hold out hope for another four or five party members. I feel like we might get one or two, but I don't think we'll get one for each class, nor get more than one for any class.

I'll take a few moments to go on a bit of a tangent here. People are going to say, well, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had way more characters. Yes, they did. But Baldur's Gate 1's cast were basically blank slates with names and some flavor lines - the expectation was that they'd die and you'd cycle them out without fanfare. Baldur's Gate 2 had a smaller cast with more detail, but even then I think it's safe to say that most players used a lot of the same characters and that, outside of specific gimmick runs, the majority of the cast was not utilized. Without even going into the production side of things like detail, the evolution of expectations, and so on.

The sound design, music, voice acting, and so on is all fine. I even like the chargen 'down by the river' song. The voices are all solid enough, but I don't think I'll ever warm up to Shadowheart. She just sounds like a high school kid.

Chargen is great and while more options would be appreciated, what's there is really good. I didn't have a problem making a range of characters with a range of ethnicities and looks.

The gameplay is about what I expected and wanted. I appreciate that it continues the trend of D:OS2 of allowing you creative solutions to problems, such as employing Suitably Ludicrous numbers of explosive barrels and so on. However, I think the overall gameplay is weaker than D:OS2 - but more on that on a moment.

So, here it is: the biggest issue facing Baldur's Gate 3 is that it is tied to a tabletop system. And this is an issue. Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a system designed to be used in a fairly collaborative, friendly manner between humans. On one side, you have humans playing the party and, on the other, one person playing the world (and making sure it all runs smoothly.) Just about every complaint/issue that it looks like BG3 is running into comes from the fact the system is a heartless algorithm being run by a computer with pre-determined outcomes. When you get right down to it, the reason a lot of fans are complaining is that there's no friendly DM to nudge the nice, bend the rules, and so on. Very few people actually play Dungeons and Dragons in the 'hardcore' manner that BG3 depicts it.

(Actually, the biggest issue is probably calling it Baldur's Gate 3 when the story of CHARNAME wrapped up in Throne of Bhaal and there's been twenty years of Dungeons and Dragons lore and products since then but I don't think that's Larian's fault.)

I don't think this is an issue with any right or wrong answer. Ultimately, it looks like the goal of BG3 is to faithfully port over a lot of DnD 5e to a CRPG format. The problem is, the most faithful part of the system is, when you get right down to it, that human element of making everything run smoothly. How many people would play a tabletop campaign if the GM was Data from Star Trek or Terminator's Cromartie? 'You walk into a dark cavern. You can't see anything because you don't have infravision. Roll initiative. You are hit by a Basilisk at maximum range and turned to stone. Game over.'

(As an aside, Baldur's Gate 1 had this exact issue and people rightfully hated it. Don't keep those rose-tinted goggles on, people.)

Anyway, to illustrate my point, I'll draw on a bunch of issues that I think have compounded together by looking at a specific part of the game that draws repeated complaints. Some of these have to do with the game as it is, and some of it stems from how players interact with the game. The part I'll be using as a 'case study' is the 'healing' the player receives from Nettie in the Druid's Grove.

The background is simple: the player, seeking to be healed of their brainworm, goes to see a healer - Nettie. Nettie promptly poisons them and the player is faced with an option: pass multiple skill checks to get the antidote from Nettie or die. Alternatively, the player can kill her or pickpocket her.

In no specific order, here are the issues:

1. Skill Checks are Boring

BG3's skill checks have a problem - they, without fail, feel like they fit the mould of succeed or fail. With success meaning you do the thing you wanted to do and fail meaning you don't, and often end up in a fight. There's no Disco Elysium-esque idea of failures having interesting consequences in and of themselves. So, Nettie's three checks are just three opportunities to 'lose.' I don't think there's anything wrong with the multiple skill checks, providing they're not just hoops to jump through to succeed. Unfortunately, they are.

I don't tend to 'save scum' in RPGs. I've played through Wasteland 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire recently and did it without reloading. This is because my consequences felt like they were arising my decisions and that, if something went wrong, it wasn't arbitrary. Meanwhile, there were certain moments in BG3 - such as Nettie - that I reloaded multiple times because it felt like I was being screwed by a dice roll. When I have a +4 modifier, it doesn't feel good to fail a DC10 check. DC20 checks just seem ridiculous. DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either. Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.

2. Story Elements are Missing/The Rest Mechanic

The first time I played to the end of the Refugee quest, I'd only gone to camp twice. The first time had been within the Goblin camp itself. I'd managed to get by on consumables and lucky checks. The first time I went to camp, a demon showed up and I felt like I'd missed a few pages. So, on my second playthrough, I made it a habit to go to camp whenever a party member talked about being tired. This improved a lot of things by a drastic amount, and smoothed over a lot of initial issues I'd had with the plot and characters. I feel like Larian may add in a fatigue mechanic at some point, but this is a pretty drastic issue.

To go back to the Nettie example, however, I'll point to something that came too late. At a certain point, Lae'zel mentions that you should be careful about going around and telling people you have a worm in your brain. But this had come after Nettie had already tried to kill me. If the player has been told that, hey, maybe don't go around telling people you're going to turn into a Mind Flayer, it might alleviate the issue that someone tries to kill them over it.

I really like the rest mechanic, but it's another of those things that gets smoothed over by a DM. I don't think I can stress enough how much I'd missed on my first playthrough by not going to camp every so often. All kinds of really nice character moments. I won't spoil them. It's also a nice way of dealing with an issue the originals had, where rescuing Imoen from Spellhold could take anything from a few days to a few months based on how much CHARNAME abused the rest button after every encounter. Winnowing it down to a short rest and a day end is really interesting, but it gets complicated when there's story and character beats tied to it. But without any sort of mechanic, how often should I be going to rest? And what am I missing if I don't?

3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.

4. Gameplay and 'Choices'


Players draw a distinction between choices in dialogue and choices in gameplay. Going into combat with Nettie to get the antidote is not seen as a 'choice.' This is complicated by the fact that players generally just want to be the good guy, and don't want to kill someone who isn't highlighted red under any circumstances. Building on Point 3 - who knows what a player will miss out on if they kill Nettie? And this kind of leads to my next point...

4. Stat/Class (Im)Balance

The fact that Charisma controls all of the 'roleplaying' skills is pretty much absurd. I understand that it's how the 5e system is, but that's my point - the system sucks when it's being run by a machine. If the Nettie scenario was a tabletop session, I'd probably be allowed to posit that I could intimidate Nettie with Strength. And I mean, look at the way you talk to her in that scene, all about how you'll destroy the whole grove - if that isn't a threat based on how immediately physically imposing you are, I don't know what is.

On one hand, it's great that for the first time in the history of Baldur's Gate that Charisma isn't the dump stat. On the other, it sucks that it's now THE roleplaying stat which you better put a bunch of points in unless you want to be stuck failing everything.

This will probably be alleviated if party members are allowed to do checks. However, it may become more of a problem if the spellcasting classes can cast spells in dialogue to resolve things, meaning the more martial characters have to pump 'roleplaying stats.' And this is assuming there won't be moments where you won't be forced to make checks with one specific character, of course.

D:OS2's freedom of skill-based as opposed to class-based felt a lot better. I could shore up my weaknesses as I wanted and develop characters how I liked. Again, to all of you hardcore DnD players, I get that DnD is based around the class system. But part of the issue that people are upset about is that classes and their stats and skills matter so much more than they ever did in the earlier Baldur's Gate games - for better or worse.

(I feel like the multiple checks are a well-meaning attempt to give Fighters some equivalence. After all, Fighters don't clear whole combat encounters with one dice roll, right?)

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history? Again, this is something a DM may just throw in. Perhaps the Nettie scenario might not feel so unfair if, say, the player was able to nudge the scales based on things they had done. This is something that Disco Elysium did extremely well. Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history, and not just being decided because I didn't put enough numbers into certain stats when I made the character a few hours before.

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible. Some people are upset over the surfaces being so common, but I think without them the combat would be far less interesting than it is.

That's really about it. As it is, I think just about every issue people have with BG3 stems from these compounding issues arising from the strict tabletop gameplay. For example, people wanting an increased party size - because you practically need someone who can lockpick and a Wizard for spells and a Fighter to tank and a Cleric to heal and support and, well, suddenly you feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into. And if you made a Fighter and happen to like Lae'zel, well, good luck having two Fighters.

As for everything else - well, I only crashed once, and a lot of the other things are pretty minor that can definitely be fixed during the EA period (more loot, optimization, more autosaves, XP outside of combat, missing loot from shoving people into pits, etc.) But I think the way BG3 sticks so close to the established tabletop ruleset is something that will alienate a lot of players, both people expecting something more like D:OS2 and the hardcore DnD crowd who are used to having a friendly DM on their side.
!
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.
The OP was a great effortpost and I agree with all of it. Disco Elysium is a great example to follow on the roleplay side of things, and the combat in D:OS2 is far more interesting than what we have in BG3 (and if you disagree, try playing the game with 0-1 casters in your party).
One thing I'll add is that there appears to be a system to reroll on certain failures - Inspiration points? - but I don't think it's documented yet. At this time, I think you get them for completing certain quests. From memory, I also think I've seen choices display different kinds of checks when you mouse over them (the dice are green maybe? It's very infrequent) and they imply you might make the check on two dice or something, yet are written as checking on 1D20 (so, why even have a different tooltip?) It's possible that there's a bunch of dice check mechanics that aren't implemented yet.

Being able to expend resources to reroll dice would help, of course, but it's only really a bandaid over the actual problem.
While completely true, that it is impossible to properly convey a human DM via a pre-programmed game, it's not impossible to make a game that relies on those very mechanics enjoyable.

1. A skill check should be made to prevent something bad (like a fight you don't want), to improve a situation that is already determined (request a higher reward), or a specific approach to solve a problem (bribe a guard to let you through).
Out of the three, only the last one can potentially run into problems with a human DM vs pre-programmed game. People don't want to kill Nettie, because they understand her logic, yet if they fail the skill chain, they don't have a choice but to kill her - this wouldn't be NEARLY as big a deal if there was at least one other option to get out that didn't require her death - solving a puzzle or something, i.e. extra effort from the player's part.

2. Not much I can say - tying core(?) story elements without an indication of how to access them is a big design oversight. And the current resting mechanics is something that should be reworked. How? No clue. I have ideas, but those are echoes of what others have said and/or would require significant overhauls to the game - so I won't even try.

3. This. Very much this. I think it would be a good idea to lock out some paths/quests based on where the party decides to go - for example if you find the Gith Patrol before going after Halsin, he'll be dead.

4. As somewhat mentioned before - if the choice is A or B, and B is generally the "bad option" that happens due to something outside of a player's control (random die roll, or worse - a chain of those), then it IS going to seem that we don't have a choice. Give us and option C, hopefully even D, and then this becomes a non-issue.

4. (again) Fully agree that other skills should play a part in social interactions. One option would be to allow a player to select from a list of options for what ability score to use, for Intimidation Strength OR Charisma. Other skills should also be part of social events, like instead of Persuasion, ask an incriminating question and make an Insight roll.

5. 5e doesn't exactly have a circumstantial bonus, but even if it did, the mechanic wouldn't change - it would just automatically reduce the DC and the UI would be the same. Still, this feels like something that should be relatively easy to implement: if Quest: Save Arabella [Complete], then persuasion check DC reduce by 2 in druid camp.

6. I agree that the 5e action economy isn't the most exciting and even limiting (PF2e has an action economy almost identical to that of DOS and feel much more enjoyable), however, that is what the game is and, for better or worse, what I was looking forward to play with.
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!
Agrred, Raivorus. I do like how BG3 is a decent implementation of the 5e system and I wouldn't want it to change, but I'd be interested to see if Larian does anything to make it play better as a single-player CRPG experience (call it the friendly GM experience.)

As far as the second point goes, I'm assuming there may be some kind of fatigue mechanic in the future, which the originals even had - why else have the characters talk about being tired? And with point three, it surprised me that the Gith Patrol was a bunch of Level 5 hostiles when it'd been presented by the game as one of the first quests you got. Despite Lae'zel going on and on about the creche (and my perspective as a player being that she seemed to know what she was talking about), you can't really afford to skip over the goblin camp or refugee situation. I think also that the final game will include a bunch of day-related timers that might force the player to choose, just based on some pre-release interview stuff that I remember hearing. But who knows.

Oh, yeah, Kingmaker was another RPG I've played recently and didn't have an issue with how my choices and actions played out.
OP makes a lot of great points overall!

I agree with the OP on the stacked rolls during dialogue. Sure, it's something a human DM can do to you too, to force a particular outcome (and always entertaining when the player rolls nat 20s), but it is a bit overused here, and feels wrong from a player's perspective. Nettie's I'm actually fine with, but less so with the others.

I'd feel less annoyed by it if I could switch in another present character. Like have Shadowheart or Wyll attempt to persuade instead of me.

But passive skill checks? I kind of love their implementation as much as it gives me FOMO vibes or freaks me out when I know there's a trap I can't see. But that's actually just like the tabletop.
DM narrows eyes at the paladin player: "Give me an insight check."
Player: "Uh...I rolled a 6."
DM: "Okay. The wizard continues his explanation..."
Players: ...


Posted By: Tuco Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 02:29 PM
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
Originally Posted by Tuco
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
+1
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Tuco
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
+1

+1 to both
Originally Posted by clanpot
The OP was a great effortpost and I agree with all of it. Disco Elysium is a great example to follow on the roleplay side of things, and the combat in D:OS2 is far more interesting than what we have in BG3 (and if you disagree, try playing the game with 0-1 casters in your party).


I like d&d 5e and I enjoy a game with 5e rules better than D:OS2.
Posted By: Raur Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 02:54 PM
Agreed with OP.

The dice rolls is making the choices feel arbitrary. I'm fine with conversation checks coming from stat based, but these random dice rolls feels sooooo pointless. I'm just not feeling invested in my character or the dialogue cause randomness determines all my dialogue options.
As for combat, I like that movement is separate from Actions, however i wish there was a better primer/tutorial cause it took me ages to figure out how to fight well (I'm pretty sure I'm still missing a few key mechanics here and there). I wouldn't say no to going back to the AP system either.

Another thing I want is controller support so badly. I'm just not able to do K+M. I have to keep my camera on my character, constantly adjusting the view. I want the camera to just follow my character in the center as it moves.

Also want the companions to follow me when I jump, right now I've to make every companion jump individually in order to follow the MC.

However one thing that blew me away is the conversation cut-scenes!!!! OMG the character models, the lighting, the DOF, everything is so perfect. It's been ages since conversation cut-scenes were this good. This reminds me of the Dragon Age origins cut-scenes. I hate when the DOF is turned wayyyyy up like in Horizon ZD.



Posted By: jonn Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 02:57 PM
I get the feeling that there may eventually be another solution to the Nettie problem, remember Larian are asking us to focus on the usually underplayed evil route through the game at this stage, and there is a stone slab in the room which leads out into a tunnel which you are currently unable to open (room behind it is full of poison gas)
Originally Posted by jonn
I get the feeling that there may eventually be another solution to the Nettie problem, remember Larian are asking us to focus on the usually underplayed evil route through the game at this stage, and there is a stone slab in the room which leads out into a tunnel which you are currently unable to open (room behind it is full of poison gas)

You can lockpick the slab. It leads to an area that is accessible by other means but provides a more advantageous starting position.
"A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll."

Couldn't agree more with you. After 7+ hours i have a feeling that my playthrough is 100% random and not they way i've like to play - which is neutral good, quite peacuful and helpful to everyone around.
Just because I'am out of luck with dice roll i'am constantly involved in fights with the characters I would like to deal different way. At the moment I feel like renegade Shep in ME and i have no real control over my character.

I also agree with other people about the combat system: the one in DOS2 was MUCH better than this one in BG3. DOS2 feels much more tactical, full of suprises and unpredictable. In BG3 my fights are quite boring, just wait for your turn attack and wait again until your enemy is dead.
Posted By: Abits Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 03:18 PM
I think this is a good place to mention my fire emblem thesis. In the first five fire emblem games, the Rng worked with one random number that determined hit or miss. The results were based on the stats of the characters, but still there was a lot of randomness involved, and players felt like the games are not really fair. Since fire emblem six there are two numbers that are generated and the average of them is the generated number. It means that your chances are improved but there is still a random element to the game, but it's still feels more fair. More details here: https://fireemblem.fandom.com/wiki/Random_Number_Generator
I think some solution like this would benefit the game immensely, if Larion doesn't want to remove the system altogether
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 03:33 PM
I'm actually surprised, that so many of you want just a DOS3 instead of a BG3.
because that is exactly what OP is describing.
BG1 and 2 both used the dnd rule set from their time. At least they tried to adapt it as good as possible for their time.
the DND5e system is fine, even without a generous DM. there is no problem to use that system as basis for a computer game. look at pathfinder kingmaker. they took a much more complicated rule system and implemented it pretty faithfully and people love it.
yet here we are complaining, that BG3 would be boring if it was faithful to 5e rules. i really don't get it.

We are at a point, were one group wants a DOS3 and the other wants a BG3.
I don't want to be rude, but what about we wait for a DOS3 until BG3 is finished. because i think it would be great to see some thing new from larian, instead of an improvement from their other games.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
DC20 checks just seem ridiculous. DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

It's not that BG3 is heavily loaded towards the dice roll, it's that D&D is. Anyone coming from a D&D background should know this. A friendly DM wouldn't make much a difference at all, unless they just give you ridiculous bonuses all the time.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either. Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.

XP for some checks is something that can be added, sure. But "fun to fail?" What do you mean? And sometimes, shit is a toss up (DC10). What do you want?

Originally Posted by Milkfred
Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.

Maybe I am not bothered by this as much because it's all brand new and I see things I miss as something to be found on subsequent playthroughs. I would be okay with hiding these checks, though.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
Players draw a distinction between choices in dialogue and choices in gameplay. Going into combat with Nettie to get the antidote is not seen as a 'choice.'

We can only choose options available to us (btw you should preface the Nettie stuff with 'Spoiler Alert'). After you 'chose' to let her help you, your choices were limited to dying, convincing her, or killing her.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
On one hand, it's great that for the first time in the history of Baldur's Gate that Charisma isn't the dump stat. On the other, it sucks that it's now THE roleplaying stat which you better put a bunch of points in unless you want to be stuck failing everything.

You can't have it both ways. You mention how it sucks that even with a +4 bonus you can fail. Well, the flip side is with no bonus you can still succeed.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
D:OS2's freedom of skill-based as opposed to class-based felt a lot better.

This just sums up how I see basically everything you said. You seem to just want everything to go the way you want it. Have any character be able to do whatever they want and be able to do it as good as anyone else and have everything go your way. It's the mentality that gave rise to such wonderful RPG features as fast travel, no death penalty, loot everywhere and hundreds of levels. Sorry man. -1
I disagree with original post. Personally, I love the 5e ruleset. I think there is too much Divinity: Original Sin 2 stuff in the game that I have never liked. Way too many items, cumbersome inventory management, emphasis on characters made by Larian vs a party created by the player, treasure chests all over the place, tons of magic items everywhere.

I far prefer the spell system of 5e vs D:OS2, and the action, movement, bonus action vs action points.

As rough as it is, I am really enjoying the game. I'd love it even more if I could make my own 4 person party, didn't find random treasure chests in every single dungeon room full of junk, and didn't have to spend so much time moving useless vendor trash around in my inventory because my main character is constantly getting overloaded.




1. I agree that the fail or pass model isn't so great. The extent to which you fail or succeed should change the outcome of certain situations. If I fail to persuade someone by 1, I think it's reasonable to expect they'd react different than if I critically failed by rolling a 1 -- they might even react far worse than before in the latter case.

2. I never really had an issue with feeling like I missed anything, even though I'm sure I did. As you might expect in real life, people aren't just waiting around for you to trigger a scripted dialogue with them. If you don't encounter them at the right time, you just might miss whatever it is they were up to, which I think is perfectly fine.

I also actually think Lae'zel telling you to be careful who you tell you have a tadpole in your head *after* Nettie tries to kill you makes sense. It makes sense before, as well, but after is just as fine. She just witnessed you nearly get killed -- a fate she doesn't want to share, mind you -- because you were too open about that information. That's a good reason for her to tell you. It's not like Nettie is the ONLY person you'll ever encounter that might react poorly to being told you're turning into a mindflayer in the unforeseen future.

3. Regarding having to fight someone you don't want to, remember you can always knock them unconscious instead of killing them. If you fail to pickpocket Nettie, or convince her, or escape via the stone door in the room, AND you don't want to kill her... just knock her unconscious to take her key. You'll have to fight her, yes, but you won't have to kill her. When you return, she won't still be hostile, as far as I know. You simply can't experience EVERYTHING in one playthrough. Sometimes missing something the first go around is just what you should expect.

4. Charisma DOESN'T control all the roleplaying skills. Roleplaying =/= socializing. That said, I do agree that various other ability scores could be utilized in certain skill checks, e.g. Strength to intimidate.

5. I don't find modifiers particularly boring. Rather, there are just too few of them. My ability score modifier + my proficiency is all I've ever seen. It'd be nice to have circumstantial bonuses depending on prior events.

6. Strongly disagree. A 5e game needs to have 5e rules. I much more enjoy the 5e combat system than DOS2's combat system, similar as they may be.
Posted By: Mat22 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 04:01 PM
Just my 2 cents here regarding skill-checks.
what i think another thing Disco Elysium (and to be honest, tabletop) does well is it adds the need you seek for situational modifiers in addition to the character (skill/class/proficiency) modifiers to improve your chance of success for a key skill-check. Early in gameplay the player realizes if they make attempts to uderstand a problem like doing some investigation and/or prework maybe asking around or reading books about the subject - these usually doesnt require checks and can be performed by anyone willing to spend time on it - the results add up as situational modifiers to the key skill check in question
I agree trying skill-checks probably should involve XP gain as well (with no matter its a fail or a hit) as it would make it much more rewarding (in the end, you experience something interesting, new and you learn from your mistakes etc)
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.

OP - Yeah. That's everyone who was around for 5e's development said was going to happen. 5e was specifically designed for 'rulings, not rules' and to be free, easy & loose. This was a reaction to 4e which was mechanically tight & consistent but was focused on tactical combat.

As for why -1 to +5 doesn't feel like much? Welcome to statistics. The Standard Deviation on a d20 is 6, so modifiers less than 6 (while impactful on individual rolls) are statistically insignificant.

As for the feelings of boring - each turn being "move a bit, attack, maybe bonus action" - that was specifically built by WotC because "we don't want people spending too long trying to figure out what they're doing this turn".

All of this? not great for a computer game where precision in positioning and keeping track of mastadonic item/creature states is built in and trivial.

Which is a lot of words to say "WAD: Working As Designed"
I agree as well. I think this topic is going to be the crux of many debates. Do you stray from the D&D 5e ruleset a bunch in the effort to potentially stream line and simplify the gameplay or do you try and hold true to the 5e ruleset?

My opinion is this is a D&D 5e game first and foremost and I believe that this is why this game will perform extremely well financially given the current fanbase of 5e. I believe that Larian will be able to add their flair to the game just like any DM would during tabletop but the balance will be ensuring that the flair added does not make the game unrecognizable from 5e any longer.
I was about to type up a longer feedback based on 50 hours of gameplay, but OP already nailed down my points. Including the bit about the opening hook! Best opening ever (and love the story overall)! Unfortunately the points raised about DnD 5E are also spot on. The simplistic 1-2-3 choice combat turn may be great when having to wait for tabletop players making up their mind, but especially when played as a single player RPG the same design oversimplifies the combat. My rouge in a typical combat turn was like "I use sneak attack on that 7th goblin from the left with my bow. So it doesn't just do damage, but also does a bit more damage. Then I slightly step back to hide on the rooftop. Again." (Okay, okay the same rouge also summoned a magic hand, lobbing a barrel at someone. That one was cool.)
Originally Posted by Milkfred


The gameplay is about what I expected and wanted. I appreciate that it continues the trend of D:OS2 of allowing you creative solutions to problems, such as employing Suitably Ludicrous numbers of explosive barrels and so on. However, I think the overall gameplay is weaker than D:OS2 - but more on that on a moment.

So, here it is: the biggest issue facing Baldur's Gate 3 is that it is tied to a tabletop system. And this is an issue....
6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. .


5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.
Posted By: Matey Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 05:19 PM
I agree with a lot of the issues you get into and how they don't feel great, but I don't think 5e is the problem. As you said, they could add in little situational bonuses based on previous actions and such and that would fit in totally fine in 5e.

You mention combat isn't as interesting as DoS2 and I think that is a problem, but I think right now they are half DoS and half 5E and if they just went with one or the other then it would be better. I was hyped for BG3 to play a 5E game. I love DoS 1 and 2 and will happily play a DoS3 with DoS based combat, but for BG3 I want faithful 5E combat.
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 05:39 PM
Originally Posted by Riovir
I was about to type up a longer feedback based on 50 hours of gameplay, but OP already nailed down my points. Including the bit about the opening hook! Best opening ever (and love the story overall)! Unfortunately the points raised about DnD 5E are also spot on. The simplistic 1-2-3 choice combat turn may be great when having to wait for tabletop players making up their mind, but especially when played as a single player RPG the same design oversimplifies the combat. My rouge in a typical combat turn was like "I use sneak attack on that 7th goblin from the left with my bow. So it doesn't just do damage, but also does a bit more damage. Then I slightly step back to hide on the rooftop. Again." (Okay, okay the same rouge also summoned a magic hand, lobbing a barrel at someone. That one was cool.)

that doesn't make sense to me...
i make simple rules for a TT game, so every single player doesn't take so long. okay
now i use the same system but i have to play every player character.
the system is the same, but the amount of characters i control increased.

how can it be, that when i control one character it's "simple" but when i control multiple characters, now it's oversimplified?
it got more complicated by controlling more characters.
Posted By: vel Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 05:39 PM
This is great feedback and I agree with much of the OP's sentiments, though perhaps not solutions.

There's another thread from a DM perspective that does a great job elucidating the issues.

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=686488#Post686488
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.


This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.
I'm afraid I disagree with OP on almost everything said. It seems like some people want Divinity Original Sin 3, but this isn't a Divinity game. It's Baldur's Gate and if anything, I feel like Larian aren't following the 5e rule-set closely enough.

While I enjoyed DOS2 and won't deny that it was successful, a lot of people didn't like the surface mechanics or how combat relied on action points. It was a great tactical RPG, but it was quite far from a tabletop experience in video game form and it seems obvious to me that's what Larian is going for with BG3.

I don't think the game is perfect as it is in early access, but I'd prefer they improve on lackluster features rather than try to rework this into Divinity with a Baldur's Gate skin.

1) I enjoy what they've got of skill checks, however I do agree that rolling a 1 should have different consequences than rolling a 13 when you need a 15. This could be fixed by adding more possible outcomes for skill checks, but that would mean more work since it means adding more dialogue and reactions. Hopefully they're willing to put that work in, because I think it would be worth it.
2) I'm not sure how they should handle camps yet, though I agree it's a problem if character moments are skipped over because we aren't going to camp enough. I'm sure that's something Larian will work on fixing; I noticed a few times that certain flags didn't get set for me, such as when Wyll talked about wanting to kill Spike not long after we killed Spike. That at least seems like a bug to me, which should be getting fixed sooner or later.
3) I don't want to experience everything in a first playthrough, because I want to discover new things if I start a new game. If people want to experience everything in one playthrough, then they're playing the wrong type of game and should be playing a linear RPG without choices. Personally I love how my experience playing a Tiefling Warlock will be vastly different from what I get playing Dwarven Fighter.

I feel the same about failed perception checks, however maybe it would be better to hide the roll on certain things so that players don't even know they failed on perception. Not only will this make traps more of a surprise, but players will get more good surprises on a second playthrough. I'm normally a bit iffy on hiding rolls, but I feel it's necessary since there isn't a DM to create a new experience every time.
4) I didn't experience Nettie, but I'll be looking forward to it on my next playthrough. That said, I do find it odd if the only way to get an antidote from her is to attack her. I'd imagine that you could roll a persuasion check, bribe her, or even pickpocket it from her if nothing else works. This is D&D, after all.
5) One thing worth noting is that Larian hasn't implemented the Sorcerer class yet and their spellcasting ability is based off of charisma. So if you want a spellcaster that is also great with people, a sorcerer will be an excellent choice.

With that said, why should players be able to succeed every persuasion check if they aren't charismatic? If I'm playing a Barbarian with 10 charisma, then I think it goes without saying that I should be pretty awful at talking to people. If you want to play a Barbarian with 18 charisma then that's also fine, but you should expect there will be sacrifices made elsewhere.
6) Sorry, but I hard disagree with you on modifiers. D&D already has ways to buff certain modifiers, such as spells that make you more likely to succeed on persuasion checks. This should work perfectly fine once Larian gets more of the PHB incorporated into the game.

I do find it interesting you mention Disco Elysium, though. I agree it's a good game, but it's also a very psychological RPG and that's why it makes sense your character would become more intimidating after punching out someone. I think the game was great, but I'm not sure how much of its mechanics Larian would want to incorporate into a D&D game.
7) When it comes to combat, I again disagree with this being a "downgrade". I can see why 5e's combat wouldn't appeal as much to people that enjoy controlling the environment to win fights, but that's not what Larian is going for with this game and it isn't what people want from a Baldur's Gate game.

In fact, combat may actually have been my least favorite part of DOS2. Action points were tied to both movement and the ability to attack, which meant feeling like I had to root myself to one spot so I could sling out as many attacks as possible. Surface effects meant a lot of the game was finding ways to combine the right elements rather than relying on each characters strengths.

In 5e movement is its own separate thing, which means I'm encouraged to move around. Thieves feel like agile fighters darting around a battlefield and even spellcasters are encouraged to move out of harms way. Lack of surface effects mean this is less a question of "who can combine the elements" and more a question of utilizing your creativity and each character's own unique skillset.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


That is actually a really good question, and I'm kind of waffling back and forth between the answer as I play more and more of the game. It feels like the combat encounters are designed from a DOS2 mentality: use surfaces to turn the tide in your favor, which is sort of a thing in 5e, but not to this extreme. I'm not advocating for a 1 to 1 port of the tabletop rules (how do you translate a spell like create water to a video game and capture all the unique applications in 5e?). The more I play, the more I realize the surface system DOES have a place in BG3, but it can't be handled the same way as in DOS2.

As a DM, I cannot count the number of times a player wants to use an ability/skill/spell to interact with the environment in a way that forces me to make a quick judgement call. I think the surface system can fill that gap, but I don't think the answer is to overhaul numerous cantrips/abilities to make them create surfaces when they weren't designed to do so.
To be perfectly honest, I was never a fan of D&D-rules and I would probably never use it for pen&paper RPGs because they are incredibly limiting. Still BG3 was advertised as a D&D 5e game and actually this got me excited to try it. Larian made it very clear they want to bring D&D 5e to PCs and stick to the rules. If they didn't make the statement I would probably not care as much about a new BG-game.

I absolutely don't want DOS3. It was a fine game, but its combat was far from what I would call great (mind you, I've been playing turn-based games for ~20 years, so its not about that, I just don't enjoy the focus on surfaces and other DOS2 specific things). So I have to agree with those who say 5e isn't the issue here. I would actually want to see less deviation from it as it disturbs balancing.

I do agree that the conversations and skill checks might need some tweeking, but overall I like the idea of this not being a game where you get your perfect result, but more a bit of a random experience that you shouldn't take too serisouly in the sense of getting the 'perfect playthrough'. I think this game could also really shine in coop where you and your friends simply deal with the dice instead of worrying about the 'correct' outcome. Take this away and we have DOS3, which many simply don't want (not judging that game by any means, but its simply not what advertised).
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


Because 5e would remove almost all of the creative solutions available and turn everything into an RNGesus match, especially at the early encounters.
5e isn't a good game. It's not tightly designed. It's not complex. It's not tactically deep.

Because it was designed to be that way. It was designed to play fast with a human DM & players keeping track of everything. People have to keep track of what options are available, where everyone is in combat, etc.

The computer does all that for you, trivially, when you turn it into a computer game. But because 5e is meant to be run by a person, where enemies can respond as creatively as PCs, there isn't depth in the rules because the depth is supposed to come from the people playing.

But there's no people that can think outside the context of the game. Now it's just shallow combat where you either win the d20 slot machine, or find an exploit that lets you stay out of range.

All of this was hashed out and settled half a decade ago when 5e came out. WotC looked at the feedback, went "yup. you're right. but we want Rulings not Rules, people to not have to think about what they're doing on a turn, and fast play that feels like Classic D&D" and mumbled something about an optional tactical module for those that wanted it. [Said tactical module has never come out, and will never come out unless one of WotC's partners needs to create it while making a licensed product]
While I disagree with a majority of your post the one I want to bring up is the circumstantial modifiers bit - because I was confused that you weren't seeming to notice it - as well as the idea of multiple choices in dialogue. To the former: I immediately noticed circumstantial modifiers, I was rolling as a tiefling warlock with my proficiency in persuasion, I was noticing dialogue options that were focused on persuading a person toward something they were already leaning toward had a much lower target number (generally a 1, though in some cases a 5) for my to succeed while trying to persuade someone against their views (specifically Kagha) required a 15 or better on the roll to make happen. I also found, when replaying it, that sometimes Deception or Intimidation had the lower rolls made available to them vs Persuasion in similar encounters - the amount of times I had a 10 roll was minimal compared to the 1s and 5s - at least when it came to my Charisma checks, my character was a himbo until he received a crown of knowledge.

Now for the multiple choices in dialogue - you used Nettie as an example. Nettie is a poor example for an encounter, to be honest. I much prefer using the first time you encounter Astarion as a perfect example of how the game decides the outcomes - considering the choices you have available to you during your meeting with Astarion being physical (a head butt), dialogue, or just to wait and hope everything goes right. Kagha is also a great example, as you can make use of your race (in my case tiefling) to try and push for a better outcome. Both Kagha and Astarion are, what I as a DM, would classify as an actual encounter where Nettie is a Plot Vehicle. She isn't really meant for anything more than to be there as a stopgap on the Plot in showing just how the world views the affliction. There is nothing wrong with the Nettie encounter from a campaign perspective, though - it's perfect for what it's meant to be. It isn't, however, the measuring stick you should be using for determining how dialogue encounters go when you're using the absolute worst example of one.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


Because 5e would remove almost all of the creative solutions available and turn everything into an RNGesus match, especially at the early encounters.
5e isn't a good game. It's not tightly designed. It's not complex. It's not tactically deep.

Because it was designed to be that way. It was designed to play fast with a human DM & players keeping track of everything. People have to keep track of what options are available, where everyone is in combat, etc.

The computer does all that for you, trivially, when you turn it into a computer game. But because 5e is meant to be run by a person, where enemies can respond as creatively as PCs, there isn't depth in the rules because the depth is supposed to come from the people playing.

But there's no people that can think outside the context of the game. Now it's just shallow combat where you either win the d20 slot machine, or find an exploit that lets you stay out of range.

All of this was hashed out and settled half a decade ago when 5e came out. WotC looked at the feedback, went "yup. you're right. but we want Rulings not Rules, people to not have to think about what they're doing on a turn, and fast play that feels like Classic D&D" and mumbled something about an optional tactical module for those that wanted it. [Said tactical module has never come out, and will never come out unless one of WotC's partners needs to create it while making a licensed product]


you haven't played 5e on TT yet, did you?
there are immense tactical differences, if you build your party to compliment one another. it is just a different tactical experience than DOS.
instead of using every explosive barrel in the environment, you use your battle master fighter maneuver to give your rogue a second sneak attack, effectively doubling his damage output by making one less attack yourself.
there is lots of different tactics in 5e.
using hold person with your wizard, to guarantee your teammates critical hits on an enemy.
so many things. they are just not as obvious as explosive barrels.
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


Because 5e would remove almost all of the creative solutions available and turn everything into an RNGesus match, especially at the early encounters.
5e isn't a good game. It's not tightly designed. It's not complex. It's not tactically deep.


What creative solutions? You mean cheesing status effects and surfaces to cause as much CC as possible to tip the battle in your favor? I'd like to know what you consider to be "tactically deep."
Originally Posted by porrage
This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

Larian got the license because they demonstrated with D:OS2 they were capable of making an RPG with fun, complex combat. That's what I want more of - fun, complex combat. It's not crazy to play this EA and ask, "hmm, what changed?" and see the influence of 5e as a hinderance.

And let's be real, the BG label has almost nothing to do with the original games and is almost purely a marketing/nostalgia grab. There have been a slew of other games over the years with BG in the title that bore little to no resemblance to the originals.

Put simply, I just want the game to be good. Some people seem to think that as fidelity to the tabletop rules will create that, which is complete insane to me.
Originally Posted by Silverflame

Now for the multiple choices in dialogue - you used Nettie as an example. Nettie is a poor example for an encounter, to be honest. I much prefer using the first time you encounter Astarion as a perfect example of how the game decides the outcomes - considering the choices you have available to you during your meeting with Astarion being physical (a head butt), dialogue, or just to wait and hope everything goes right. Kagha is also a great example, as you can make use of your race (in my case tiefling) to try and push for a better outcome. Both Kagha and Astarion are, what I as a DM, would classify as an actual encounter where Nettie is a Plot Vehicle. She isn't really meant for anything more than to be there as a stopgap on the Plot in showing just how the world views the affliction. There is nothing wrong with the Nettie encounter from a campaign perspective, though - it's perfect for what it's meant to be. It isn't, however, the measuring stick you should be using for determining how dialogue encounters go when you're using the absolute worst example of one.


Agreed. Looking back at this encounter it feels pretty much like what you describe. Playing it the first time I felt like I must succed because its a video game instead of simply trusting the DM and go with the flow of the story.
So I think to make a thread with this topic is a huge waste because it goes off the assumption of 3 things:

1: The devs have any intention of changing the ruleset away from being 5e based.
2: This new combat system is incapable of allowing the same level of creative approaches as DOS2 given more time, class levels, and new feature implimentation.
3: The rules are too strict and adhere to 5e too much.

This game is an adaptation of a ruleset in a tabletop game. Much like a movie adapts a book or an anime adapts a manga, certain appeals are going to have to be pushed aside to make way for innovative ideas that you will only be able to get through playing this game. When you offer a suggestion or a feedback, you are wasting the dev's time by telling them that the problem is at its core and needs to be reworked entirely instead of going specifically for the details that cause problems directly. The entire first section of your post is meaningless and doesn't give the devs anything useful, only when you start listing off specific shit is anything going to be meaningful feedback.

Also, to say that this game's combat is a downgrade from dos2 combat is entirely subjective. sure you have less flexibility in how you handle your turn, but the tradeoff is that certain classes have many more approaches that they can excel at, and you are fighting an entirely different type of enemy group. In DOS2 most of the time you are fighting a group of enemies with variations of the exact same skills you have because everyone in that game can get a skill book and be bad ass. In this game you fight different creatures with strengths you don't have access to but weaknesses that only you can exploit, and they are facing the same dillemma in fighting you. The different combat systems have different things that they achieve and their own strengths and weaknesses.
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage
This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

Larian got the license because they demonstrated with D:OS2 they were capable of making an RPG with fun, complex combat. That's what I want more of - fun, complex combat. It's not crazy to play this EA and ask, "hmm, what changed?" and see the influence of 5e as a hinderance.

And let's be real, the BG label has almost nothing to do with the original games and is almost purely a marketing/nostalgia grab. There have been a slew of other games over the years with BG in the title that bore little to no resemblance to the originals.

Put simply, I just want the game to be good. Some people seem to think that as fidelity to the tabletop rules will create that, which is complete insane to me.


I've mentioned in other threads that I don't think a 1 to 1 adaptation would work. But if you're going to call your game Baldur's Gate 3, if you're going to use the 5e ruleset as a marketing tool, either adapt it to the best of your abilities (and take some creative liberties to capture the essence of the tabletop while still making an excellent game), or make a completely different game and drop the name. Because right now? What we have isn't dungeons and dragons and it isn't Baldur's Gate.

And I'm saying this as someone that enjoyed DOS2 quite a bit.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage
This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

Larian got the license because they demonstrated with D:OS2 they were capable of making an RPG with fun, complex combat. That's what I want more of - fun, complex combat. It's not crazy to play this EA and ask, "hmm, what changed?" and see the influence of 5e as a hinderance.

And let's be real, the BG label has almost nothing to do with the original games and is almost purely a marketing/nostalgia grab. There have been a slew of other games over the years with BG in the title that bore little to no resemblance to the originals.

Put simply, I just want the game to be good. Some people seem to think that as fidelity to the tabletop rules will create that, which is complete insane to me.


i have to give you that. you don't have to follow 5e rules to the brink. i like the changes they made to the ranger, for example. but using the 5e system as a baseline would helpt to balance a game.
instead (in the current state) larian scrapped basic balancing factors, to shoehorn in their own creations.
5e rules as base line with some changes are fine and necessary. but changing basic balancing principles, that WotC playtested for years is just insane to me.
Originally Posted by mahe4

you haven't played 5e on TT yet, did you?
there are immense tactical differences, if you build your party to compliment one another. it is just a different tactical experience than DOS.
instead of using every explosive barrel in the environment, you use your battle master fighter maneuver to give your rogue a second sneak attack, effectively doubling his damage output by making one less attack yourself.
there is lots of different tactics in 5e.
using hold person with your wizard, to guarantee your teammates critical hits on an enemy.
so many things. they are just not as obvious as explosive barrels.

All of that requires at least level 3. There is just not that much synergy available in low level play. The majority of this first zone is low level.

And all of that gets you an extra rogue sneak attack. Not insignificant damage, if it hits, but especially below level 5 hitting is a crap-shot. You are also losing the commander's attack.

So yeah. Contrast with 4e, or even 3.x/Pathfinder or even further still 13th Age and in compairson 5e is just shallow. After you've blown through your alpha strike the first few turns you've either won, or you're trading d20 rolls to see who runs out of HP first.

Which, again, was WAD - WotC wanted that 'Old School' AD&D feel at low levels.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by mahe4

you haven't played 5e on TT yet, did you?
there are immense tactical differences, if you build your party to compliment one another. it is just a different tactical experience than DOS.
instead of using every explosive barrel in the environment, you use your battle master fighter maneuver to give your rogue a second sneak attack, effectively doubling his damage output by making one less attack yourself.
there is lots of different tactics in 5e.
using hold person with your wizard, to guarantee your teammates critical hits on an enemy.
so many things. they are just not as obvious as explosive barrels.

All of that requires at least level 3. There is just not that much synergy available in low level play. The majority of this first zone is low level.

And all of that gets you an extra rogue sneak attack. Not insignificant damage, if it hits, but especially below level 5 hitting is a crap-shot. You are also losing the commander's attack.

So yeah. Contrast with 4e, or even 3.x/Pathfinder or even further still 13th Age and in compairson 5e is just shallow. After you've blown through your alpha strike the first few turns you've either won, or you're trading d20 rolls to see who runs out of HP first.

Which, again, was WAD - WotC wanted that 'Old School' AD&D feel at low levels.


i got to lvl 3 pretty darn fast, so i don't see a problem here...
and i don't want to scrap all area effects. i just think that cantrips are the wrong activators for area effects, because it imbalances things.
i love the idea, that goblins spilled a lot of alcohol in their feast and that you can ignite that. but it should be special occasions (that can be activated with cantrips if used at those surfaces) or greater spells, that create those surfaces.
i don't want them gone, i want them to be special. and cantrips creating surfaces makes surfaces mundane and overused.
Posted By: Orbax Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 06:38 PM
OP, it would be helpful if you tightened up some of those thoughts. Things like "Let me take this time to take a tangent" - just make the tangent, you dont have to tell people it is one. The style makes it difficult for people to find your reasoning and respond. This isn't an attack, a lot of what I said was kind of tongue in cheek so don't read this as someone going after you.

General

1. "I have 25 hours in the game therefore I think I have a firm understanding. "

You could have replaced 25 hours with 30 minutes and it would have been true. At any point you could have deemed yourself to have a solid understanding. Did you finish it? Did you hit max level? I am not sure what perspective you are coming from. Stats are fine here, it isn't a pissing contest, it helps everyone to know what has happened in your experience.

I am over 70 hours into my first playthrough, have been max level for quite some time, and have not finished it yet. I have submitted dozens of bugs and suggestions both on these forums and on the steam forums and I do not think I have a firm understanding. There are a lot of skills and interactions I can't check until I replay the game several times due to class and race combinations. I can't judge all combat based on my 1 PC and the 1 party formation with the pretty much 1 spell build I gave my casters. You might put something more concrete in there on what you have parsed - hours are kind of arbitrary. I have restarted to pass every dialog tree (though ultimately chose one on each gate so there is still stuff I haven't seen), removed all fog of war from every map and, to my knowledge, found every secret area, button, wall, teleporter, etc...as evidenced by no wall or spot is left that a dice didn't appear and start rolling for a check.

I have completed all quests barring finishing it, turning in mushrooms to mind flayer, and the pregnant girls quest because I dont want to raise her dead husband - I will play with that later to see if there is another option. There is a lot in the game to unpack and try. I have over 800 hours in DOS2 and I am still finding new stuff in it, their games have a lot of depth. I want to try to go to the under dark early on next playthrough, sneak to the anti-magic tree early in the game, put the flowers in a pack (it blocks their effect) and then go back up and fight caster battles and throw flowers at the them and deactivate the magic. Who knows, if they catch on fire while on water is it anti-magic fog? I don't know, I don't have a firm grasp on what they do with that kind of stuff yet.

Selune's chest in the Owlbear cave could have been opened with the antimagic field, I carried the chest to the underdark because I wanted to try to get the Gem of Shaar that the statue is holding up that powers the defenses of the fort. I was really hoping I could throw the chest out in the pathway and shaars power would activate the defenses and open it or if I could get the gem and place them next to each other and shaars power would deactivate the chest. I never did get the gem out of the hand, it has 1hp so I cant knock it out, couldn't get mage hand to appear next to it, so I just shot the chest open, ultimately. Really with the Seulne / Shaar artifact proximity combo would have done something. Shortly thereafter I found the blossoms...almost made it. I have so. much. to. try. still.

2. Companions - "People are judging them too harshly. Perhaps they don't remember DOS2. This is a fandom meme. All fandom memes are untrue."

People judging them too harshly is your own harsh judgment that I harshly judge you on. I do remember DOS2, 800+ hours in it. Also this is based on your opinion that it is a fandom meme (whatever the definition or criteria for that is), and 2 - your claim that fandom memes are untrue. Thats pretty much where your logic stopped and turned into an opinion piece that didn't seem to be based on much. Some theorizing on companion numbers in the future happened. There are multiple threads on this and the point comes back, over and over, about what is justifiable versus what is the most fun. They are in depth conversations and you should participate in them if you have something to add.

3. Shadowheart

She is my least liked character for the reasons you outlined. Voice on her has the edgey edge, not just an edge. When she is nice shes palatable but, like Astarion if you pick the wrong thing (who literally went from "I trust you, thank you" in one sentence to him crouched down, snarling, saying that he is going to "kill you in your sleep if you ever dare even think to breathe such a thing again" in reaction to a very mild statement) is manic in her swings line to line. The overall levels of disgust, disdain, annoyance, distrust, and impatience shown with you sentence too sentence is like talking to a crazy person. They are too big and bury the glimmers of genuine companionship they exhibit.

D&D

1. "Just about every complaint/issue that it looks like BG3 is running into comes from the fact the system is a heartless algorithm being run by a computer with pre-determined outcomes"

As a DM, I am offended at being described like this. You aren't supposed to know that you are all hurtling to an ultimate point in the story regardless of your actions - those just make the journey better or worse along the way. Matt Colville has the best take on dice "fudging" that I have heard - DMs don't fudge dice to fix your mistakes, they do it to fix their own. If a DM makes something too hard or just got 5 natural 20s in a row, they will most likely change it because this was a decision the players could do nothing about that is going to adversely affect them. The DM can only account for so much, we are only computers human. If a player attacks a guard post in a city - no fudging. That was your mistake, and I am not going to fix it for you.

I know loosey goosey games are out there, but my game's rules are pretty much by the book. The rules rarely leave a case uncovered and allow for pretty much everything ive come across. You have to be allowed to do something not allowed by the rules to piece rules together to figure it out - which I have always been able to do. This game isn't letting you try to polymorph a Tarrasque into a chicken and fly up 1000 feet and drop it on BG and see if it wipes out the city. You're shooting a goblin in the face. I don't think a DMs magnanimity or rule bending is required for this format as they limit the very options which would necessitate that by virtue of it being played in a bounded space as opposed to your imagination.


2. People need to get over the name, it ain't changing. I don't know if people are actually serious when they say this, but if they are all I can think of is a lack of awareness on how businesses work. This is done in partnership with the owners of Baldur's Gate. The name change would come from them, and this is too tied into what they are doing with the edition and the drumming up of excitement for D&D.

3. "Savescumming"

Its an option. Any feeling of needing to use it is yours. I have also put hundreds of hours into the games you mentioned and reloaded in them a lot. I like testing things out and then going 'huh, neat' and going back to what I actually wanted to do. Ive done 5+ playthroughs with save carryovers from the priors as well on PoEs and whatnot. Its a feature, utilize it if you want. If you don't like having a character that can fail that kind of thing...well...make a better one or roll better bruh. A point could be made that at that level, the proficiency level bonus is so low at that level and combined with the fact that rogues don't have expertise at that level (yet), that its too early to introduce critical path segments for a character with that high of a DC.

However, I will say that you go from saying that "I've played through Wasteland 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire recently and did it without reloading". And then go to "players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough.". Those are incompatible statements and the issues you raise with one, negates the validity of the other. You want to do it all, even though you cant possibly do it, in one playthrough, but without save scumming - as you have somehow managed to do in the past in other games where experiencing it all would also be impossible by not savescumming. It feels like the argument that spreads through the post regarding potential, rolls, saves, and options is just too muddy to understand what mechanic you don't like and what you hope to accomplish as a player via the mechanics.

Not getting everything in 1 playthrough. Thats most big games. That is also D&D, except in D&D there is no other playthrough. You just never get it. The number of times I say to my players, "Actually, make an intelligence check" and the player says "10" and my response is "Ok, so what are you guys doing next?" is a large number and they all grimace wondering what they just missed out on. I have written hundreds of hours of gameplay they never got to, items they never got and never will, and places to go that they probably never will - at least not in that campaign, with those characters. They have, of course, used those failed saves to make really incorrect decisions which ended up in flying castles and storm giants giving them rocs to fight on in the clouds - because they failed and made decisions based on the info hey had. But they never actually did find the right thing.

In BG3 I expect to fail an insight check and go off of the face presented to me - this guy looks shady, lets kill him in his house and steal his stuff. Oops, he ran an orphanage and just has a hateable face. I made that decision though, I could have read his journal before killing him. Is it save scumming to go back and redo that? I didn't think of the choice until later of sneaking around reading personal things, or talking to his servants in a disguise self to see if they said something about their master, or eavesdrop on their random conversations. I had tools, I didn't use them. In this playthrough, Id like the head of the orphanage alive. Ill kill him next time. I cant experience both in a single playthrough without going back pretty far at some point and walking the other path.

So, I am not really sure what your problems are. The fact is that there is the ability to save often in the game. Thats it. That is not a terrible thing, it is a thing. Its a hammer on a table. You making a house or bashing someones head in doesn't make the hammer a bad thing to have around because it can be used. So is it the story? The fact it has options and you can only take 1 path at a time? Again, I am not seeing the problem you are solving here. Just a disgruntlement that the game can be used in ways you have chosen not in other games.

4. Perception checks et al

This is something that really bothers me too. Perception checks that reveal doors reveal the doors and they shimmer. If you perceive footholds on a cliff that weren't there before then make them appear. Tracks appear and if you mouse over them it says "Humanoid tracks" on a low one "goblin tracks" on a medium one and "12 goblins, heading east, 1 hour old" on a great one. Insight checks need to be more readily available and, in general, there is very little player feedback and awareness alteration that happens. They need to connect skills to things people can look at, read, and interact with for sure.

5. Nettie

This was a good example of broad thinking. If you do every quest you see right now, you are limiting options. They TOLD you the other dude was the healer and shes some apprentice. You had the option of the real deal or the apprentice. You got the apprentice experience when you chose the apprentice and it was comical in how bad she is compared to the master of the circle. Thats a straight D&D choice. As a DM id be tickled pink if my party had said "Yeah, lets have the apprentice try to heal us". I love their idea on what she did, its a hilarious DM punishment. It taught me to not finish quests immediately or choose what seems like a final option until ive run around a bit and done related acitivities.

6. The Face

I am loving that there is 1 person you use to talk to people. In multiplayer, I get to be lazy or dictate the pace. Either way, it doesnt leave a lot of "no, you talk to him this time". You know who should (except backgrounds might make you think wait, im a pirate, i have no charisma but maybe us both being one will help *save*) Every party has one. What would be good is to weave other people's skills in. This is complex for them, but I think it would be amazing. Your face is talking, and she mentions that the goblin attack wasnt going to be the last. The NPC says "I think it was". A ranger with survival skill could say "The tracks I saw were of a force double that size. I don't know if you could withstand another such attack, much less the one of what I saw." Persuasion check, from the face, with advantage because of the specific knowledge of one of the players who had perceived tracks earlier (and if they hadnt was just a random goblin factoid that maybe didn't lower the DC as much). The roleplaying does kind of suck in that regard without a sorc, paladin, bard, or warlock as persuasion/deception turns to intimidation after that which isn't really fun going around being a jerk to everyone just as a player selecting options. It isn't how I want to conduct through the game. It isn't how I want to conduct my or my character's actions. I think you have a very valid point on RP limitations, especially early game without the stats to help.

7. Modifiers are boring

Modifiers are modifiers, there isn't really anything thats going to be emotional about them. What I am reading is you saying the way the game uses your skills is boring because it doesn't give the option to use use character's background or actions to affect the story often enough and when it does, it isn't particularly exotic or based on some "oh wow, they kept track of that?" moment. This might tie back to a more complex background creation process that allows you to set certain pieces of information as blocks for yourself. Yes, you can min/max second playthrough if you wanted, but you cant change the game NPCs, just your own. Knowledge of gods, races, say that you escaped from a slave pit, etc...a slave pit escape back story might let you know when you get to the part of the castle that slaves get fed from, you know there is a slave pot and only the slaves ate it. Time to put in a potion of fire breathing or giant strength to the pot and watch a slave jail break. They give you ideas or allow conversation options on something like that. Otherwise, it IS hard to just say "change the modifiers". A lot of what you mentioned was a reputation system - which should lower the DC, I agree.


I think you had a great write up!

My penny of thoughts on them smile
I agree with you on most except the combat downgrade. I'm fine with the action economy right now, except how reactions are done. But the surface crap is terrible. Its unavoidable dmg at the start of your turn when that shouldn't exist so readily. Why are there 3+ archers every fight with bombs? Bombs should be rare, they are rare in D&D. The game loves to put you at a huge disadvantage at the beginning of fights with you getting low ground and getting bombarded for some reason. Terrible encounter design.
Good post - well thought through. I agree with some of the claims, not sure about others and I completely disagree with the title of the post.

In general, I wouldn't underestimate the emotional impact of sticking to the 5e rules. DOS games where great but I did not feel as invested in them as I do in this early access. The mere fact that it tries to recreate the tabletop rules adds value in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a system designed to be used in a fairly collaborative, friendly manner between humans... one person playing the world (and making sure it all runs smoothly.)

That is very true. It was said on may occasions that the rule set should be treated as guidance more than hard rules. You can't replace a human DM with an algorithm.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
BG3's skill checks.. feel like they fit the mould of succeed or fail....

...it felt like I was being screwed by a dice roll. When I have a +4 modifier, it doesn't feel good to fail a DC10 check. DC20 checks just seem ridiculous. DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either...

I completely understand. It does feel bad failing a skill check. I personally try hard to not frame it as a failure. I try to play along with it (that is how things went down. How would me character react?). I do it because I think it will be a better experience in the long run and I'll experience stories I wouldn't have otherwise (if everything went according to plan). It will also add to replayability.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
I really like the rest mechanic, but it's another of those things that gets smoothed over by a DM. I don't think I can stress enough how much I'd missed on my first playthrough by not going to camp every so often... Winnowing it down to a short rest and a day end is really interesting, but it gets complicated when there's story and character beats tied to it. But without any sort of mechanic, how often should I be going to rest? And what am I missing if I don't?

I would love to see some sort of mechanic tied to the rest. Maybe a day passes everytime you rest and some events happen after some time has passed. Maybe a fatigue mechanism to time the rests. Currently I avoid going to rest just because it feels like cheating resting after every encounter. Considering Larian said a lot happens in the camp I'm probably doing it wrong. btw, I've rested twice and met the demon on my second rest - it felt connected to the story so I have no issues with it.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
...players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough...

I'm exactly the same, and I'm fighting myself against it. It had been way too many time where I played a game while exploring everything, talking to everyone, checking every barrel, etc.. without fail it always hurt my experience rather than improve it. Everything takes longer so the pacing of the story is off. It drastically reduce the replayability. I appreciate it when games understand that and put in place mechanisms that won't allow me to burn myself on a single playthrough and never touch the game again.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

...They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history...

I would love to see this implemented. That will definitely add to the immersion.Btw, are we sure it is not already implemented - by changing the DC - just not visible enough to the player?


Originally Posted by Milkfred
...people wanting an increased party size... feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into

I'm actually on the other side of this issue. I don't feel like managing more inventories and skills, and I think it's perfectly ok NOT to be able to do something you want to do. It devalues my own character when I have every single option available in every playthrough.


Originally Posted by Milkfred
...minor (issues) that can definitely be fixed during the EA period (more loot, ... , XP outside of combat, missing loot from shoving people into pits... )

Not sure how much loot is optimal I just don't want it to become the loot fountain we see in a lot of other games. A lot of useless loot is just clutter and a lot of good loot devalues the loot and removes the excitement of finding something good.
Definitely needs xp for non combat actions.
And I'm perfectly ok with no loot from enemies in pits smile I made a choice I'll bare the consequences smile


I think you've made some very good point here and I hope Larian think about it. However I wouldn't want to make this game resemble DOS even more. It's already too close in my eyes. I think a significantly different game (mechanically and atmosphere wise) will only do Larian good - as it will increase the potential customer base. We can always have DOS3 for those who love that one.
"I think people will have to get used to this bunch. I'm not convinced there'll be many more companions, if there's any at all. Consider that D:OS2 had you meet everyone initially, much like BG3 has done. Unless Larian has been running an extremely long game of only previewing the party members they'd show off in EA, I wouldn't hold out hope for another four or five party members. I feel like we might get one or two, but I don't think we'll get one for each class, nor get more than one for any class."

Larian said before EA's release that they will add more companions later (even in the EA), they opted for more "evil" ones at start to encourage us to try out playing evil characters, as people generally play good characters in the game. I agree half of them seem to be of a pretty good alignment though.
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by jonn
I get the feeling that there may eventually be another solution to the Nettie problem, remember Larian are asking us to focus on the usually underplayed evil route through the game at this stage, and there is a stone slab in the room which leads out into a tunnel which you are currently unable to open (room behind it is full of poison gas)

You can lockpick the slab. It leads to an area that is accessible by other means but provides a more advantageous starting position.



You can also get hold of the missing rune to open the door. There are hints to find as to who has the missing rune. This was the option I went for.
I generally disagree with the OP. I liked D:OS and D:OS 2, but I am also interested in D&D 5e. Larian promoted this game as operating under the 5e ruleset. There are certainly room for tweaks and changes, but this is supposed to be a 5e game, not a hybrid of 5e and D:OS.


Originally Posted by Fisher
1. I agree that the fail or pass model isn't so great. The extent to which you fail or succeed should change the outcome of certain situations. If I fail to persuade someone by 1, I think it's reasonable to expect they'd react different than if I critically failed by rolling a 1 -- they might even react far worse than before in the latter case.


They aren't going to add additional dialogue for rolling a natural 1 or natural 20 in dialogue, there are just too many permutations that it's impossible.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

(As an aside, Baldur's Gate 1 had this exact issue and people rightfully hated it. Don't keep those rose-tinted goggles on, people.)

I didn't hate it. I want a game that recreates tabletop gameplay, and my tabletop gameplay was always simulationist. If the dice said you died, you died.

Baldur's Gate (the original, not the sequel or remake) is one of the 5 best CRPGs ever made. It's not quite Ultima IV, but it's close.
Quote
I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

That's literally my favourite thing about the game. Dice rolling gives the player character tremendous agency without transferring that agency to me, the player. That's how RPGs work. You're not playing a game; you're playing a character (or multiple characters, in the case of a party-based RPG).

The character's interaction with the world should be be influenced by what outcomes the player wants.
Quote
3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.

Those players are playing it wrong. They're trying to play a game.

RPGs aren't games. They're toys. RPGs don't have winning conditions. Playing an RPG successfully involves making in-character decisions and... that's it. Whether the character succeeds or fails isn't relevant to whether the player succeeds or fails.

This is why I do reload games if my character dies due to player error, but not if he dies due to a poor decision on his part or even just a bad dice roll. The world is unforgiving; that's what makes achievement worthwhile.
Quote
-snip-

Throughout this post, you refer to "players" several times as if they are a homogeneous group, but I don't recognize the group you describe at all.
Originally Posted by 00zim00
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Tuco
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
+1

+1 to both

+1

I really wish Larian had announced D:OS 3 before launching BG3 Early Access. It seems like a lot of starved hardcore Divinity fans with no love for the old Infinity Engine duology are asking for this game to be a serviceable spiritual successor to Divinity, or just a fresh cRPG experience altogether. It's Baldur's Gate 3, though. This should be a worthy successor to the series, and the old games are so famous and beloved in part because of the tight, faithful transposition of tabletop mechanics into a digital environment. Being able to play a campaign without your friends is what engendered so many people to the series to begin with, to leave that behind and call it Baldur's Gate 3 seems a bit silly.

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.

As someone who has limited exposure the Larian's other games, but is an old-school BG fan, so far I'm a big fan of what I see from BG3.
Agreed
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
I really wish Larian had announced D:OS 3 before launching BG3 Early Access. It seems like a lot of starved hardcore Divinity fans with no love for the old Infinity Engine duology are asking for this game to be a serviceable spiritual successor to Divinity, or just a fresh cRPG experience altogether. It's Baldur's Gate 3, though. This should be a worthy successor to the series, and the old games are so famous and beloved in part because of the tight, faithful transposition of tabletop mechanics into a digital environment. Being able to play a campaign without your friends is what engendered so many people to the series to begin with, to leave that behind and call it Baldur's Gate 3 seems a bit silly.

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.


Agreed... and I also worry about people harping too much on the: BG is how RPG's have been done in the "olden days" and DOS are what they should be these days, which is idiotic. BG (or rather D&D) and Divinity are simple two completely different types of RPGs. Especially considering that D&D 5e is indeed a very modern, slick pen and paper system, that should lent idself very well to be translated into video game form.
Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

I worry that this game will end up a nightmare child of 5E and Divinity with Larian trying to appease their core fans and the core fans of the original duology.

As someone who has limited exposure the Larian's other games, but is an old-school BG fan, so far I'm a big fan of what I see from BG3.

I generally agree, it's quite an entertaining game as is. I'll be happy to play a complete version of the game more-or-less as its balanced and paced today. I'm not a doomsayer and not particularly interested in the internet style of argument where we debate whether it's the greatest thing ever or the worst piece of shovelware to hit shelves.

Suffice it to say there are number of departures from the tabletop system and I question whether or not they were made with sufficient intention. Cantrips leaving behind surfaces and having utility, for example, is a very strange decision. Without getting too into the weeds, there are a number of reasons JC was able to give 5E casters their spellcasting stat modifier to hit and, in some cases, damage, while simplifying the weapon proficiency system and giving all Ranged class weapons Dexterity to hit and damage, but the careful balancing and extensive playtesting of Cantrips was probably chief among them. Firebolt was not intended to have any utility, and fire spells which ignite surfaces explicitly say so in the rules of the PHB for balance purposes. As is, it's almost strictly better to be casting Firebolt in BG3 than using any other ranged weapon because of the DoT and potential AoE ignition damage (potential here meaning all but certain, as you can easily pull some AoE damage out of Firebolt in almost every fight.) That Larian missed this design note or simply decided to ignore it is not very encouraging and endemic to the criticisms I've seen from fans of the original duology. It changes the scope of many fights - I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a D&D campaign module where a significant portion of the damage in early 1st-3rd level encounters was environmental, discounting simple traps, which are entirely unlike barrel explosions or igniting Entangle.
Posted By: Zpawn Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 11/10/20 08:58 PM
" You can't have it both ways. You mention how it sucks that even with a +4 bonus you can fail. Well, the flip side is with no bonus you can still succeed. "

Wait, why do you perceive the fact that you can win a skill check with no bonus as a good thing? If everything is a Dice roll, then why should it matter what I am proficient in?

How is that fair? I mean, I know that in D&D that is how things are, but when talking about odds here, how does a warrior with no charisma persuade a lich to not suck his soul or whatever, whereas a warlock with lots of charisma, and he himself being a magic user not persuade the said lich?

Look, I`m not trying to destroy the D&D ruleset. I like the ruleset. But there are certain things that need to be addressed if we want this game to be actually enjoyable by "people", not just "D&D people".

Also I think somebody mentioned it earlier, but does it really feel rewarding when you pass a check by plain luck? Like let`s say you are supposed to intimidate a Troll to let you pass a bridge. Cool - > Intimidation/Persuasion check - > You, are a halfling cleric or whatever. You have no points in charisma/strength and you roll a Nat 20 on the check. So knowing all that, do you actually feel like you achieved something by passing that check through pure luck? I don`t.
And I`m curious what your opinion is on this issue laugh
Clearly, the OP wants a new DOS game.

DOS2 combat had so many flaws and I am happy that BG3 combat does not resemble it at all. Much more dynamic and fluid.

I think Larian will eventually add an option for threshold Skillchecks based on stats instead of dice roll to avoid randomness.
Of course, the outcry of 'Baldur's Gate did it this way' has come through loud and clear.

I suggest people actually replay Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. You'll very quickly realize that there are no stat checks, for example, and very few things actually 'gated' behind your mental stats. The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Of course, the outcry of 'Baldur's Gate did it this way' has come through loud and clear.

I suggest people actually replay Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. You'll very quickly realize that there are no stat checks, for example, and very few things actually 'gated' behind your mental stats. The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.

This post is unintentionally hilarious because you're so condescending but you clearly have next to no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever played AD&D before? Do you know what an edition of D&D is, even?

Well, surely you do. And surely you know that BG1&2 are based on AD&D. And surely you know that Diplomacy didn't even get a set of rules until Dragon Magazine #169. And surely you know that the out-of-combat skill checks from the core rulebook are limited to rogue skills that are clearly included in the game, and "Non-Weapon Proficiencies" with a single DC of 21 (which can be truncated as pass-fail using a standard roll with minimal intervention on the maths), right? And surely you know that some dialogue options in BG1&2 are gated by your mental ability scores, right? And surely you remember that nobody had the expectation the IE games were going to include non-weapon proficiencies such as "Boating" or "Papermaking," just as no one had the expectation that they would use expanded rules from every issue of Dragon published to release in an engine perfected in the late 1990s, right?

I mean, surely you wouldn't post something like that without understanding the history of the genre, and surely you wouldn't equate limitations of a game engine/production budget with intentional design deviations, right?
DOS2 combat was fun. I dont really care BG3 to be like DOS2, just make it more FUN. If you want a D&Desk by the book simulation there is Pathfinder: Kingmaker.
D&D 5e works great in PnP, having that human element. 100% pure by the book computer DMs are the most boring games of all. Bend the rules a little. Add SOMETHING to that stale 1 action/bonus/move template.

Too many critical misses, bad rolls for example fills up a "DM meter" gets you some unique DM D100 response to a situation..."That goblin running at you for the kill, slips and impales himself...", or "..suddenly a gust of wind disarms the creature for a round" or "...you hear a yell, GO FORT THE EYES BOO!!!...the creature runs away in terror". < I like that one wink kind of stuff.
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider

And surely you know that some dialogue options in BG1&2 are gated by your mental ability scores, right?


Yes. Some being the operative word of that sentence, and it's barely anything. You can get through BG1 and 2 without issue by setting your INT/WIS/CHA to the bare minimum and still have, basically, the same experience with the same options and same characters and same quest resolutions. You didn't need to roll anything to, say, get Saemon Havarian to help you out. How many dialogue options were gated by your mental ability scores, do you think? We'll say across both games. Come on, don't be shy.
Quote
Dialog Checks: There are also a rare number of dialog choices that are only available when the party leader has high intelligence, but these are extremely minor and have no real effect on how quests progress.


Oh.

Oh no.

Oh nooooo.

edit: For example, a quick bit of research indicates that across BG2 and its expansion there's only six or so conversations which check your Wisdom score. I can't find any quick list of Intelligence checks. Charisma is just to generally ask for better rewards, and effects some party members joining you in BG1. But what I have found are multiple posts, from classic BG2 forums to the Beamdog ones, of people saying don't bother with the mental stats because they don't effect the game enough.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
DOS2 combat was fun. I dont really care BG3 to be like DOS2, just make it more fun. If you want a D&D by the book simulation there is Pathfinder: Kingmaker.


I can play both games and I have but its not the same thing so your statement doesn't work.

Pathfinder is a different rule set so it does not play the same as 5e.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
You didn't need to roll anything to, say, get Saemon Havarian to help you out. How many dialogue options were gated by your mental ability scores, do you think? We'll say across both games. Come on, don't be shy.

Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
And surely you know that Diplomacy didn't even get a set of rules until Dragon Magazine #169.

But hey, if I were caught out like that, I would try to cherry-pick a criticism and reorient my argument too.

Fact is this is a suitably shallow reply given your lack of contextual knowledge, especially considering the thrust of your last post was that BG1&2 didn't reflect the ruleset they were based on as accurately as BG3 (which is laughable) and not that there were a small number of mental stat checks.

But simply because this is kind of funny, and I have nothing better to do right now, here's some:


An incomplete list from BG2:
Cyric's Avatar in the pocket plane challenge room:
Cyric: Now, then. Let's get trivial matters out of the way first. Do you know who I am?
You seem... familiar somehow... (Wisdom less than 8, Intelligence greater than 13)
You're... the current god of murder? ( Wisdom between 8-16)
Yes. You're Cyric, reigning god of murder. (Wisdom 17+, or player is a cleric)

Yakman in the Watcher's Keep portal level:
Yakman: Yakman used to sleep, long time ago. But it get cold, so cold. Frozen Yakman! Demons come, and it get cold. No sleep make Yakman go crazy, Yakman knows. Crazy Yakman!
Maybe a heal spell will help restore your sanity? (Wisdom 15+, or player is a cleric)

The wraith shade of Gorion in Yaga-Shura's mom's temple
Gorion: You are a disappointment. You were supposed to be so much more, . You were supposed to be something greater, and yet in the end, you murdered even me!
Gorion would never say these things. You are not he! (Wisdom 12+)

The beholder in the Sahuagin city
Spectator: I assume he was talking about this chest, though. And that means I can't let you open it... or do anything to it... even if I'm not guarding what's inside.
But that doesn't mean you can't open it, right? Then I could get what's inside without touching anything. (Wisdom 13+)

Elven gate guard in Suldanessellar:
Elf: No! No, go away! You... you're just another illusion, trying to trick me! I won't open the gate, I won't!
All of the illusions have been of horrible creatures... I am not a creature of any sort. Why would they create an illusion like me? (Wisdom 15+)
Illusions exist through belief. Stop believing in them, and they no longer exist. You can try the same with me, but I assure you I am quite real. (Intelligence 15+)
You're just going to have to trust me, friend. I'm here to help, not to fight. (Charisma 15+)

The "dragonslayer" in one of the tents in Trademeet:
Wilfred: Too bad I was by myself at the time. I could only gather as much gold as I could carry. Still, it was enough to make me plenty wealthy. Plus, it was a good deed, which is my forte.
You don't look like someone who could single-handedly slay a dragon! What's the real story here? (Wisdom 15-16)
I'm wise enough to see right through your story, Wilfred. You're lying. (Wisdom 17+)

There's also a "Reaction adjustment" which is based in part on your CHA score. In BG1 at least, this impacts a large number of NPC reactions, including that of party members who can join your cause:
https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Reaction


Again, it doesn't matter, because this was only tangential to your original point, but it is really funny.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
[edit: For example, a quick bit of research indicates that across BG2 and its expansion there's only six or so conversations which check your Wisdom score. I can't find any quick list of Intelligence checks. Charisma is just to generally ask for better rewards, and effects some party members joining you in BG1. But what I have found are multiple posts, from classic BG2 forums to the Beamdog ones, of people saying don't bother with the mental stats because they don't effect the game enough.


I've never seen a clearer example of someone moving goal posts to save such an embarrassingly trivial amount of intellectual face.
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.
I find it funny OP used Nettie as an example for showing that failing has no interesting consequences. Failing in that instance leads to several interesting options and different outcomes. And failing a DC5 skillcheck happens in TTRPG too. This usually leads to laughing at the table, and the player coming up with how he/she failed spectacularly. Just do the same when you fail a skill check. I haven't noticed any glaring issues where you just fail without having the option to solve the situation in some other way.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

That's not what's at stake in your original argument. I'm just humoring you because anyone who has played those games and a session of AD&D could tell you were talking out of your arse. In case you forgot, you concluded your example with:
Originally Posted by Milkfred
The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.


The idea that social skill checks are an integral part of the system BG1&2 are based on is completely misinformed, but you latched onto the only thing you could and tried to slide the goal posts further and further toward the easy dunk that BG1&2 were designed with a minimal set of rules for social interactions, just as the system they're based on. I'm not sure whether these playground tactics work in your personal life, but laid out in text it's pretty clear just by scrolling up that you started arguing for something else entirely the moment you were caught out.
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

That's not what's at stake in your original argument. I'm just humoring you because anyone who has played those games and a session of AD&D could tell you were talking out of your arse. In case you forgot, you concluded your example with:
Originally Posted by Milkfred
The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.


The idea that social skill checks are an integral part of the system BG1&2 are based on is completely misinformed, but you latched onto the only thing you could and tried to slide the goal posts further and further toward the easy dunk that BG1&2 were designed with a minimal set of rules for social interactions, just as the system they're based on. I'm not sure whether these playground arguments work in your personal life, but laid out in text it's pretty clear just by scrolling up that you started arguing for something else entirely the moment you were caught out.


I'm sorry, friend, but you appear to be having a stroke. BG3 is not based on AD&D. The year is 2020, not 1980.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Originally Posted by Yawning Spider
Originally Posted by Milkfred
Oof, so the grand total is as I edited. About six conversations. Really good way to indicate how much those stats mattered in the classic RPGs, hey? It's not the ironclad gotcha you think the argument is. Fly away, grog.

That's not what's at stake in your original argument. I'm just humoring you because anyone who has played those games and a session of AD&D could tell you were talking out of your arse. In case you forgot, you concluded your example with:
Originally Posted by Milkfred
The problem with comparing BG3's system to its two predecessors is that very few people actually understand how BG1 and 2 worked. In general, they certainly weren't as stringent as making you 'play by the rules' as BG3 is.


The idea that social skill checks are an integral part of the system BG1&2 are based on is completely misinformed, but you latched onto the only thing you could and tried to slide the goal posts further and further toward the easy dunk that BG1&2 were designed with a minimal set of rules for social interactions, just as the system they're based on. I'm not sure whether these playground arguments work in your personal life, but laid out in text it's pretty clear just by scrolling up that you started arguing for something else entirely the moment you were caught out.


I'm sorry, friend, but you appear to be having a stroke. BG3 is not based on AD&D. The year is 2020, not 1980.

You somehow managed to confuse your own argument. I'm in awe.

Let me spell the counter-point out for you, bud:

BG3 is less stringent about making the player follow the rules of D&D 5E than BG 1&2 were about making the player follow the rules of AD&D. Unless you want to anachronistically hold BG 1&2 up to the 5E ruleset, which makes no sense, your reply is deeply confused.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


I think that has been answered pretty convincingly. It's that you are given a check to pass, and if you pass it, you 're given another check, pass it and you're given another, and then a fourth. Fail any one of them and you're kicked onto the fail path. If you're trying to hit a goblin, the game doesn't go "did you really hit the goblin? Roll again", and make you roll a total of four times before it'll say "okay, I guess you did hit it after all".

The laws of probability mean the chance of passing four checks in a row is a lot worse than of passing one. It's clear that the developers really don't want you to be able to pass that check. The solution is equally clear: Make that into one check with a very high DC.




Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.


Which speaks of what? A fundamental lack of understanding in how the 5e rules are meant to be applied... leading into the conclusion that: No, the ruleset isn't the problem, the mishandled application of it is.
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.


Which speaks of what? A fundamental lack of understanding in how the 5e rules are meant to be applied... leading into the conclusion that: No, the ruleset isn't the problem, the mishandled application of it is.



Oh I agree, ruleset isn't the issue. Its how Larian has implemented and handled it in EA release version.
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Milkfred
I think Nettie's a fine encounter, but a lot of people use it as an example of a bad one. The question is why they do and why they don't feel it works.


For me its terrible bc you're making multiple checks for ONE thing. I persuaded once, why do I need to do it again and again for a single thing? Just make the first ones DC higher like a sane DM would.

You do multiple persuasion checks when the goal changes. Like for gold. You persuaded once to instead get 300 gold but you ask for even more so you roll again with higher DC.

But the way Nettie is you roll multiple times for one thing, making you feel shitty for succeeding and even punishing you. Just make the first roll a higher DC and that's it. Simple.


On this I will agree. Multiple skill checks for one thing, is usually the sign of a new GM who doesn't understand that the rate of failure goes through the roof if you ask for too many skill rolls. Not only that, but you don't want to bog down the flow of the game with too many rolls.

But I do think the Nettie encounter is fine otherwise. You can solve the situation several ways after failing the skill roll.
Originally Posted by Ascorius
You can solve the situation several ways after failing the skill roll.


Only one way it ends with me and its her dying. I asked you nicely 3 times, its time to die now LOL
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Originally Posted by Ascorius
You can solve the situation several ways after failing the skill roll.


Only one way it ends with me and its her dying. I asked you nicely 3 times, its time to die now LOL

Yeah, I even tried to be clever and steal the antidote from her, go stealth and sneak out of the room. She still attacked.
I find that the game is overall rather enjoyable, and while I do have my gripes about the companions (mainly that lae'zel called me her "subordinate" when I'm the only reason that jerk isn't stuck in a cage) and other things, I don't find that the 5E ruleset is the problem here.

The 5E ruleset runs just fine in video games from my experiences, the problem is that Larian didn't actually stick to the way things work in 5E which is mucking stuff up quite a bit. I loved the surface effects in DOS2 and they really added something to the combat of that game, but in this game there are far too many of them and just about every single spell or cantrip creates them. Magic items are supposed to be fairly rare in the Forgotten Realms from my knowledge, meanwhile in BG3 I currently have a ludicrous amount of magic scrolls stashed away that, much like they did in DOS2, are probably going to go completely unused for the most part because they are, at least for the moment, almost entirely useless. Why would I use a scroll that lets me cast Shield of Faith when I have a cleric who can already cast it and an item that can also cast it for free? Which brings me to items, there are a stupid amount of magic items in this game that is making it feel less like D&D and more like DOS2. Which is pretty much everyone's big complaint here, it's not that the game is a bad game, it's that it doesn't play or feel like a Dungeons and Dragons game which is what we were told it would be.

I feel like what makes a D&D game isn't the world it's set in, it's not the races, it's not the classes, it's the way things work basically. People run homebrew campaign all the time that have class and race restrictions and are set in settings that aren't part of the Forgotten Realms, yet they still run and play like a D&D 5E game which keeps that feeling of playing D&D despite every other part of the game being different, and that's because they actually stick to the rules and the way things are set up. Meanwhile Larian has promised us a D&D 5E game, given us the Baldur's Gate setting, given us most if not all of the D&D 5E races and classes, but randomly decided to rewrite the rules so it doesn't feel like I'm playing D&D, it feels like I'm playing DOS2 all over again with an overhaul mod slapped onto it. We bought a game expecting Dungeons and Dragons, and got Divinity instead, which will understandably upset people, even those that liked Divinity.

The fix to this is pretty simple: stop trying to rewrite the rules. Make the spells play the way they should as written in the 5E rules, because changing them the way they did just broke them considerably. Also, stop making us roll 3 or 4 times to get the desired outcome when having one bad roll will cause the one we don't want (looking at you, Nettie). This game is currently suffering from the same thing as Fallout 4 basically. It's a good RPG game, but it's a terrible D&D game, and we were sold a D&D game. If this had been marketed and sold as another Divinity game the most of the complaints wouldn't exist, because it plays like an excellent Divinity game. The problem is, it wasn't marketed and sold as a Divinity game, it was marketed as a D&D game and most of us bought it expecting it to play like a D&D game. We expected spells that act the way they should, not having to convince people 3 times in a row on the exact same subject (seriously, if they are really stubborn on their point just make the skill check hard, don't make us have to do the same thing over and over it's redundant) and for it to feel like the world it was marketed as. Instead we have spells that act nothing like the way they should, a pointless amount of dice rolling for once conversation, and magic items that may as well just fall out of thin air and land in our pockets. My part is currently level 3 and every single one of them has at least 1 piece of magic equipment! Magic items don't feel special when they're all over the freaking place.
Posted By: Orbax Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by Pupito
I find that the game is overall rather enjoyable, and while I do have my gripes about the companions (mainly that lae'zel called me her "subordinate" when I'm the only reason that jerk isn't stuck in a cage) and other things, I don't find that the 5E ruleset is the problem here. The 5E ruleset runs just fine in video games from my experiences, the problem is that Larian didn't actually stick to the way things work in 5E which is mucking stuff up quite a bit. I loved the surface effects in DOS2 and they really added something to the combat of that game, but in this game there are far too many of them and just about every single spell or cantrip creates them. Magic items are supposed to be fairly rare in the Forgotten Realms from my knowledge, meanwhile in BG3 I currently have a ludicrous amount of magic scrolls stashed away that, much like they did in DOS2, are probably going to go completely unused for the most part because they are, at least for the moment, almost entirely useless. Why would I use a scroll that lets me cast Shield of Faith when I have a cleric who can already cast it and an item that can also cast it for free? Which brings me to items, there are a stupid amount of magic items in this game that is making it feel less like D&D and more like DOS2. Which is pretty much everyone's big complaint here, it's not that the game is a bad game, it's that it doesn't play or feel like a Dungeons and Dragons game which is what we were told it would be. I feel like what makes a D&D game isn't the world it's set in, it's not the races, it's not the classes, it's the way things work basically. People run homebrew campaign all the time that have class and race restrictions and are set in settings that aren't part of the Forgotten Realms, yet they still run and play like a D&D 5E game which keeps that feeling of playing D&D despite every other part of the game being different, and that's because they actually stick to the rules and the way things are set up. Meanwhile Larian has promised us a D&D 5E game, given us the Baldur's Gate setting, given us most if not all of the D&D 5E races and classes, but randomly decided to rewrite the rules so it doesn't feel like I'm playing D&D, it feels like I'm playing DOS2 all over again with an overhaul mod slapped onto it. We bought a game expecting Dungeons and Dragons, and got Divinity instead, which will understandably upset people, even those that liked Divinity. The fix to this is pretty simple: stop trying to rewrite the rules. Make the spells play the way they should as written in the 5E rules, because changing them the way they did just broke them considerably. Also, stop making us roll 3 or 4 times to get the desired outcome when having one bad roll will cause the one we don't want (looking at you, Nettie). This game is currently suffering from the same thing as Fallout 4 basically. It's a good RPG game, but it's a terrible D&D game, and we were sold a D&D game. If this had been marketed and sold as another Divinity game the most of the complaints wouldn't exist, because it plays like an excellent Divinity game. The problem is, it wasn't marketed and sold as a Divinity game, it was marketed as a D&D game and most of us bought it expecting it to play like a D&D game. We expected spells that act the way they should, not having to convince people 3 times in a row on the exact same subject (seriously, if they are really stubborn on their point just make the skill check hard, don't make us have to do the same thing over and over it's redundant) and for it to feel like the world it was marketed as. Instead we have spells that act nothing like the way they should, a pointless amount of dice rolling for once conversation, and magic items that may as well just fall out of thin air and land in our pockets. My part is currently level 3 and every single one of them has at least 1 piece of magic equipment! Magic items don't feel special when they're all over the freaking place.


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Definitely needs to be in multiple paragraphs. o.o
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Definitely needs to be in multiple paragraphs. o.o


Broke it up a bit, hope that's better!
This definitely just sounds like you want Divinity: Original Sin 3. Larian announced Baldur's Gate 3 using 5e's ruleset, and you literally just want them to get rid of 5e's ruleset and make it D:OS3 with a Forgotten Realms skin.

I've got about 30 or so hours in EA, and for the most part, it's fairly faithful to the 5e system (although, there are no critical misses in combat, and a 1 on an ability check or save is not a critical fail, it's just a fail, per 5e rules).

Concerning the camp function, I find myself going back to camp fairly frequently - for once in 5e, I'm able to take a long rest whenever I want, so I'm expending all of my spell slots and abilities fairly frequently, it's a good feeling. Personally, I think the camp mechanic is fine as-is. Same with combat - Move > Action > Bonus Action > Pass seems, to me, to allow more freedom than D:OS's AP system, as movement eats up AP, and you're left with only enough AP for a single action, depending on AP cost. 5e's combat system just seems more flexible, more agile, with Pathfinder 2e's Action System being the best out of all three, to an extent (i.e. removing a potion and drinking said potion being two out of your three actions is kind of a PITA). Also, the fact that potions are bonus actions in BG3 is hilarious to me, as that's a common house rule as opposed to RAW, which makes them an action.

Overall, BG3's EA 5e system is fine, though, I do agree things like the Nettie encounter need to be a bit less dice-heavy - make it a single persuasion/intimidate/deception check. However, Nettie is a bad example, as it's not really something you're supposed to win at - it's a showcase of the world and its views on the Illithid and their tadpoles. If this situation happened to me in a real session of 5e, it would suck, but that's the way of Faerun - now I've gotta kill them, find another way to get the antidote, or die.

I would love it, though, if other characters could join in the conversation, or at least offer the help action. Actually, has anyone ever tried switching characters mid-conversation and using the Help action on the one doing the talking? I'll need to try that...
Ty, much more readable, and can actually respond lol.

Instead of adapting to the rules that are written, they are changing way too much stuff which is just creating more of a mess. That doesn't include that the combat encounters seem to be made by a DM that doesnt understand the game and have never played it. Like a bunch of archers sitting up top throwing bombs, creating surfaces that bypass your AC and just lights you on fire. Most combat start with you being half hp bc of this while having low-ground. In Divinity it wasnt THAT much of an issue because 1) Armor system that protected you 2) You don't have a bedroll in this game to be full hp with a single click 3) Spells in that game rely on Cooldowns, not spell slots like in this game. Very limited resources in this game.
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
Ty, much more readable, and can actually respond lol.

Instead of adapting to the rules that are written, they are changing way too much stuff which is just creating more of a mess. That doesn't include that the combat encounters seem to be made by a DM that doesnt understand the game and have never played it. Like a bunch of archers sitting up top throwing bombs, creating surfaces that bypass your AC and just lights you on fire. Most combat start with you being half hp bc of this while having low-ground. In Divinity it wasnt THAT much of an issue because 1) Armor system that protected you 2) You don't have a bedroll in this game to be full hp with a single click 3) Spells in that game rely on Cooldowns, not spell slots like in this game. Very limited resources in this game.


So first playthrough I was playing like it was PnP D&D and really had issues with the combat.

Second playthrough I played it like DOS:2 and it was a cakewalk. My biggest issue is they balanced it around expecting you to play like it's DOS:2

I am done with the EA for now, I'll check BG3 again after the next major patch.
Based on the fact this is "Baldur's Gate 3" there is a degree of responsibility to capture the DnD ruleset. Removing Classes, overhauling the spell system, and entirely redoing the action economy are simply not options. Not just becauseof pissing off fans, but because it is likely outside of whatever contract exists between Larian and Wizards.

That being said, there are plentily of changes that can make 5E function better as a cRPG video game that don't undermine the spirit of the source material. I hate to see people rejecting a good step in the right direction because it isn't exactly how the tabletop system functions.

At the end of the day, we are not responsible for designing the game. Making huge sweeping overhaul suggestion don't normally help developers. Instead, I would strongly suggest focusing on the experience you like/dislike instead of the suggestions to fix it.

A lot of the feedback in this thread seems to come down to "Some classes have boring combat between level 1-4." A considerable number of people seem to agree on this point. Coming together and voicing this singular concern to Larian will be far more useful then each offering 50 unique suggestions to fix it.
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem

So first playthrough I was playing like it was PnP D&D and really had issues with the combat.

Second playthrough I played it like DOS:2 and it was a cakewalk. My biggest issue is they balanced it around expecting you to play like it's DOS:2

Yeah this to me has been the biggest indicator in BG3 that they didn't go hard enough on the DnD aspects of it. Ive had a similar experience of trying to play it like PnP... but it was awful. But if you play it like DOS2 its easy.

It's clear that they take a lot of influences from their Divinity series but they're making a DnD game. So it should probably be the opposite: Playing like its DOS2 is filled with issues, playing like its DnD is normal.

I'm not entirely sure what happened to the combat. They seem to want to make it more like divinity from what I can tell with cantrips as an example. So much surface effects.
That is true but it is an issue because it should be 5e first THEN divinity layer on top to spice and do home rules stuff, but instead its Divinity first then 5e on top which ruins the balance of the game.
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
That is true but it is an issue because it should be 5e first THEN divinity layer on top to spice and do home rules stuff, but instead its Divinity first then 5e on top which ruins the balance of the game.



Right now, to me, it feels like a DOS game set in the Forgotten Realms. They are really nailing the lore and world but not the gameplay, for me.
Originally Posted by ste100
After 7+ hours i have a feeling that my playthrough is 100% random and not they way i've like to play - which is neutral good, quite peacuful and helpful to everyone around.
Just because I'am out of luck with dice roll i'am constantly involved in fights with the characters I would like to deal different way. At the moment I feel like renegade Shep in ME and i have no real control over my character.


This is potentially a major issue if people start to feel this is the case.
Originally Posted by mahe4
I'm actually surprised, that so many of you want just a DOS3 instead of a BG3.
because that is exactly what OP is describing.
BG1 and 2 both used the dnd rule set from their time. At least they tried to adapt it as good as possible for their time.
the DND5e system is fine, even without a generous DM. there is no problem to use that system as basis for a computer game. look at pathfinder kingmaker. they took a much more complicated rule system and implemented it pretty faithfully and people love it.
yet here we are complaining, that BG3 would be boring if it was faithful to 5e rules. i really don't get it.

We are at a point, were one group wants a DOS3 and the other wants a BG3.
I don't want to be rude, but what about we wait for a DOS3 until BG3 is finished. because i think it would be great to see some thing new from larian, instead of an improvement from their other games.


So much this, there is a split on the forums that wants a more faithful implementation of 5E rules in BG3, all of which Larian has intended and advertised, and a bunch of people who seem to be expecting DOS3. Sorry, but this isn't that game, it isn't what Larian set out to do, or advertised. You are asking for a completely different game, whereas those wanting it to be more 5E are asking for the game we were promised.


Well said. I am a huge fan of D&D 5e. I dm multiple games. I love the concept of a 5e computer game but it has felt so pass/fail I end up save scumming all the time.
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Originally Posted by ste100
After 7+ hours i have a feeling that my playthrough is 100% random and not they way i've like to play - which is neutral good, quite peacuful and helpful to everyone around.
Just because I'am out of luck with dice roll i'am constantly involved in fights with the characters I would like to deal different way. At the moment I feel like renegade Shep in ME and i have no real control over my character.


This is potentially a major issue if people start to feel this is the case.

And it seems strange to me. Why does failing a dialogue DC would make someone feel like a renegade Shepard? They aren't being renegade with their dialogues choices and intention, it's NPCs who are aggressive and attack them on failure (or whatever it is they are doing the player doesn't like). The player shouldn't be controlling NPCs in a D&D game, that's the GM's job.

I blame BioWare for players who think that they control 100% of the narrative flow via the dialogue choices. That's now how BG3 works anyway, failing a DC doesn't means you suddenly become evil, it just means you have to be creative if you don't want to kill everyone. Like using the knockout action or thinking a bit depending on the fight. Even the Owlbear doesn't need to be killed.
Originally Posted by jaredruger
Well said. I am a huge fan of D&D 5e. I dm multiple games. I love the concept of a 5e computer game but it has felt so pass/fail I end up save scumming all the time.

I mean..that's how 5e w/no DM just rote pathing performs.

There's no 'fail forward' built into the 5e engine.

This is such an issue that there have been multitudes of games written to solve it.

Larian could put in passive checks and it would help, but then it would really step on the rogue's reliability features. D20+mods when the mods are less than 6 is going to feel like a coin flip, because statistically it is.

Now Larian can cut back on the failure trees, and allow you to have the information you need to walk the NPC through the logic and convince them w/out rolls - but that still doesn't address the core issue.

Especially since 5e really just says "give advantage" instead of trying to play with fiddly modifiers most of the time. Though recent sourcebooks have backed off that stance.

Have a source of advantage for skills rolls would help.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.
[b]


I don't feel this way at all.

People miss things. Letting any character experience everything puts hard limits on uniqueness of characters.

There are a lot of solutions to the Nettie encounter, and different characters would handle it differently. That's how it should be.

Perception checks I guess can feel pretty bad, but I've found it EXTREMELY rare where a perception check pops and not a single party member catches it. The only time I've experienced that is the grease vents in the tomb, and it really didnt have much of an impact anyway.

If you take this logic further it seriously hampers game replayability and the ability for branching storylines.
Originally Posted by Zpawn
Also I think somebody mentioned it earlier, but does it really feel rewarding when you pass a check by plain luck?

If you've found yourself in a situation where you shouldn't be, absolutely. I remember in the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion for BG I was approaching the end of Durlag's Tower and I needed a rest, but thought I'd open one more door to see what was through it, and it was a Demonknight.

I was doomed. I had no reason to think this was a winnable encounter. Everyone was hurt and I was nearly out of spells and my wizard-heavy party definitely wasn't prepared to fight a think with 95% magic resistance. In desperation, Viconia (who had killed Kivan earlier in the dungeon, so I was also down an archer) fired a Hold Monster at the Demonknight, and despite the fiend's 95% magic resistance, it landed. Held, it was defenseless before Coran's arrows (sped up by his Boots of Speed) and the three wizards collectively hurling 9 darts per round.

I won that fight, and I will remember it until the day I die. So yes, it does feel rewarding to pass checks by pure luck.
Originally Posted by clanpot
I've played through the BG trilogy probably a half dozen times over the years, and the thing that sticks with me, the thing that made them great, had nothing to do with how well-implemented the rules for AD&D were. This fixation on fidelity to the tabletop ruleset is a fool's errand.

To this day, my biggest complaint with BG is that the 1st-level Cleric spell Command wasn't implemented properly. It isn't supposed to allow a save.
Originally Posted by Milkfred

Yes. Some being the operative word of that sentence, and it's barely anything. You can get through BG1 and 2 without issue by setting your INT/WIS/CHA to the bare minimum and still have, basically, the same experience with the same options and same characters and same quest resolutions. You didn't need to roll anything to, say, get Saemon Havarian to help you out. How many dialogue options were gated by your mental ability scores, do you think? We'll say across both games. Come on, don't be shy.

If your idea of "the same experience" has nothing to do with how you roleplayed your character, I question why you're playing CRPGs at all.
Originally Posted by ste100
After 7+ hours i have a feeling that my playthrough is 100% random and not they way i've like to play - which is neutral good, quite peacuful and helpful to everyone around.
Just because I'am out of luck with dice roll i'am constantly involved in fights with the characters I would like to deal different way. At the moment I feel like renegade Shep in ME and i have no real control over my character.

Is it that you have no control over your character, or that you have no control over the consequences of your characters actions?

The former would be a problem, but the latter is good design. The player shouldn't be able to choose the results, only his or her characters' actions. How the NPCs respond to those actions absolutely should be beyond the player's control.
Originally Posted by azarhal
I blame BioWare for players who think that they control 100% of the narrative flow via the dialogue choices.

I couldn't agree more, and I applaud Larian for not doing this.

The best example I can think of how this goes wrong in BioWare's newer games is in Dragon Age Inquisition. The "intent" icons on the dialogue wheel clearly indicate what narrative consequence the option will trigger, and I don't think the player should ever know that. Turning those off creates other problems (because of the voiced protagonist, but that's a whole different issue), but forces the player to play just his or her character rather than directly steering the narrative.
Thank you OP for voicing your thoughts. I played about 10 hours and decided that the current combat systems weren't for me. You have definitely expressed why the dnd mechanics don't work really well.

I don't mind having a new system, or changes, as long as they work well and create a fun experience. The current dnd influences with the 1 action, 1 optional action, and rest points make for a bland experience.

Although, I prefer the new movement system, as that's easier to use, and more forgiving of miss clicks. Having shadows show how the movement will happen is nice.

I believe that most people coming to this game had expectations that this was just another baldur's gate game with a new story. Of course that's not the case, as Larian is a completely different developer, and this is their spin on the franchise. I see so many posts saying BG3 is basically DOS3, and that shows they haven't played DOS games before. The worst posts are the ones asking for surface effects to be removed, because dnd doesn't have them, and no other rational reasoning for their request. I don't think that removing more functionality and mechanics would be best.

Personally, I love the DOS complexity, diversity, and freedom of choice. BG3's dnd changes strip that away, and deliver a worse experience. OP gives a good reason: because dnd is a table top game, and that setting works, but not in the context of a turn based rpg video game.

From what I have seen, there are more dnd voices than non-dnd. That's why I refunded my purchase, as Larian is known to listen and make changes. If the majority wants a more dnd game, strickly, then they will most likely do that. But OP's post has given me some hope.

I will be following the games progress, and if the game's changes look good, I will repurchase at full release. It's true I have been itching for a new turn based rpg with a skill and class system like DOS, and I shouldn't demand that if I'm the lone voice in a sea of DnD fans.
It is interesting to see the argument from the other side. For me, the game is worse off because of the heavy DoS influence. The hybrid system, a blend between DoS style and D&D, is probably the real culprit. People on both sides (not everyone of course) are unhappy with it. I think they need to go harder in either direction.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 06:33 AM
Originally Posted by Zebico
Thank you OP for voicing your thoughts. I played about 10 hours and decided that the current combat systems weren't for me. You have definitely expressed why the dnd mechanics don't work really well.

I don't mind having a new system, or changes, as long as they work well and create a fun experience. The current dnd influences with the 1 action, 1 optional action, and rest points make for a bland experience.

Although, I prefer the new movement system, as that's easier to use, and more forgiving of miss clicks. Having shadows show how the movement will happen is nice.

I believe that most people coming to this game had expectations that this was just another baldur's gate game with a new story. Of course that's not the case, as Larian is a completely different developer, and this is their spin on the franchise. I see so many posts saying BG3 is basically DOS3, and that shows they haven't played DOS games before. The worst posts are the ones asking for surface effects to be removed, because dnd doesn't have them, and no other rational reasoning for their request. I don't think that removing more functionality and mechanics would be best.

Personally, I love the DOS complexity, diversity, and freedom of choice. BG3's dnd changes strip that away, and deliver a worse experience. OP gives a good reason: because dnd is a table top game, and that setting works, but not in the context of a turn based rpg video game.

From what I have seen, there are more dnd voices than non-dnd. That's why I refunded my purchase, as Larian is known to listen and make changes. If the majority wants a more dnd game, strickly, then they will most likely do that. But OP's post has given me some hope.

I will be following the games progress, and if the game's changes look good, I will repurchase at full release. It's true I have been itching for a new turn based rpg with a skill and class system like DOS, and I shouldn't demand that if I'm the lone voice in a sea of DnD fans.

again, where does it come from, that everyone is so sure, that the problem is the 5e system? where?
in the current state, they considerably deviated from the core 5e balancing mechanisms on many different levels. the current state has nothing to do with 5e balancing principles, yet people are blaming the 5e system.
it is just laughable... i don't know if this qualifies as a strawman argument or not...

the 5e system can be changed and build upon. but changing core balancing principles are a recipe for desaster.

one post, that was pretty drowning between other posts is an example for a really great rule change:
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
DOS2 combat was fun. I dont really care BG3 to be like DOS2, just make it more FUN. If you want a D&Desk by the book simulation there is Pathfinder: Kingmaker.
D&D 5e works great in PnP, having that human element. 100% pure by the book computer DMs are the most boring games of all. Bend the rules a little. Add SOMETHING to that stale 1 action/bonus/move template.

Too many critical misses, bad rolls for example fills up a "DM meter" gets you some unique DM D100 response to a situation..."That goblin running at you for the kill, slips and impales himself...", or "..suddenly a gust of wind disarms the creature for a round" or "...you hear a yell, GO FORT THE EYES BOO!!!...the creature runs away in terror". < I like that one wink kind of stuff.

that would be nice addition, that makes the video game experience a lot better and it doesn't change core 5e balancing principles.
Originally Posted by Zebico
I believe that most people coming to this game had expectations that this was just another baldur's gate game with a new story. Of course that's not the case, as Larian is a completely different developer, and this is their spin on the franchise. I see so many posts saying BG3 is basically DOS3, and that shows they haven't played DOS games before. The worst posts are the ones asking for surface effects to be removed, because dnd doesn't have them, and no other rational reasoning for their request. I don't think that removing more functionality and mechanics would be best.


I've seen half a dozen well reasoned arguements against this and I'm only a casual forum goer. It has to do with balance and allowing the classes to feel like they are separate things. If everyone can just toss bottles of fire around willy nilly what's the point of playing a caster? or if cantrips can do more damage than any other starting attacks why be anything other than a caster? and why bother to rest and get your spells back if you can just spam cantrips and items and kill everything. I have played through D:OS 1 and 2 a few times and I love them, but if you want to make a D&D game in the 5e ruleset there are rules that need to be followed to make it feel like D&D. I understand that some things won't transfer over to a video game well, and I am sure there will be all kinds of surfaces at higher levels (because there are spells at those levels that are actually supposed to create surfaces), but it needs to feel special. You need to have saved an item for a long time to use it in this perfect circumstance, or have just the right spell and spell slot to deal with that situation.

If this was D:OS3 I would say nothing against it, because that's what I expect from Larian and they do it well. However this is D&D and if you are going to make it feel even remotely like D&D these kinds of things are not going to fit in with every encounter.

On a side note I also agree that Bioware and some other CRPG's have ruined some of us on the idea that if you pick the right answers you should get the right outcome, and going back to the fact that this is supposed to be D&D I think Larian are on the right track here with making things not always work out (and if you really want things to work out remember to save often and just reload until you get the number you want if it is that important to you).
Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad
Originally Posted by azarhal
I blame BioWare for players who think that they control 100% of the narrative flow via the dialogue choices.

I couldn't agree more, and I applaud Larian for not doing this.

The best example I can think of how this goes wrong in BioWare's newer games is in Dragon Age Inquisition. The "intent" icons on the dialogue wheel clearly indicate what narrative consequence the option will trigger, and I don't think the player should ever know that. Turning those off creates other problems (because of the voiced protagonist, but that's a whole different issue), but forces the player to play just his or her character rather than directly steering the narrative.


That's that pesky renegade/paragon dichotomy BioWare has started to use in Mass Effect, which somehow ended up in all their subsequent games thereafter... one of the worst crutches for conversations in RPGs ever. However, that never was how CRPG dialogue worked before that point. Still doesn't mean you can't have an idea - or control - of how conversations will turn out either.
Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book. Larian almost has it...the game needs that extra spicy fun bit that pulls away from the all mighty D&D set in stone commandments.
Anything just slightly differing from 5e rules and you will have all these perfectionist just complaining to no end.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book.


Pathfinder is basically D&D3.5, though, which was such a big departure from AD&D in terms of complexity that it bordered on rules clutter. D&D5e, in many ways, was a major step back from that, to a simpler, more streamlined experience.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book. Larian almost has it...the game needs that extra spicy fun bit that pulls away from the all mighty D&D set in stone commandments.
Anything just slightly differing from 5e rules and you will have all these perfectionist just complaining to no end.


A game from the most famous and celebrated D&D franchise, and also heavily advertised as a 5E product. But yeah, you are right, lets get away from this boring D&D stuff ...


I find it ironic that you are basically telling fans of BG and 5e to go play another game when the name of the game is BG3.

Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book. Larian almost has it...the game needs that extra spicy fun bit that pulls away from the all mighty D&D set in stone commandments.
Anything just slightly differing from 5e rules and you will have all these perfectionist just complaining to no end.


Except that Pathfinder was basically designed to be a massive clutter of rules and math, D&D 5e is much more streamlined. That's not to say that it doesn't contain some rules and math, but certainly not to that level, and considering the math is already done for you by the computer in BG3 and the rules aren't something you'll be looking up constantly but something that the game should explain to you when you hover over the icon for whatever it is you plan to do, then even if it was just pure 5E with nothing else it would be more streamlined than Pathfinder.

I'm a huge D&D 5E fan, and I also loved DOS2, but they put too much Divinity into this game and not enough 5E, especially for a game called "Baldur's Gate 3" and marketed as sticking to the 5E ruleset, because it really doesn't. My biggest complaints are mainly just that they messed with the cantrips and made them OP, they messed with some of the enemies (such as the Gnolls, who I have a post ranting a bit about) and made them OP, and that you can take a nice safe long rest anywhere at anytime so long as you're not in combat (which is pretty OP). Basically, I'm just annoyed that everything Larian changed has been made OP. The 5E rules are nice and balanced for the most part, and for whatever reason Larian decided to mess that balance up, and it's come out as a whole lot of OP things that make the game more clunky and frustrating than fluid and fun.
I wish Larian would hurry up and announce D:OS 3 so these people could move on and allow a game called Baldur's Gate 3 to be a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2.
Originally Posted by Ascorius
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book. Larian almost has it...the game needs that extra spicy fun bit that pulls away from the all mighty D&D set in stone commandments.
Anything just slightly differing from 5e rules and you will have all these perfectionist just complaining to no end.


A game from the most famous and celebrated D&D franchise, and also heavily advertised as a 5E product. But yeah, you are right, lets get away from this boring D&D stuff ...


I find it ironic that you are basically telling fans of BG and 5e to go play another game when the name of the game is BG3.




This.

Like the issue is that there are too many Divinity rules and crap that is ruining the balance of 5e. 5e should be the main thing, and 5e rules should rule the game, not Divinity. If you want a DOS game go play OS2/1, instead of going like "Oh i know they keep saying this is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of 5e but nah, lets go back to DOS rules". No, Larian needs to stick to 5e rules and do them correctly, this is BG3, and a 5e DnD game.
+1 !!
Really well constructed thoughts and I couldn't agree more.
I really hope Larian see this!!
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
This.

Like the issue is that there are too many Divinity rules and crap that is ruining the balance of 5e. 5e should be the main thing, and 5e rules should rule the game, not Divinity. If you want a DOS game go play OS2/1, instead of going like "Oh i know they keep saying this is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of 5e but nah, lets go back to DOS rules". No, Larian needs to stick to 5e rules and do them correctly, this is BG3, and a 5e DnD game.


While I hate the fact that we - just like that - have another dichotomy in a gaming community - as if we didn't already have enough of those these days. wink... ich have to agree. That's where we pretty much are right now...
Originally Posted by Zebico
Thank you OP for voicing your thoughts. I played about 10 hours and decided that the current combat systems weren't for me. You have definitely expressed why the dnd mechanics don't work really well.

I don't mind having a new system, or changes, as long as they work well and create a fun experience. The current dnd influences with the 1 action, 1 optional action, and rest points make for a bland experience.

Although, I prefer the new movement system, as that's easier to use, and more forgiving of miss clicks. Having shadows show how the movement will happen is nice.

I believe that most people coming to this game had expectations that this was just another baldur's gate game with a new story. Of course that's not the case, as Larian is a completely different developer, and this is their spin on the franchise. I see so many posts saying BG3 is basically DOS3, and that shows they haven't played DOS games before. The worst posts are the ones asking for surface effects to be removed, because dnd doesn't have them, and no other rational reasoning for their request. I don't think that removing more functionality and mechanics would be best.

Personally, I love the DOS complexity, diversity, and freedom of choice. BG3's dnd changes strip that away, and deliver a worse experience. OP gives a good reason: because dnd is a table top game, and that setting works, but not in the context of a turn based rpg video game.

From what I have seen, there are more dnd voices than non-dnd. That's why I refunded my purchase, as Larian is known to listen and make changes. If the majority wants a more dnd game, strickly, then they will most likely do that. But OP's post has given me some hope.

I will be following the games progress, and if the game's changes look good, I will repurchase at full release. It's true I have been itching for a new turn based rpg with a skill and class system like DOS, and I shouldn't demand that if I'm the lone voice in a sea of DnD fans.


As someone who has played Divinity: Original Sin 2, I can say it plays almost exactly like DOS2 apart from the Movement>Action>Bonus Action instead of AP, and the Armor system being different.

Now, let me tell you why everyone is upset at surface effects, it's quite simple. See, they work in DOS2 because the armor system in that game protects you from damage when you get hit, so say you walk through a pool of fire and take 3 points of damage, but since you have 20 armor it doesn't even touch your HP. The problem with this is, that isn't how armor works in D&D 5E and BG3. Instead, we have the AC system, which determines how high you have to roll to hit the target. So if the target has an AC of 15, you must roll a 15 or higher to hit them. The problem this causes with surface effects is that the surface effect completely bypasses the AC system, it just damages you straight out without having any chance of missing, so when basically every elemental spell or cantrip in the game causes a surface effect, that means you don't even need to hit the enemy.

For my favorite example of this, the cantrip Firebolt. In D&D 5E RAW, it deals 1d10 fire damage, and can set objects that aren't being worn or carried on fire (so say you shoot it at a wooden chair, it will light it on fire). Now BG3 reduces this to 1d6 damage, and sets the enemy on fire. This would be fine if it was balanced, but it isn't. Firebolt will burn you even if you miss your attack, and it deals damage instantly and at the start of each turn while you're burning. Then, it creates a fire surface under you, which causes more damage when you move out of it or stay in it. There also is no action you can use to put out the fire and stop the burn damage, so you just have to suffer until it goes out.

Showing the math on this should really drive it home though. In D&D 5e, the max damage a firebolt can do (before modifiers and such) is 10 damage if you get a lucky roll. In BG3 at the moment, the max damage firebolt can do is 18. The firebolt itself can do a max of 6 damage when it hits, while the instant burn damage can do a max of 4, then at the start of the burning characters turn they can take another 4 max damage, then the fire surface can cause yet another 4 max damage. That damage is on par with a 1st level spell, and this is a cantrip you can use as many times as you want without limitations. And if you miss the attack, it still burns you, meaning it can still do a max of 12 damage, and that is from an attack that should have done 0 damage. Do you see the problems with so many ground surfaces now? I'm not saying get rid of them completely, but limit them a lot more for sure. Cantrips should not cause surfaces, higher tier spells like fireball should though.

Another reason that DOS2 mechanics don't work here is that in DOS2, if there were bunches of surfaces you needed to get rid of then a quick Rain spell would do the trick for most of them, and it only cost a cooldown timer. In BG3, that costs a spell slot. With so many surface effects and so few spell slots, it's a massive waste of resources, especially if there is a boss fight at the end of all those surface effects and traps. Congrats, you made it to the Red Dragon, but your cleric is all out of spell slots so I hope you don't need to be healed!

I wanna end this by saying I would absolutely love to get a DOS3, in fact I hope it's the next game Larian makes! I loved DOS2 and am itching for another. But this is not it, this is Baldur's Gate 3. It is titled after a very famous D&D video game series and literally a location in the D&D universes Forgotten Realms. It was marketed and sold to us as a game following the D&D 5e rules. But instead, it plays like DOS2, and rewrote a lot of the rules for the worse. I don't have only complaints about the game, I love that they made using a healing potion a bonus action for instance, it's a very common house rule people use because it keeps the combat fluid and efficient, without forcing people to choose between healing themselves and helping their team. I even believe that the firebolt change could be good if it didn't make a surface effect and if the burn damage only applied at the start of the burned persons turn. Also, add an action to put out burns.
What everything Pupito said. It gets worse because you don't have a bedroll to get full hp before each encounter, you also don't do spellslots in DOS to be full on resources each fight, in this game you do and unless you wanna do full rest after every fight, you don't go in with full resources. That with the shitty encounter design they have with a bunch of archers constantly being high up and throwing bombs and special arrows at you just keeps compounding the issue.
This.
Also D&D may be having a massive surge in popularity, but this game has a huge appeal outside that, from Bioware fans to Witcher fans, to cRPG players to D&D players. And this will be one of the biggest and first fantasy RPGs to launch on a new generation of consoles so there's that audience too!
The most important thing is a fun and balanced single-player game based on 5E, not necessarily sticking to it for better or worse, but adapting it where needed to make a more engaging experience for everyone.
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
What everything Pupito said. It gets worse because you don't have a bedroll to get full hp before each encounter, you also don't do spellslots in DOS to be full on resources each fight, in this game you do and unless you wanna do full rest after every fight, you don't go in with full resources. That with the shitty encounter design they have with a bunch of archers constantly being high up and throwing bombs and special arrows at you just keeps compounding the issue.


That's the thing with implementing a rules system half way - you change the resource management, but not the encounter structure, and you run into problems. If it was the other way around - ie. reducing the options of enemies and players down to what actually would be accessible to low level D&D characters/monsters, but kept the "always full after every ecounter" resource management of DOS, it wouldn't work either.

In D&D5e, everything is geared towards the number of level appropriate encounters a party can pull off until the next short or long rest... raise the enemies CR, or add other challenges like environmental or social encounters, and you reduce that number. It's really not that complicated... certainly more easily plannable then it was in earlier D&D rule sets.
Originally Posted by LJ0451
This.
Also D&D may be having a massive surge in popularity, but this game has a huge appeal outside that, from Bioware fans to Witcher fans, to cRPG players to D&D players. And this will be one of the biggest and first fantasy RPGs to launch on a new generation of consoles so there's that audience too!
The most important thing is a fun and balanced single-player game based on 5E, not necessarily sticking to it for better or worse, but adapting it where needed to make a more engaging experience for everyone.


But the halfway approach is what they have done now. And people dislike it. And believe me, Witcher fans would go ballistic if you turned the next Witcher into a DoS style game too. Which is understandable. When you slap a franchise name on something, people will expect certain things. Neither do I think it is smart to cater to the lowest common denominator. That is what ruined the Dragon Age series past Origins.
Originally Posted by Ascorius
It is interesting to see the argument from the other side. For me, the game is worse off because of the heavy DoS influence. The hybrid system, a blend between DoS style and D&D, is probably the real culprit. People on both sides (not everyone of course) are unhappy with it. I think they need to go harder in either direction.


Honestly, yeah. I enjoyed DOS:2 a ton, super fun combat experience, boring story. If they just took that combat 1:1 it'd be more enjoyable than it is currently.

If they went full 5e, it'd be more enjoyable than it is currently. (<- this is my preferred option)

Mixing it just doesn't work imo
Originally Posted by QuietCountryCafe


Honestly, yeah. I enjoyed DOS:2 a ton, super fun combat experience, boring story. If they just took that combat 1:1 it'd be more enjoyable than it is currently.

If they went full 5e, it'd be more enjoyable than it is currently. (<- this is my preferred option)

Mixing it just doesn't work imo


+1. They need to make up their mind between a DOS based system or a D&D one. But merging those 2 has been very clunky and not working at all IMO.

As for the story side of things... I've played like 30 hours of Early Access, here's what I did :
saving myself from a crash with some luck
exploring caves, forests, for the sake of exploring
trying to save a girl captured by a hag only to leave her walking away with her husband now turned golem just because the outcomes planned by the game didn't even allow my PC to try some persuasion check to do something else without being a major douche
trying to decide which would be better between helping a former paladin worshipping a devil and helping a devil escaped from hell, because, you know, everyone's evil and morally gray and you shouldn't feel good about anything too yada yada
killing goblins and gnolls
trying to help a druid grove from going nuts
all ot this without the world around me really caring for it at all


Now let's compare to what I would have done in the same 30+ hours in, let's say BG2:
escaping from jail
rescuing people from an illusionary world and being praised for it
rescuing a castle fallen to trolls and becoming lord of it
rescuing a druid grove from shadow druids and becoming hero of the town
exploring an old temple of Pelor fallen to shadows and restoring it to its full glory
getting caught in the middle of a war between guilds which want me to side with them
wiping out slavers and dismantling their business to save enslaved kids and beasts, becoming a hero around the neighbourhood
getting in the sewers and dismantling a cult worshipping a beholder, restoring peace in the temple district


For now, I just don't have the same feeling of accomplishment at all playing BG3, both in terms of gameplay and story.



Posted By: arion Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 09:15 AM
OP you need just wait DOS 3

simple
No op the problem is they have never played dnd.
Posted By: Zpawn Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 12:35 PM
Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad
Originally Posted by Zpawn
Also I think somebody mentioned it earlier, but does it really feel rewarding when you pass a check by plain luck?

If you've found yourself in a situation where you shouldn't be, absolutely. I remember in the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion for BG I was approaching the end of Durlag's Tower and I needed a rest, but thought I'd open one more door to see what was through it, and it was a Demonknight.

I was doomed. I had no reason to think this was a winnable encounter. Everyone was hurt and I was nearly out of spells and my wizard-heavy party definitely wasn't prepared to fight a think with 95% magic resistance. In desperation, Viconia (who had killed Kivan earlier in the dungeon, so I was also down an archer) fired a Hold Monster at the Demonknight, and despite the fiend's 95% magic resistance, it landed. Held, it was defenseless before Coran's arrows (sped up by his Boots of Speed) and the three wizards collectively hurling 9 darts per round.

I won that fight, and I will remember it until the day I die. So yes, it does feel rewarding to pass checks by pure luck.


Fair point, but I was referring more to the dialogue check. Like let`s say you fail a DC 15 persuasion check with your +5 to charisma warlock. And when you try again with your fighter, you succeed because you rolled a nat 20, even though he has -1 to charisma. It`s just too big of an inconsistency. For me, it makes it redundant whatever character I use for check, because it feels like "hey no matter what character I use, if I roll good, it won`t matter my bonuses, so i`ll be better off just using whomever"
That`s why I think there should be a difference between failing a DC 15 with a 14, and failing the DC 15 with a 1 or 2.
Originally Posted by arion
OP you need just wait DOS 3

simple

Originally Posted by wpmaura
No op the problem is they have never played dnd.


Can we knock it off with the gatekeeping shitposting? Posts like this are not helpful or constructive at all. We're all here to offer our opinionated suggestions for improving the game. Telling people to wait half a decade for a completely different game or doing their homework by playing a completely different format of game is not useful to anybody.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!


No, it really isn't. And those blasted surfaces ruined everything.


Posted By: arion Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 01:12 PM
Originally Posted by clanpot

Telling people to wait half a decade for a completely different game or doing their homework by playing a completely different format of game is not useful to anybody.


they want different game, so yes wait it is only solution for them

I have to disagree with a lot of OP's points, but one thing I would agree on is:

Originally Posted by Milkfred

4. Stat/Class (Im)Balance

The fact that Charisma controls all of the 'roleplaying' skills is pretty much absurd. I understand that it's how the 5e system is, but that's my point - the system sucks when it's being run by a machine. If the Nettie scenario was a tabletop session, I'd probably be allowed to posit that I could intimidate Nettie with Strength. And I mean, look at the way you talk to her in that scene, all about how you'll destroy the whole grove - if that isn't a threat based on how immediately physically imposing you are, I don't know what is.


However I'm not sure that this is really a fault with 5E, it's a fault with Larian's implementation. Skill checks in 5E are not necessarily supposed to be tied to a specific attribute, It is explicitly supposed to be "Make a Skill (Attribute) Check", and the Attribute involved can/should vary as needed. The situation mentioned (an Intimidation (Strength) check) is specifically mentioned in the book as an option. Similarly other skills could be used in other ways i.e. to break the abjurative magics
surrounding Shadowheart's cage early on the game allows you to make an Arcana check to identify them (no matter what you do you can't get her out though), another way to do this would have been an Arcana (Dexterity) check to correctly erase the right rune, a tumbler or strongman would make a Performance check with Strength or Dexterity instead of Charisma.
Just because a skill looks to be tied to a specific attribute doesn't mean that every check would necessarily rely upon that attribute.
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by arion
OP you need just wait DOS 3

simple

Originally Posted by wpmaura
No op the problem is they have never played dnd.


Can we knock it off with the gatekeeping shitposting? Posts like this are not helpful or constructive at all. We're all here to offer our opinionated suggestions for improving the game. Telling people to wait half a decade for a completely different game or doing their homework by playing a completely different format of game is not useful to anybody.


I mean that really depends, I for one do not want anything DOS related in my DnD game. Not that I don't like DOS I just dont want BG3 to be anything like that game, because I want a game close to DnD.

So its fair to say, this is not the game you want, its not gatekeeping, its pointing out that there are at least two factions in the forums wanting two different games.
Originally Posted by praxidicae
I have to disagree with a lot of OP's points, but one thing I would agree on is:

Originally Posted by Milkfred

4. Stat/Class (Im)Balance

The fact that Charisma controls all of the 'roleplaying' skills is pretty much absurd. I understand that it's how the 5e system is, but that's my point - the system sucks when it's being run by a machine. If the Nettie scenario was a tabletop session, I'd probably be allowed to posit that I could intimidate Nettie with Strength. And I mean, look at the way you talk to her in that scene, all about how you'll destroy the whole grove - if that isn't a threat based on how immediately physically imposing you are, I don't know what is.


However I'm not sure that this is really a fault with 5E, it's a fault with Larian's implementation. Skill checks in 5E are not necessarily supposed to be tied to a specific attribute, It is explicitly supposed to be "Make a Skill (Attribute) Check", and the Attribute involved can/should vary as needed. The situation mentioned (an Intimidation (Strength) check) is specifically mentioned in the book as an option. Similarly other skills could be used in other ways i.e. to break the abjurative magics
surrounding Shadowheart's cage early on the game allows you to make an Arcana check to identify them (no matter what you do you can't get her out though), another way to do this would have been an Arcana (Dexterity) check to correctly erase the right rune, a tumbler or strongman would make a Performance check with Strength or Dexterity instead of Charisma.
Just because a skill looks to be tied to a specific attribute doesn't mean that every check would necessarily rely upon that attribute.


What you're thinking of, with the exception of a DEX-based Arcana check (what?) is simply substituting other skills that would accomplish the same purpose, with the exception of STR-based Intimidation, which is explicitly mentioned in the DMG. Your tumbler or strongman wouldn't use STR- or DEX-based Performance checks, they would use Athletics or Acrobatics to accomplish the same purpose, or just straight up STR or DEX checks. Flexibility is there, but only if it makes sense - a DEX-based Arcana check to get lucky and wipe away the correct rune makes no sense, but say having the Wisdom to have perceived these kinds of patterns before, an argument could be made to do a WIS-based Arcana check, or simply perform Perception or Investigation, depending on what you're proficient in.

Honestly, I don't think that's something we could get in a cRPG without being inundated with choice overload and decision fatigue.
I believe (i haven't checked BG3 follows this)
But as you level up you do indeed gain a proficiency score improvement. Up to +6, so along with a +5 from a max ability score you can get a +11 to an ability score.

Of course Bards/Rogues get expertise so they can max out at a whopping +17 at max levels, which trivialises 90% of checks.

I did expect this ability score discrepancy but I mental forced myself to expect fails and have to deal with them. It's made the game more enjoyable for sure. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a Disco Elysium or perhaps a Fallout(certain score is guaranteed success) style instead.
for dialog skill checks, i would do it like pathfinder kingmaker handles it, include the stats of the other characters in your party.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Charod
for dialog skill checks, i would do it like pathfinder kingmaker handles it, include the stats of the other characters in your party.

that would be nice.
where it makes sense, every party member should roll for the check.
or just do it with every check, if it is too hard to discern it for every check.
would reduce a lot of frustration, that people have right now, and it wouldn't be that far away, from how it is played in PnP.
Counter point to the title of the thread

"The Biggest Draw for BG3 is 5e"

Had never head of Divinity: Original Sin 2 until I heard they were making a new Baldur's Gate by the people who made this other widely acclaimed RPG. Bought DOS2 just to check out this company's work and was decidedly "meh" about it. Barely escaped the island and had really lost all interest in the design decisions made to take it away from or make it feel distinct from other DnD like RPG's.

If Larian had wanted to make another DOS I'd be all for them taking all the creative license they want to with such a game I have no doubt they will do so again in the future, seems to be a popular franchise. But they wanted to make a Baldur's Gate game and that comes with the understanding that your game witll try to fit into what the franchise did so well.

-It brought the feel of PnP DnD to the computer, it wasn't perfect, no one thinks it was, but it trying it stuck as closely as it could to the rules and that centered it squarely in an large fanbase of people who already loved Dungeon's and Dragons
-It provided a humble beginning expanded into an epic story that carried us all the way to epic levels.
-It provided many different fleshed out NPC's, some more usable than others but there's no one perfect party, depends on what your class is, what alignment your playing, if you want more spellpower or physical power on your team.
-It took some risks on changing things from PnP like real time with pause and locks that required a threshhold to open not just rolling percent chance that changed it from being a completely faithfull Pen and Paper adaption to a fun computer game. But those risks didn't take away from it feeling like a game about DnD.

I'm hoping these are the kinds of principles that BG3 is being based on, so far I'm impressed, classes, spells, ability scores, feats, skills, there are a lot of things about this game that have been changed from DOS2 to fit 5E.

I hope they keep going, surfaces are decidedly not DnD, actions in combat (dip, jump, shove, help in particular), eating to restore health (I feel this compensates for all the surfaces you have to deal with, I'd like to see them both gone but don't take 1 without the other), super powered cantrips. All of these things may be fun, but they are not DnD.

I have a rogue buzz saw atm, take the mobility feet on Asterion and with a bonus action he can move 80' get behind anyone Sneak Attack, get behind someone else and offhand attack them as well. While fun, and super effective it's really not DnD.
y, having charisma as the only dialogue controlling stat is pretty shitty. It is actually one of the reasons why Fallout 4 was terrible imo.
The problem isn't 5e. The problem is that Larian grafted as much of 5e that could fit on DOS as they could and ejected the rest.

In doing so, they removed all of the elements of 5e that make it unique. This game barely feels like D&D at all.
Posted By: Orbax Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book.


Pathfinder is basically D&D3.5, though, which was such a big departure from AD&D in terms of complexity that it bordered on rules clutter. D&D5e, in many ways, was a major step back from that, to a simpler, more streamlined experience.


I have almost 400 hours in Pathfinder. Mainly because I crave anything TTRPG related. Its a slow game. Its really had to restart and go back to one on that thing. It is good, and has a lot of good stuff, but the pace. is. brutal.
I don't agree with OP on a lot of the things he said, but everyone is free to express their opinion.
Originally Posted by Orbax
I have almost 400 hours in Pathfinder. Mainly because I crave anything TTRPG related. Its a slow game. Its really had to restart and go back to one on that thing. It is good, and has a lot of good stuff, but the pace. is. brutal.


Agreed... it is the diffinitive Pathfinder (and D&D 3.5, for that matter) video game experience right now, though... it's ludicrous how much rules, and content they managed to cram into this game, drawing from at least 10 pnp books. It also had a long run of many, huge patches until it really worked, though.
Honestly I have to agree with the OP.

This is mostly because as a ruleset 5e is bland, uninspiring, has many issues, and I personally hate it. I also personally hated Pathfinder: Kingmaker, for much the same reasons.

I've never liked charisma as the go to skill for intimidation, believing it should be either Con, or strength based.

you don't have to kill anyone. Albiet damage is stupid much like my comp eating my text. doing 1 or 2 damage a crit success is 3 damage when your fighter is wielding a great axe, or if your wizard is wielding a dagger is beyond me. Sure your pulling blows but that axe has more impact then a dagger, and you know as a fighter that your still going to have to put more force behind a blow to knock someone out. Your not just trying to sneeze them into oblivion.

I feel most people were thinking it was going to be more like Skyrim which is a far simplier game, with no real consequences to your actions, nor any real choice. It's not. As well as kinda daunted by the amount of thought this game forces upon you unlike Skyrim where the tactics are always the same, and imo mind numbingly boring. Block slash, block slash. cast back up, cast run, switch block slash. yaaaaawn.

Then there is the ones all about this and that making the game to hard.... Honestly this is simply the choice of the player, and it's there Choice noone is forcing them to do run into a room with little health, no spells, no healing pots. They are making that choice, deal with it.

ie. I ChOOSE to walk into a place that made my companion comment that something sounded angry. I CHOOSE to continue forward with no healing spells, and everyone in my party injured. I CHOOSE to continue, I did that the GAME didn't make me. I DID IT, and paid the price my cleric and my fighter died, Wyll barely made his saving throw, and my rogue survived with 3 hp. What did it cost me all my healing pots, my ego, and laughter from my roomie who I told. Did I cry out that fights to haaard, nope because it was my Choice to do so, just like I choose to tell my roomie. Who cackled insanely the asshole, but I was laughing with him. How did I survive luck, what would I have done if it ended in a tpk. Rage quit? Oh hell no, I'd of went back with everyone full on spells, and healing and tried it again. Why because I CHOOSE to do something stupid, and possibly game ending, and I fucked up. Thats not on Larian, or the Game it's on me!
Originally Posted by Ascorius
It is interesting to see the argument from the other side. For me, the game is worse off because of the heavy DoS influence. The hybrid system, a blend between DoS style and D&D, is probably the real culprit. People on both sides (not everyone of course) are unhappy with it. I think they need to go harder in either direction.

Yeah, this hybrid system SUCKS!
Make it "Baldurs Gate 3: DOS" or "Baldurs Gate 3: D&D".
My issue with Nettie is that the quest log literally has telling her about your infection as a line item. I initially wasn't going to, but then I checked my log to see what else needed to be done and thought that was gating my progress. Optional objectives need to be clearly labeled as such if you want to encourage people to roleplay.
Originally Posted by complexmath
My issue with Nettie is that the quest log literally has telling her about your infection as a line item. I initially wasn't going to, but then I checked my log to see what else needed to be done and thought that was gating my progress. Optional objectives need to be clearly labeled as such if you want to encourage people to roleplay.


agreed
I very much concur with the OP in almost everything he wrote.


Especially the Disco-Elysium comparison of skill-checks: compared to BG3 those guys have reached 2020 when it comes to skill-checks in RPGs.

BG 3 in it's current state: the workaround is to assign the "reload last quick save" to your SPACE key ...
Originally Posted by Kordiolus


Especially the Disco-Elysium comparison of skill-checks: compared to BG3 those guys have reached 2020 when it comes to skill-checks in RPGs.

What exactly do you like about Disco Elysium? I couldn't stand that game more than 15 minutes and I tried my hardest. It's like reading a novel. How are the skill checks different from BG3 there?

Originally Posted by Deventh
Originally Posted by Kordiolus


Especially the Disco-Elysium comparison of skill-checks: compared to BG3 those guys have reached 2020 when it comes to skill-checks in RPGs.

What exactly do you like about Disco Elysium? I couldn't stand that game more than 15 minutes and I tried my hardest. It's like reading a novel. How are the skill checks different from BG3 there?



thats why skill checks are different though, disco is more graphic novel, everything to have an quick impact. VS BG3 which is more a long term thing with successes and failures not readily apparent.
Originally Posted by Deventh

What exactly do you like about Disco Elysium? I couldn't stand that game more than 15 minutes and I tried my hardest. It's like reading a novel. How are the skill checks different from BG3 there?


Speaking for myself, DE has interesting failure states. Pass or fail a red check in that game, the story moves forward in fun and interesting ways.

Compared to BG3 the failure states are either "no, you don't get to do that" or "roll initiative". Maybe that's an artifact of this being a D&D game (i.e. a game fundamentally about killing monsters and taking their stuff).

Disco Elysium is a phenomenal game and I recommend it to everyone who likes RPGs. Seriously, give it another try. The writing is top-notch.
The thing about D&D 5e is that your character isn't really built until they hit third level and doesn't come into their stride until 4th; a 4th level character gives you about the right amount of customisation options to make sure that character can succeed at the things you want them to be able to succeed at. Additionally, most people I've played with would agree that the point buy method produces characters that are a little too weak at what they're supposed to be good at to be fun. Having a max of 15 in abilties before modifiers is a little too low for a character to be focused around that ability. I think most people would like to roll their abilities so that they can get a good 17 or 18. But, 5e isn't the same as, say 3.5e when the abilities you rolled basically determined what type of class you could play, or 2e which was all over the place and even more restrictive. Like pointlessly restrictive.

Anyway you get to 3rd really quickly in BG3 which is good.
Originally Posted by Buttery_Mess
The thing about D&D 5e is that your character isn't really built until they hit third level and doesn't come into their stride until 4th


This is a bad design choice. Maybe it works in tabletop, but in a video game it's boring. To make matters worse, combat at low levels is rocket tag. This isn't even a new problem - Planescape: Torment started at level 5.

Quote
I think most people would like to roll their abilities so that they can get a good 17 or 18.
It wouldn't be a BG game without spending 30 minutes at chargen rerolling ability scores to get >95.
Originally Posted by clavis

you don't have to kill anyone. Albiet damage is stupid much like my comp eating my text. doing 1 or 2 damage a crit success is 3 damage when your fighter is wielding a great axe, or if your wizard is wielding a dagger is beyond me. Sure your pulling blows but that axe has more impact then a dagger, and you know as a fighter that your still going to have to put more force behind a blow to knock someone out. Your not just trying to sneeze them into oblivion.



I know this is going to come out sounding bad but I honestly have no idea what you are saying here...It sounds like you are complaining that the minimum for a Great Axe Crit is 3 damage?

That isn't really the case, the minimum is 1 + Str Mod, or for a Crit 2 + Str Mod. If a Character is (a) a Fighter and (b) using a Greataxe, I would assume that it has Strength as one of it's highest stats, so at level 1 that would be either a +2 or +3 (with potential to jump to +3 or +4 at level 4), meaning that your minimum damage would be c.3-4 and a Crit would be between c.4-5 damage. Yes a Dagger has a similar profile (assuming that your hypothetical Wizard has a Dex mod of +2, which they probably ought to) dealing 1d4 + Dex Mod as a finesse weapon. This gives the same minimum values for a hit and for a crit,

However one has to remember that a dagger has a 25% chance of dealing that minimum damage, whilst a Greataxe only has 8.33% chance of rolling minimum damage (and this ignores the fact that technically a Critical in 5E is not "Roll the Damage Dice and Double the Number" but "Roll the Damage Dice Twice and Add them together" which would mean that the chance to roll two ones on a dagger is actually 1/16 = 6.25% whilst the chances of rolling two ones on a greataxe are only 1/144 = 0.7%)

Additionally, as a fighter one would assume that you picked a Fighting Style relevant to your weapon, meaning Great Weapon Fighting which specifically states "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an Attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2.". This means that the chances of rolling two 1's on a Critical drop to a rather insignificant number (the dice roll calculator I was using couldn't even factor that low, instead just giving a value of 0.0)

However, all of this completely ignores the fact that if your Wizard is in melee and using a dagger in 5e then you have bigger problems than the damage being done, namely a soon to be dead wizard.



Originally Posted by praxidicae
Originally Posted by clavis

you don't have to kill anyone. Albiet damage is stupid much like my comp eating my text. doing 1 or 2 damage a crit success is 3 damage when your fighter is wielding a great axe, or if your wizard is wielding a dagger is beyond me. Sure your pulling blows but that axe has more impact then a dagger, and you know as a fighter that your still going to have to put more force behind a blow to knock someone out. Your not just trying to sneeze them into oblivion.



I know this is going to come out sounding bad but I honestly have no idea what you are saying here...It sounds like you are complaining that the minimum for a Great Axe Crit is 3 damage?

That isn't really the case, the minimum is 1 + Str Mod, or for a Crit 2 + Str Mod. If a Character is (a) a Fighter and (b) using a Greataxe, I would assume that it has Strength as one of it's highest stats, so at level 1 that would be either a +2 or +3 (with potential to jump to +3 or +4 at level 4), meaning that your minimum damage would be c.3-4 and a Crit would be between c.4-5 damage. Yes a Dagger has a similar profile (assuming that your hypothetical Wizard has a Dex mod of +2, which they probably ought to) dealing 1d4 + Dex Mod as a finesse weapon. This gives the same minimum values for a hit and for a crit,

However one has to remember that a dagger has a 25% chance of dealing that minimum damage, whilst a Greataxe only has 8.33% chance of rolling minimum damage (and this ignores the fact that technically a Critical in 5E is not "Roll the Damage Dice and Double the Number" but "Roll the Damage Dice Twice and Add them together" which would mean that the chance to roll two ones on a dagger is actually 1/16 = 6.25% whilst the chances of rolling two ones on a greataxe are only 1/144 = 0.7%)

Additionally, as a fighter one would assume that you picked a Fighting Style relevant to your weapon, meaning Great Weapon Fighting which specifically states "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an Attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2.". This means that the chances of rolling two 1's on a Critical drop to a rather insignificant number (the dice roll calculator I was using couldn't even factor that low, instead just giving a value of 0.0)

However, all of this completely ignores the fact that if your Wizard is in melee and using a dagger in 5e then you have bigger problems than the damage being done, namely a soon to be dead wizard.





If your trying to subdue the person the game doesn't factor in most of your stats, or even damage from your weapon. I've tried knocking out multipule people vie the button think it's near dash? Any way it's the second to last button on the bottom. If I was smart enough to remember how to screen shot something I'd show you it, alas I failed my intelligence roll bloody - 2's. Anyway you push the button and your damage drops like a (redacted do to adult comment) well it literally turns it into nerfed unarmed damage.
Ah, I gotcha. In that case I think it makes sense. You can't really subdue someone with your Greataxe...or rather when you do you aren't likely to get any answers out of them afterwards. I assume that this basically means you are making an unarmed strike against the opponent as the only non-lethal method you have, and unless you are a Monk or have the Tavern Brawler Feat (which I don't think has been implemented here) in 5E an unarmed attack is a flat 1 + Str Mod damage.

I'll give it a try to see, but if this is what is happening then I can see a good reason for it from a fluff point of view.
Originally Posted by praxidicae
Ah, I gotcha. In that case I think it makes sense. You can't really subdue someone with your Greataxe...or rather when you do you aren't likely to get any answers out of them afterwards. I assume that this basically means you are making an unarmed strike against the opponent as the only non-lethal method you have, and unless you are a Monk or have the Tavern Brawler Feat (which I don't think has been implemented here) in 5E an unarmed attack is a flat 1 + Str Mod damage.

I'll give it a try to see, but if this is what is happening then I can see a good reason for it from a fluff point of view.


yeah I can see using unarmed attack, but you can also use unless they changed it in 5e a weapon for simple subdual damage. We'll say half damage though believe it's still just straight damage in 5e, my fighter has a +2, or +3 depending on which I'm using. Gale I believe has a negative to his strength, as does Fang boy? so they shouldn't be hitting like my fighter and my crits should be 5 or 6's. every attack no matter who I used was either 1 or 2. with crit being 3. it made me cry.
Posted By: gish Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 12/10/20 10:34 PM
For all the people, who want to take 5e out of the game and make it more like DOS.

You realize that the DOS franchise already exists, its massively popular, and is Larian's flagship franchise, right? Which means that DOS3 is definitely going to come out at some point.

Why not let DnD fans have their game, instead of demanding for a DOS clone when we already know we'll be seeing another DOS game in the future?
Originally Posted by Milkfred

The background is simple: the player, seeking to be healed of their brainworm, goes to see a healer - Nettie. Nettie promptly poisons them and the player is faced with an option: pass multiple skill checks to get the antidote from Nettie or die. Alternatively, the player can kill her or pickpocket her.


I chose to lie to her and not tell her the truth initially. The only reason I went back was because I did feel the game was pushing me in this direction. If once I had lied they removed other options to seek her help? I'd have been fine with this and possibly even preferred it. At this point I also knew of another druid healer who was missing (and maybe I could find) as well as another option.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either. Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.


But aren't all games dependent on dice check? They are not as obvious as the ones in BG3 are made to be, but it's still a form of RNG. You can fail when attempting to persuade etc in OS games. Sometimes they just don't allow you to try, but I assumed it's because your stat is so low there is no "roll" that will make it possible.


Originally Posted by Milkfred

3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough.


I don't expect this at all especially in the most recent Larian RPG's. In fact, I prefer RPG's that aren't on rails. There are quests in OS2 that I have "failed" and I'm okay with it. Also in OS2 there are at least 2 ways to escape Ft Joy. How can people choose multiple ways of escaping since they either escape or they don't? I smashed the brain during the BG3 intro so maybe in another play through I won't.

As for not wanting to kill NPC's that aren't red - there is some truth in that. But then I tried to kill the first druid after Arabelle was killed (didn't go too well). Bad guys aren't always "red" and sometimes we get to choose who the "bad guys" are.



Originally Posted by Milkfred

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible. Some people are upset over the surfaces being so common, but I think without them the combat would be far less interesting than it is.



I never played the original BG games and have only played OS series, but I'm actually interested in BG3's combat precisely because it's not the same as OS2. Also, I am not well acquainted with 5e systems since I didn't play a lot of D&D so this isn't just me protecting a game system I enjoy. If anything, I enjoy learning new things, learning to work with a different set of rules, and that's what I've had to do (5e, weapon stats, etc).

You said you didn't camp much on your play through and maybe that's the problem. I too tried to camp as little as possible due to NPC's stressing the tadpole maturation timeline. Because of this I rarely played around with special abilities and just used whatever ability meant I didn't need to camp to regain. But maybe Larian expects us to use these abilities or assumes we will want to and it is okay to camp more? So while it may seem like some of this is poor on Larian's part I also notice that I chose my play style based on the NPC comments which is on me!
The problem is...we all know Larian will probably never go full on 5e. Unless EA goes through an incredible change... I actually woulndt mind that.
In the current mix we have a weird symbiosis of DOS2.5 and 5e, Id rather it be more DOS2.5.
Go full on 5e or just don’t do it, thats my take anyways.
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by Buttery_Mess
The thing about D&D 5e is that your character isn't really built until they hit third level and doesn't come into their stride until 4th


This is a bad design choice. Maybe it works in tabletop, but in a video game it's boring. To make matters worse, combat at low levels is rocket tag. This isn't even a new problem - Planescape: Torment started at level 5.


Yup. Playtesters pointed this out.

Mike Mearls stated multiple times, they expected you to do 1-3 once, and then just start at level 3 after that. Level 3 was the new level 1, they wanted it to be a 'simple' game at level 1 with very few choices and things to learn. And then they left spellcasters with full casting + cantrips at level 1 instead of starting with only a cantrip, then specialty, then getting 1st level at level 3 because gods forbid casters be on the same footing.

Of course, as we've seen, no one skips to level 3 - certainly not any of the branded products.

Which is just annoying.

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.
Posted By: Orbax Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 13/10/20 01:41 AM
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by Buttery_Mess
The thing about D&D 5e is that your character isn't really built until they hit third level and doesn't come into their stride until 4th


This is a bad design choice. Maybe it works in tabletop, but in a video game it's boring. To make matters worse, combat at low levels is rocket tag. This isn't even a new problem - Planescape: Torment started at level 5.


Yup. Playtesters pointed this out.

Mike Mearls stated multiple times, they expected you to do 1-3 once, and then just start at level 3 after that. Level 3 was the new level 1, they wanted it to be a 'simple' game at level 1 with very few choices and things to learn. And then they left spellcasters with full casting + cantrips at level 1 instead of starting with only a cantrip, then specialty, then getting 1st level at level 3 because gods forbid casters be on the same footing.

Of course, as we've seen, no one skips to level 3 - certainly not any of the branded products.

Which is just annoying.

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.



I have started every one of my parties at level 3 for yearrrrs. Its annoying as a DM to run level 1 stuff and just wastes our time getting into the fun stuff.
Originally Posted by Orbax

I have started every one of my parties at level 3 for yearrrrs. Its annoying as a DM to run level 1 stuff and just wastes our time getting into the fun stuff.


Weird both as a DM and a player I greatly enjoy low level play. Maybe it is because I think first edition is fun. The swingy combat, and feeling not like a hero, but some unexperienced peasant fighting against odds is great fun for me. And when I DM my players want to RP as much as possible during the first sessions to establish their characters, and low level adventures are great for that.


I see some of the OP's points on the game in its current stage. But I would like the game to opne up more before judging to hard on it. Like making it to level 5.
Originally Posted by gish
For all the people, who want to take 5e out of the game and make it more like DOS.

You realize that the DOS franchise already exists, its massively popular, and is Larian's flagship franchise, right? Which means that DOS3 is definitely going to come out at some point.

Why not let DnD fans have their game, instead of demanding for a DOS clone when we already know we'll be seeing another DOS game in the future?


I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave. Either these posts are in bad faith, or you grossly misunderstand the purpose of opening up the game to early access and soliciting feedback.

Telling people to go back and play a years old game they've likely put 100+ hours or more into is not a good or convincing argument - it is simply an attempt to silence dissent. Telling people "oh just wait for the next game, they'll do an OS game next time" is a realistic proposal for something that comes around maybe 2 or 3 times a decade - it's just telling people to f-off. This is not your game. You have no ownership whatsoever over this product. You do not get to define what it means to be a fan of the BG series, D&D, OS, or anything else.

As I said before, everyone here is (hopefully) trying to provide feedback to make the game better. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, but not all opinions hold equal weight. "because D&D" is not a valid reason for, well, anything. Suggestions should be backed with a rationale for why they will improve the experience of playing this computer video game. "just make it 5e" is not that - it is dogma.

Originally Posted by Theliel

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.


Also this.
Posted By: gish Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 13/10/20 02:56 AM
A. This is a licensed product from Wizards of the Coast, the owners/producers of DnD.
B. The entire point of the game is to implement 5e. That's been the main talking point since the very beginning.

That's all the "rationale" you need.
Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave. Either these posts are in bad faith, or you grossly misunderstand the purpose of opening up the game to early access and soliciting feedback.


If you can't read it any other way than "diehard" fans trying to force people out, you are taking quite a hostile stance yourself. And since the game is marketed as both BG and 5e, it should be somewhat understandable that people to some degree feel upset/disappointed when other people want to turn it into something (for the lack of a better term) else. I hate arcade style shooters, but lets say I participated in a Call of Duty alpha, I actually think my feedback would be less valuable because I hate the core of what the franchise is to fans. That is my subjective opinion though.


Originally Posted by clanpot

Telling people to go back and play a years old game they've likely put 100+ hours or more into is not a good or convincing argument - it is simply an attempt to silence dissent. Telling people "oh just wait for the next game, they'll do an OS game next time" is a realistic proposal for something that comes around maybe 2 or 3 times a decade - it's just telling people to f-off. This is not your game. You have no ownership whatsoever over this product. You do not get to define what it means to be a fan of the BG series, D&D, OS, or anything else.


This argument is a bit messy, but I will try to address it nonetheless: Remember that it goes both ways. Many a post in the forum goes like this "Go play Pathfinder Kingmaker if you want a TTRPG ruleset". Which is ironic since the game is marketed as a 5e game. And you have posts like this "5e is boring/bad etc, only purists/diehard fans like it". Which is untrue and an attempt to paint some of us as fanatics.

I do not see it as silencing dissent. I see it as an attempt to express frustration. BG fans haven't gotten a BG game in the last two decades. So it should be somewhat understandable that some fans get annoyed when DoS fans want this game, titled Baldurs Gate 3, to be more like DoS.

Whom gets to define what is a poor attempt at a motte and bailey argument? It is also ironic that you mention that since you want to define us as "diehards".

Originally Posted by clanpot

As I said before, everyone here is (hopefully) trying to provide feedback to make the game better. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, but not all opinions hold equal weight. "because D&D" is not a valid reason for, well, anything. Suggestions should be backed with a rationale for why they will improve the experience of playing this computer video game. "just make it 5e" is not that - it is dogma.


I agree all opinions do not hold equal weight. If you dislike 5e your opinion should hold less weight in my opinion. Your opinions regarding 5e might be 100% valid, but with the current marketing, Larian is trying to reach the 10 million+ people who play/like 5e. Maybe they can reach more people if they abandon 5e, but then the marketing is dishonest at best. And if the goal is to make the game tenable for as many people as possible, it should probably have been more like Withcer 3. I hope Larian will release some design goals so we can stop having these silly arguments.

Neither do I see many of these "Because 5e" arguments you are referring to. And those types of posts at least has some validity because of the marketing of the game. While posts like "No because TTRPG and DnD is boring" have no validity at all.




Originally Posted by Ascorius

This argument is a bit messy, but I will try to address it nonetheless: Remember that it goes both ways. Many a post in the forum goes like this "Go play Pathfinder Kingmaker if you want a TTRPG ruleset". Which is ironic since the game is marketed as a 5e game. And you have posts like this "5e is boring/bad etc, only purists/diehard fans like it". Which is untrue and an attempt to paint some of us as fanatics.

I do not see it as silencing dissent. I see it as an attempt to express frustration. BG fans haven't gotten a BG game in the last two decades. So it should be somewhat understandable that some fans get annoyed when DoS fans want this game, titled Baldurs Gate 3, to be more like DoS.

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.

Originally Posted by Ascorius

Whom gets to define what is a poor attempt at a motte and bailey argument? It is also ironic that you mention that since you want to define us as "diehards".
Re-read the post I quoted.

Originally Posted by Ascorius

I agree all opinions do not hold equal weight. If you dislike 5e your opinion should hold less weight in my opinion. Your opinions regarding 5e might be 100% valid, but with the current marketing, Larian is trying to reach the 10 million+ people who play/like 5e. Maybe they can reach more people if they abandon 5e, but then the marketing is dishonest at best. And if the goal is to make the game tenable for as many people as possible, it should probably have been more like Withcer 3. I hope Larian will release some design goals so we can stop having these silly arguments.

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.
Originally Posted by Ascorius

Neither do I see many of these "Because 5e" arguments you are referring to.

The post above yours literally is one.
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by gish
For all the people, who want to take 5e out of the game and make it more like DOS.

You realize that the DOS franchise already exists, its massively popular, and is Larian's flagship franchise, right? Which means that DOS3 is definitely going to come out at some point.

Why not let DnD fans have their game, instead of demanding for a DOS clone when we already know we'll be seeing another DOS game in the future?


I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave. Either these posts are in bad faith, or you grossly misunderstand the purpose of opening up the game to early access and soliciting feedback.

Telling people to go back and play a years old game they've likely put 100+ hours or more into is not a good or convincing argument - it is simply an attempt to silence dissent. Telling people "oh just wait for the next game, they'll do an OS game next time" is a realistic proposal for something that comes around maybe 2 or 3 times a decade - it's just telling people to f-off. This is not your game. You have no ownership whatsoever over this product. You do not get to define what it means to be a fan of the BG series, D&D, OS, or anything else.

As I said before, everyone here is (hopefully) trying to provide feedback to make the game better. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, but not all opinions hold equal weight. "because D&D" is not a valid reason for, well, anything. Suggestions should be backed with a rationale for why they will improve the experience of playing this computer video game. "just make it 5e" is not that - it is dogma.

Originally Posted by Theliel

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.


Also this.


I agree with your assessment of the dnd community and how they act towards others.

From my little exposure of the dnd community, it's eye opening how they act. They clearly only want a strickly 100% dnd game. Many are rude to everyone that disagrees. Almost all responses are the same, like 'but this is dnd' and referencing a rule book like it's the Bible.

I have played hundreds of hours of DOS games and have exhausted all of the story, but play for the combat mostly. It would be nice to play another good game with fun mechanics and a new story. From my experience, dnd mechanics are boring, and don't work well in a video like this. I'm actually confused why people want a faster combat experience, because it's a strategy game. It's a bad idea to strip away mechanics to speed up combat.

From my understanding, dnd rules are not good enough in a video game for the majority. If that was true, then the more dnd like games would have sold better and gotten the rights to make BG3. It's not a fluke that DOS is the best selling rpg of its kind. Also, dnd table top can have house rules and people can change the rules to their liking. And the experience is completely different compared to a video game.

After learning about dnd, I see many references and systems that are inspired by dnd, but changed for a better experience for a turn based, strategy rpg. The bedroll is the quick and easy version of resting. The source spells in DOS are the strong spells, but they don't make up the majority of spells. Most of dnd spells require rest points, because they are 'strong', but in a video game, one-shot-kill spells would make it too easy and boring. That's why rest points on weakened spells don't work. The whole experience is off and doesn't work well. I feel like it's fine to take inspiration from previous games, the good mechanics and ideas, and incorporate them into a new modern game.
Originally Posted by clanpot

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.


I wasn't dividing. I wrote: Some fans. I could have been clearer though and not written DoS fans, but some DoS fans.

Originally Posted by clanpot

Re-read the post I quoted.


No you wrote:

Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave.


To me at least, it seems like an attempt to paint people as diehard fans. It is your interpretation of their intent, not a quote.

Originally Posted by clanpot

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.


I can counter that by saying we all knew we were getting a turn based rpg based on 5e. So why did you shell out 60 dollars for an EA if you dislike 5e or think its bland or whatever?

Based on 5e. The language is vague. But consider this: People like me, and I think there are many others, understand that changes need to be made when translating TTRPG into video game form. So when I hear based on 5e, I think of changes to illusion spells etc. Spells and abilities that would be very hard to implement mechanically. But many of the mechanics they have changed, would have been easy to implement. The marketing language wasn't "loosely based on 5e". And you are basically saying its better because they have steered away from RAW. Which is the same as saying, it would be better if they stuck harder to RAW. Not very constructive.

Personally I think the changes are for the worse. No flanking (I know that is an optional rule from RAW), but backstabbing instead. Backstabbing requires no tactics as melee. You just move around them and get free advantage. You do not have to consider or weigh if you should do something to get advantage, you just follow a recipe: Run around and get advantage. Why not implement flanking instead? At least it requires some thinking and positioning.

Shove as an action is also for the worse in my opinion. Instead of weighing the option between hitting or shoving someone down a cliff, I just do both. Not only that but feats like shield master becomes useless, and open hand monk looses some of its its luster. Shove is also more than strong enough as an action when you have so many places to shove people down.

My subjective view is that a good tactical game forces me to make hard choices.

Rogue has lost its identity completely. They are not skill monkeys, and everyone can disengage as a bonus action (this will affect monk too). At least they still have sneak attack (albeit a weird version of it). Changing core aspects of a class is in most cases, not all, a negative in my book. People like to recreate their favorite characters from the table.

I could also argue that the warlock class has lost some of its identity as the cantrip master. Currently a firebolt has a higher damage average than an eldritch blast with agonizing blast. If you target moves after you hit them, the firebolt even beats a eldritch blast+hex. There are many worrying balance changes.

If damaging surfaces from everything will make the game more fun or not, is subjective. But considering the amount of damaging area spells from RAW at higher levels: Spike growth, Fireball, Cloudkill, Firewall, Wall of Thorns, Hurricane, Hunger of Hadar etc, I think the battlefield will be extremely messy considering the fact that nearly everything creates surfaces.

Those are some of the changes that make the game worse for me. I also have faith in the 5e system and its ruleset. If people think I am a fanatic for thinking that, then so be it. 5E isn't even my favorite system, but I have fun playing or DM-ing it. And I believe it would translate well into a game.

Originally Posted by Ascorius
Originally Posted by clanpot

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.


I wasn't dividing. I wrote: Some fans. I could have been clearer though and not written DoS fans, but some DoS fans.

Originally Posted by clanpot

Re-read the post I quoted.


No you wrote:

Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave.


To me at least, it seems like an attempt to paint people as diehard fans. It is your interpretation of their intent, not a quote.

Originally Posted by clanpot

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.


I can counter that by saying we all knew we were getting a turn based rpg based on 5e. So why did you shell out 60 dollars for an EA if you dislike 5e or think its bland or whatever?

Based on 5e. The language is vague. But consider this: People like me, and I think there are many others, understand that changes need to be made when translating TTRPG into video game form. So when I hear based on 5e, I think of changes to illusion spells etc. Spells and abilities that would be very hard to implement mechanically. But many of the mechanics they have changed, would have been easy to implement. The marketing language wasn't "loosely based on 5e". And you are basically saying its better because they have steered away from RAW. Which is the same as saying, it would be better if they stuck harder to RAW. Not very constructive.

Personally I think the changes are for the worse. No flanking (I know that is an optional rule from RAW), but backstabbing instead. Backstabbing requires no tactics as melee. You just move around them and get free advantage. You do not have to consider or weigh if you should do something to get advantage, you just follow a recipe: Run around and get advantage. Why not implement flanking instead? At least it requires some thinking and positioning.

Shove as an action is also for the worse in my opinion. Instead of weighing the option between hitting or shoving someone down a cliff, I just do both. Not only that but feats like shield master becomes useless, and open hand monk looses some of its its luster. Shove is also more than strong enough as an action when you have so many places to shove people down.

My subjective view is that a good tactical game forces me to make hard choices.

Rogue has lost its identity completely. They are not skill monkeys, and everyone can disengage as a bonus action (this will affect monk too). At least they still have sneak attack (albeit a weird version of it). Changing core aspects of a class is in most cases, not all, a negative in my book. People like to recreate their favorite characters from the table.

I could also argue that the warlock class has lost some of its identity as the cantrip master. Currently a firebolt has a higher damage average than an eldritch blast with agonizing blast. If you target moves after you hit them, the firebolt even beats a eldritch blast+hex. There are many worrying balance changes.

If damaging surfaces from everything will make the game more fun or not, is subjective. But considering the amount of damaging area spells from RAW at higher levels: Spike growth, Fireball, Cloudkill, Firewall, Wall of Thorns, Hurricane, Hunger of Hadar etc, I think the battlefield will be extremely messy considering the fact that nearly everything creates surfaces.

Those are some of the changes that make the game worse for me. I also have faith in the 5e system and its ruleset. If people think I am a fanatic for thinking that, then so be it. 5E isn't even my favorite system, but I have fun playing or DM-ing it. And I believe it would translate well into a game.



+5
Originally Posted by Zebico

I agree with your assessment of the dnd community and how they act towards others.

From my little exposure of the dnd community, it's eye opening how they act. They clearly only want a strickly 100% dnd game. Many are rude to everyone that disagrees. Almost all responses are the same, like 'but this is dnd' and referencing a rule book like it's the Bible.


TTRPG's has been my favorite hobby for over 20 years, and never have I met more open, fun and cool group of people. No video game community comes close. And the rulebook is the bible *sarcasm*.

Originally Posted by Zebico


I have played hundreds of hours of DOS games and have exhausted all of the story, but play for the combat mostly. It would be nice to play another good game with fun mechanics and a new story. From my experience, dnd mechanics are boring, and don't work well in a video like this. I'm actually confused why people want a faster combat experience, because it's a strategy game. It's a bad idea to strip away mechanics to speed up combat.


I have many thousand hours in TTRPG's if we want to compare hours. Jokes aside, your comments betray the fact that you have never played DnD. Faster and stripped down mechanics? What are you talking about? DoS has more shallow mechanics than DnD.

Originally Posted by Zebico

From my understanding, dnd rules are not good enough in a video game for the majority. If that was true, then the more dnd like games would have sold better and gotten the rights to make BG3. It's not a fluke that DOS is the best selling rpg of its kind. Also, dnd table top can have house rules and people can change the rules to their liking. And the experience is completely different compared to a video game.


There hasn't really been faithful video game translation of 5e to my knowledge. Not by a proper dev at least. And yes people use house rules, but usually they do not change core concepts like classes.

Originally Posted by Zebico

After learning about dnd, I see many references and systems that are inspired by dnd, but changed for a better experience for a turn based, strategy rpg. The bedroll is the quick and easy version of resting. The source spells in DOS are the strong spells, but they don't make up the majority of spells. Most of dnd spells require rest points, because they are 'strong', but in a video game, one-shot-kill spells would make it too easy and boring. That's why rest points on weakened spells don't work. The whole experience is off and doesn't work well. I feel like it's fine to take inspiration from previous games, the good mechanics and ideas, and incorporate them into a new modern game.


I think the Vancian magic system worked well in the BG series so far. They are not modern games, but oh well. And I see no reason for why DnD spells would be too powerful in a video game. In a video game you at least have some limit to how smart the players can be when utilizing those spells.

It is a bit weird that you criticize the DnD community, all the while patronizing something you obviously know nothing about.
Originally Posted by Ascorius


There hasn't really been faithful video game translation of 5e to my knowledge. Not by a proper dev at least. And yes people use house rules, but usually they do not change core concepts like classes.



Solasta Crown of the Magister is pretty true to RAW and there is a free demo on steam.
Originally Posted by Ascorius

It is a bit weird that you criticize the DnD community, all the while patronizing something you obviously know nothing about.



+1.

If you carefully read through the different threads, people complain about :
- Surfaces
- Balance
- Lack of class flavor

Weirdly enough (sarcasm), those are the things Larian did change from 5e to make it more DOS-like. And those changes weren't justified at all for the sake of videogame adaptation. I would have had much more fun playing this game without surfaces everywhere and without the ability to spam magic missile scrolls with my fighter. And I bet I'm not alone on this given how this forum looks.

We don't complain about Larian having to change 5e rules for the sake of making a fun game. We complain about them doing it for the sake of implementing their own DOS mechanics instead, which makes the game feel nothing like a D&D experience.
Posted By: gish Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 13/10/20 02:50 PM
If I'm in early access for Street Fighter 6 and someone says "The problem with SF6 is that its a 2D fighting game. It should be an action platformer." then I have every right to dismiss their opinion as counter-productive and ridiculous.

I feel the same when someone says "The problem with BG3 is that its based on DnD. Please remove DnD from this licensed DnD franchise game." Its not even worth talking about. Its not going to happen because WotC was shopping BG3 around specifically to find a developer to make a 5e game and they handpicked Larian to do so. 5e isn't going anywhere.
Posted By: Ixal Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 13/10/20 02:58 PM
5E is a big problem because it is a very dumbed down version of D&D with hardly any options in it. So when Larian removes every "non D&D" part of the combat it will result in a very boring game.
Whats more, they have reduced how high a bonus can go (bounded accuracy), but kept the D20. This leads to RNG being the main factor which decides if you succeed or not. No matter how much you push a stat or dump it, in the end mainly the D20 matters while all your choices only having a minimal influence.
So there is really no way to play a peaceful negotiator and an intimidating brute, etc. because it is not your character design which influences what happens in the game.

So yeah, 5E is the big problem of the game because with its extremely simple design it holds it back.

The other big problem I see is on Larian, namely the Origin system. Or rather that the game basically expects you to play as one of the DMPCs to get all their quests and stories. If you dare to make your own character you won't get anything to compensate you though and only have the bare minimum of story about yourself.
Hello Milkfred, and thank you for detailing your issues. I think that a lot of this is going to boil down to "YMMV", but I'll throw my 2 gold into the ring.

Originally Posted by Milkfred


1. Skill Checks are Boring

BG3's skill checks have a problem - they, without fail, feel like they fit the mould of succeed or fail. With success meaning you do the thing you wanted to do and fail meaning you don't, and often end up in a fight.

<snip>

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either.

<snip>

Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.



To take your sub points one by one.

Any given roll of the dice can be "boring"; I think that it's about context. And depending on the game, there can be a TON of "things to roll for" (say.. Harnmaster) or very generic/few types of rolls (FUDGE/FATE).

As for "experience" it's not from any roll of the dice, no matter what for; skill check/saving throw/attack roll, rather it is from the sum total of the interaction "defeat" or "success" regarding the encounter. The fact that in an online setting it's much harder to give experience for "dealing with" or "negotiating" rather than bypassing, is an inherent system problem. I'm not sure how to get past that.

Target number "coin toss"; I disagree, as there have been quite a few skill checks for me so far that had 6, 4 or even in two cases 1 as the target. Reminds me of tabletop when the CHARACTER has the skill and the PLAYER is being a jerk, and the DM sets up a roll, because "the character can probably do this" but because of jerkiness, lets just check and see if Karma wants to F you up. (oh for the sake of things I will throw in that our convention is that all "known" rolls are made visibly so you will know if you succeeded). There are some rolls that the DM makes, and some so subtly that the players will never know what they don't know....but more on that later.


Originally Posted by Milkfred


2. Story Elements are Missing/The Rest Mechanic

The first time I went to camp, a demon showed up and I felt like I'd missed a few pages. So, on my second playthrough, I made it a habit to go to camp whenever a party member talked about being tired. This improved a lot of things by a drastic amount, and smoothed over a lot of initial issues I'd had with the plot and characters. I feel like Larian may add in a fatigue mechanic at some point, but this is a pretty drastic issue.

<snippage>

At a certain point, Lae'zel mentions that you should be careful about going around and telling people you have a worm in your brain. But this had come after Nettie had already tried to kill me. If the player has been told that, hey, maybe don't go around telling people you're going to turn into a Mind Flayer, it might alleviate the issue that someone tries to kill them over it.

I really like the rest mechanic, but <snippage> But without any sort of mechanic, how often should I be going to rest? And what am I missing if I don't?



To the first point (should we talk about the worm in our brains); right away off the ship the first encounter kind of tells you that individuals will not react positively when they think you are in any way part of/tainted by/whatever by a Mind Flayer. Since that encounter is pretty hard to miss (and granted, I've been known to miss things more obvious) it's reasonable to suspect that's an important thing to keep in mind.

As for the rest mechanic....I've been frustrated because it's severely bugged in our multiplayer games, but you had mentioned that by resting when various NPCs mentioned they were tired, things were better. So there is an in game cue of sorts.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.


Had to quote your whole thing here because it's cool and well written. However this points out (yet again) one of the difficulties in playing with a computer as a GM is that the programmers have to decide if the "background rolls" are going to be done in a wya that the player knows...or just "in the background."

I like the use of stat checks... when my bestie's Wizard looked at the control panel on the ship, she could figure out some of what it could do. When my Ranger took a look, it was a bunch of random buttons. That makes SENSE to me and I like it.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

4. Gameplay and 'Choices'

Players draw a distinction between choices in dialogue and choices in gameplay.


????? how is dialogue NOT part of gameplay, ESPECIALLY when describing a game as a "role playing game".

Originally Posted by Milkfred

Going into combat with Nettie to get the antidote is not seen as a 'choice.'


It is a choice. It is ALSO the result of previous choices made by the various characters. In a battle the "killing blow" does not somehow invalidate that there was a battle, that there may have been words or threats before the battle and there will be consequences after it. I will say that I did NOT kill Nettie and my character did have some very interesting consequences to that set of choices.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

4. Stat/Class (Im)Balance

The fact that Charisma controls all of the 'roleplaying' skills is pretty much absurd. I understand that it's how the 5e system is, but that's my point - the system sucks when it's being run by a machine.


Two points:

First "controls" is not accurate as persuasion also plays a role

Second it's no more absurd than using strength to determine damage bonuses, or using dexterity to adjust stealth. The point of having stats is that they mean something.


Originally Posted by Milkfred

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history?


Ahem... the first sentence above is the answer to your questions below. Proficiencies, stats, all of that is inherently part of your character and their history. This is why I prefer to create characters rather than use pre-made ones; I'm CHOOSING the skills, the background, the class to reflect history and experience.


Originally Posted by Milkfred

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible.


So what you are saying is that tabletop gaming is tricky to translate into an online game.

I think we can all agree on that.

OH and one last thing you said caught my attention:

Originally Posted by Milkfred


missing loot from shoving people into pits.


Climb down and get it then. Or don't, and don't get it. How is it in the realm of any sort of believeability to "get loot" unless you actually get it. Unless you are playing Shadowrun or Cyberpunk and you are putting the body in a pit before you hack their savings accounts and steal all their cred. But that's a way different game.
Originally Posted by clavis

I've never liked charisma as the go to skill for intimidation, believing it should be either Con, or strength based.


I would disagree. My reasoning is that hacking something apart, doing damage, bending bars - these are all strength based. It is a physical interaction between an individual and a physical object.

Intimidation is not about "can I bash your head in" (which as you point out, Strength could speak to) but "you can avoid getting your head bashed in if you do this thing for me" which is a communication interaction between two entities.

I could see the idea for the "bash your head in conversation" to get a bonus if the person was huge, but then I could make a situational case for pretty much any stat, class or proficiency. But it's based on communication and interaction - and that - in DnD, is represented by Charisma.
Originally Posted by gish
If I'm in early access for Street Fighter 6 and someone says "The problem with SF6 is that its a 2D fighting game. It should be an action platformer." then I have every right to dismiss their opinion as counter-productive and ridiculous.

I feel the same when someone says "The problem with BG3 is that its based on DnD. Please remove DnD from this licensed DnD franchise game." Its not even worth talking about. Its not going to happen because WotC was shopping BG3 around specifically to find a developer to make a 5e game and they handpicked Larian to do so. 5e isn't going anywhere.


Seconded... and I'd hazard a guess that 1 million full price, EARLY ACCESS copies sold in the first week are quite a testament to how big of a pull the promise of a true Baldur's Gate sequel - and not BG3 Divinity Edition - actually generated among fans, old and new.
Originally Posted by Milkfred


3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.


Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad

Those players are playing it wrong. They're trying to play a game.

RPGs aren't games. They're toys. RPGs don't have winning conditions. Playing an RPG successfully involves making in-character decisions and... that's it. Whether the character succeeds or fails isn't relevant to whether the player succeeds or fails.


I had to quote this exchange, because I think that Sylvius' point is exactly WHY I play RPGs (tabletop or online). To play.

I remember a gazillion years ago trying to explain the DnD blue box set to my mother and her question was "how do you know who wins?".

It's like jazz or cats - if you get it, no explanation is needed.

If you don't, no explanation will suffice.
+1,
From what the OP is stating it seems that some members of this community do not want the 5e ruleset driving the game. That is fine, DOS3 will be coming at some point and we all can appreciate two distinct titles from the studio. I personally enjoy the rng shenanigans that tabletop rulesets lead too. So your a badass wizard who fails an arcana check, how does that effect the scene your in? Roleplay through the upsets, its more similar to real life. Now I do agree that it would be nice if there were more scene options or chains to follow? Absolutely. I think Crusher's conversation is a great example of what Larian is aiming for in terms of multiple outcomes based on player agency. Are they going to nail it with every single interaction? Probably not. But I appreciate the attempts and the surprises along the way.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.

Yeah, and it feels like choices you do are meaningless. Skills you select does not matter. You have 16 charisma and proficiency in persuasion or 8 charisma and no proficiency - it does not matter, you still have to roll and only the Roll is what matters.
Playing rogue with 14 wisdom and perception proficiency - does not matter, you failed your check and cannot see the trap. Yet your companion with 11 wisdom and no perception proficiency sees it. But again, you cannot disarm it with your 16 dex + sleight of hand proficiency. I hate that. It's not just too much of randomness, it's randomness, that elimintates everything else.
I'm totally fine with rolls in combat (all kinds of crap can happen in chaos of battle). But doing rolls on every step disregarding of your character build... not fun at all.
Have to agree. All my problems with the game are my problems with 5e. It is the worst of all the systems, including 4th edition. At least that was well adapted to being a video game, and has far more interesting classes.

I still like it though.

This game engine with the skill set and build diversity, of, say, 3.5e would have been amazing. Could have had jump-and-climb skill focused barbarians scaling walls and knocking folks off, among many many many other things.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 15/10/20 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by WarChiefZeke
Have to agree. All my problems with the game are my problems with 5e. It is the worst of all the systems, including 4th edition. At least that was well adapted to being a video game, and has far more interesting classes.

I still like it though.

This game engine with the skill set and build diversity, of, say, 3.5e would have been amazing. Could have had jump-and-climb skill focused barbarians scaling walls and knocking folks off, among many many many other things.

really simple solution to that would be, to auto succeed, when your passive value of the skill is higher than the dc and only roll, when it's lower.
then skills an proficiency would make a huge impact.
Hard disagree. Every one of my playthroughs has been massively different because of the random dice rolls on the skill checks and it is amazing. Much prefer this to the DOS II system where it was a hard pass fail.
After 43 hours playing through the early access content I made an account here just to say I largely agree with this. As it stands the quantity of skill checks outside of combat is pretty frustrating. First it means I'm not really in control of the outcome because the choices are often the same thing. If all your choices result in dice rolls you really only have one choice. Secondly it seems that usually only the success roll leads to interesting new content. So it feels like I'm constantly missing out on things just because I'm failing dice rolls rather than seeing different content to what is behind the fail roll. But perhaps this will be tweaked going forwards and new content will be added to flesh things out.

My bigger concern is the combat as maybe Larian is more committed to following 5e more closely there. It really feels like it's one step forward two steps back from DOS2. I actually like decoupling movement from other actions, and I like the extra utility the bonus actions provide the player. But only having one action per turn makes the combat much less interesting as I have much less ability to chain things together in inventive ways. Again it also feels like I'm not really in control because the deciding factor in combat isn't my choices - it's the dice roll which is causing a huge proportion of actions to either be ineffective or fail entirely. I eventually got bored of trying to be clever only for chance to spoil it and just resorted to using whatever basic attacks I had at my disposal, which wasn't much fun either.
Originally Posted by SeaOfKittens
Hard disagree. Every one of my playthroughs has been massively different because of the random dice rolls on the skill checks and it is amazing. Much prefer this to the DOS II system where it was a hard pass fail.

The problem is that the differences are based on random rolls and not on character you're playing.
Although i see and understand your point. One cannot control everything and sometimes you just have to embrace the chaos. 2020 taught us well on that.
Yet i tend to use games to hide from reality to some degree, so i guess it'd be great to have separate game mode, in which game performs stat check instead of dice roll.

And to be clear:
D&D is a tabletop system. GM is essential for D&D. CRPG cannot achieve same freedom of actions and variability of outcomes as tabletop D&D session.
You can roll dice all you want, but this won't make the game an analogue of tabletop D&D session.
Originally Posted by Drake Duckson
Originally Posted by SeaOfKittens
Hard disagree. Every one of my playthroughs has been massively different because of the random dice rolls on the skill checks and it is amazing. Much prefer this to the DOS II system where it was a hard pass fail.

The problem is that the differences are based on random rolls and not on character you're playing.
Although i see and understand your point. One cannot control everything and sometimes you just have to embrace the chaos. 2020 taught us well on that.
Yet i tend to use games to hide from reality to some degree, so i guess it'd be great to have separate game mode, in which game performs stat check instead of dice roll.

Thats not DnD though and BG3 IS supposed to be a DND game.
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Thats not DnD though and BG3 IS supposed to be a DND game.

That's why i want it as an option. Like homebrew rules you can use in your D&D session. So every one of us can enjoy the game.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!



Nope. Players who want to play DOS should play DOS not Baldurs Gate. The D&D mechanics define those types of RPG games, and they should be set apart from "Action Points" and "Jump Across Map" mechanics. DOS mechanics suck, and I'm sad to see they've found their way into Baldur's Gate 3.
Originally Posted by LookingforBG
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!



Nope. Players who want to play DOS should play DOS not Baldurs Gate. The D&D mechanics define those types of RPG games, and they should be set apart from "Action Points" and "Jump Across Map" mechanics. DOS mechanics suck, and I'm sad to see they've found their way into Baldur's Gate 3.


Well I wouldn't say DOS system is suck, PF 2e has almost same idea of action economy with DOS2. (of course, there's normally 1 spell per turn unlike DOS) To some people 5e system, when level 1~4 is just boring without there's dynamic description of DM, only one attack for Martials is really boring. But since, this game is determined to take 5e system, I think there should be less modification on action system.(such as shove is not action(one of multi attack), it's bonus action)

If you skipped part that some actions should be on bonus action, and a lot of environment interaction thing, Larian implement 5e well.
Revisting this discussion.. the AI seems like the biggest cause in variance of a D&D game ran by a DM. "Nudge the nice" was mentioned earlier, but ultimately what I see the computer do is what we call "metagaming" in D&D. Lets say I know the AC of a particular monster, so I know which monsters i am more likely to land a Great Weaponmaster strike against... I also know when to give up trying the GWM attacks if the AC is 19 or over because im likely to miss more oftren. The computer seems to focus target based on the easiest target to kill. Which is fair in a video games, it makes sense to put the monsters on equal grounds as the players, you dont want the game being stupid easy. However a lot of times in pencil and paper games, the DM is simply not telling you the HP of the baddies. So the playground is leveled in the opposite direction. The player has to lookup the statblocks themselves if they want to know the HP and AC(and then they take it a step further and know which spell saves are most likely to hit). So the players may even waste a high damage spell on a low HP target but at the same time, the DM doesnt break immersion by having the monsters attack somewhat randomly (changing targets and such) as often they are attacking the closes thing to them, or something that has pissed them off recently or some story driven character selection motivation.

I think a with a 5e ruleset its all or none. They can homebrew in some content but we really shouldnt see HP of baddies, just general health appearance (Fine, bruised, bloodied, Deaths door). Likewise, the AI should not target based on HP unless its by the same tiered standard (taht dudes on deaths door, maybe i can finish him). Rather than the current (that wizard is in perfect health but has the lowest HP, maybe I will kill him first)
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.


This is a larian decision not a problem with 5e. A standard rogue in 5e gets expertise in two skills at level 1, and 2 more at level six. That gives you 4 skills at six with double proficiency bonus. Also you proficiency bonus goes up at 5,9,13, and 17. To a max of +6. If the accompanied skill is maxed, and it can by level 8 with the right class choice. That is a plus +5 from skill, and +4 from proficiency a total of +9. That means you auto pass any 10 checks. If you also happen to be a rogue, and you have expertise in that skill. You now have +13 in that skill. If you are a level 11 rogue you get reliable talent, and now proficient skills can't roll bellow a 10. That means you get a +13, and cant roll bellow a 10 you minimum roll is 23 for expertise skills.

Larian didn't add those into the game, and only has proficiency plus skill bonus. Meaning their isn't the option to specialize into being a skill monkey like their is in 5e. Also there are multiple items in 5e that add to skill checks, but there don't seem to be any in BG3.
Posted By: Tuco Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 18/10/20 04:53 PM
I wrote a post saying I'm disagreeing with the OP at the start of the this thread.
Few days later, after playing this EA even more, I have to DOUBLE DOWN on my disagreement and say that the exact opposite is true.

Most of the flaws of BG3 currently come precisely from its shared DNA with Original Sin.

The dreadful inventory management, the impractical and clumsy control system for your party, the excessive exuberance of surfaces and explosives, all the potential exploits tied to carrying around absurd weights, throwing barrels km afar, abusing pickpocketing to generate inane amounts of money, the party limitation to four slots for UI reasons, etc.
Posted By: mahe4 Re: After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e - 18/10/20 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by Goleeb
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.


This is a larian decision not a problem with 5e. A standard rogue in 5e gets expertise in two skills at level 1, and 2 more at level six. That gives you 4 skills at six with double proficiency bonus. Also you proficiency bonus goes up at 5,9,13, and 17. To a max of +6. If the accompanied skill is maxed, and it can by level 8 with the right class choice. That is a plus +5 from skill, and +4 from proficiency a total of +9. That means you auto pass any 10 checks. If you also happen to be a rogue, and you have expertise in that skill. You now have +13 in that skill. If you are a level 11 rogue you get reliable talent, and now proficient skills can't roll bellow a 10. That means you get a +13, and cant roll bellow a 10 you minimum roll is 23 for expertise skills.

Larian didn't add those into the game, and only has proficiency plus skill bonus. Meaning their isn't the option to specialize into being a skill monkey like their is in 5e. Also there are multiple items in 5e that add to skill checks, but there don't seem to be any in BG3.


and before people come along saying, they don't want to play as a rogue, to be good in a skill.
bard also gets expertise. with sources outside of the PHB there is even a feat, that gives expertise in one skill.
there are many ways to build a character in 5e. but if you don't use the 5e system, then of course that isn't guaranteed.
why are people blaming the 5e system in this game, if the 5e system isn't even really implemented?
why blaming the skill check system of 5e, if 5e gives multiple ways to handle skill checks in other ways?

you could simply change the skill system in a crpg to passive only.
or you could auto succed a check, if the dc is under a certain threshold, compared to your skill value...
so many ways, to slightly change the 5e system... instead it is changed on multiple core balancing principles.
I agree. The more I play it the more the DOS-mechanics seam to break the balance. I don't find the game hard, but I'm forced to play their 'cheese' way focusing more on those additional bonus action than on the normal actions (pushing enemies of cliffs, disingaging through jumps, constantly jumping,....). On top of that most imbalances can be simply directed back to changing D&D rules and stats.

I really don't want a BG3 to be the next DOS game. I hated their fighting mechanics.
Baldur's Gate is by its very definition a D&D game and I believe it should follow those rules, for better or worse.


With regard to skill checks:
I agree it feels very random, and it strongly encourages save-scumming. This is made worse since the roll is so visual. If this was done in the background (e.g. reaction rolls in BG1 and 2 were), it wouldn't stand out this much.

I don't think limiting the die to a D12 or something is a good solution. Rolling the D20 does make it feel very D&D.
One option could be to introduce a feature from 3e as a house rule. In 3e, you were allowed to pick 10 on the roll without rolling for things you were skilled at, assuming they weren't done during a high pressure situation.



5e was intentionally made very simple and this has been the right approach for tabletop, since the simplicity has allowed bringing many more people to the table. However, combat in 5e is very simple, borderline boring. This is more noticeable in some classes like the barbarian or warlock who will typically do the same action every round of combat.

For a computer game, I think the system is too simple. Ironically, 4e would be a better choice to adopt to a pc game but I don't think that would be received very well. In order to make combat still be interesting, Larian has decided to add lots of elevation and surface effects to the world. However, this unbalances the system and the surface effects don't feel very D&D. The same is true for the jump/disengage bonus action.

I am personally a big fan of turn based combat, since it allows for much deeper and strategic combat. Despite this, I think the solution to the simple combat problem might just be to introduce real time with pause. The action that you are doing with your characters every round can be set as automatic and you pause if you want to do something special, like casting spells or a disengage action. You're not confronted with how repetitive the combat is, and you can just sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
Hi,

Originally Posted by Milkfred

I'll take a few moments to go on a bit of a tangent here. People are going to say, well, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had way more characters. Yes, they did. But Baldur's Gate 1's cast were basically blank slates with names and some flavor lines - the expectation was that they'd die and you'd cycle them out without fanfare. Baldur's Gate 2 had a smaller cast with more detail, but even then I think it's safe to say that most players used a lot of the same characters and that, outside of specific gimmick runs, the majority of the cast was not utilized. Without even going into the production side of things like detail, the evolution of expectations, and so on.


Before addressing your points, I'dd just like to say that the quote above is pretty much you talking out of your ass. It just looks like you've not actually played the original games or maybe just skipped through everything.

In regards to the actual title of BG3's problem being 5e I find this to be 100% false. The problem with BG3, and you can easily see this in your own points which do point out actual problems in the game, is due to a poor implementation of the system by Larian, not the ruleset itself. In regards to the skill checks, these can be done in a variety of ways. Larian just chose to do it in the worst way possible. Multiple skill checks of the same type in a row, little choice of actual skill to use, etc. The Nettie example you gave is a good one, and there are plenty others in the game.

Your first 4 points are all the same and all of them due to Larian's poor implementation of the system.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history? Again, this is something a DM may just throw in. Perhaps the Nettie scenario might not feel so unfair if, say, the player was able to nudge the scales based on things they had done. This is something that Disco Elysium did extremely well. Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history, and not just being decided because I didn't put enough numbers into certain stats when I made the character a few hours before.


I disagree. The modifiers are a good way to show your character development and/or choices while building him. I'm not saying that they couldn't add something along the lines of what you are suggesting, but it seems like it would be something like a Fame system (at least the examples you provided). If they do however, I think it should be extremely rare for those bonus to be given as overall I don't think they make a whole lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible. Some people are upset over the surfaces being so common, but I think without them the combat would be far less interesting than it is.

That's really about it. As it is, I think just about every issue people have with BG3 stems from these compounding issues arising from the strict tabletop gameplay. For example, people wanting an increased party size - because you practically need someone who can lockpick and a Wizard for spells and a Fighter to tank and a Cleric to heal and support and, well, suddenly you feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into. And if you made a Fighter and happen to like Lae'zel, well, good luck having two Fighters.


In regards to combat, you're right, combat as it is now is very very bad. Encounters are boring and uninteresting. The problem here, once more, is not because of 5e, it's poor implementation choices by Larian. Combat is boring and dull because you can't really do a lot in each turn. Not only that but you also have the problem compounded by having to wait for all the AI to each take their turns before you can play again. This is especially fun in those fighter turns of Move + attack *miss* pass turn... In Divinity it worked well because DOS system was very nicely built for a turn based video game. You had a lot of action points, loads of skills, cheap movement skills, action point gain skills, extra turn skills, etc etc which made for very action packed turns where you could get a lot done. The hit/miss system was also much better tuned for turn based video game gameplay. If BG3 had been rtwp this would be a non-issue, people keep foaming at the mouth that rtwp is the spawn of satan but then it's amusing when all of them start having this same issue with the combat lol. I have no illusions in regards to Larian actually implementing the option to toggle between rtwp and turn-based, they won't do it, but they have to refine the turn based combat in BG3 by A LOT. Turns are way too slow. You said you played Wasteland 3, and it's actually a nice example of a game which did something to improve turn based combat in that when enemy turns begin, they all move at once instead of one at a time, which already spares the player a lot of tedium. Not saying that would be the solution for BG3, but it does show that something can be done about this problem.
I think the problem is not 5e but the way Larian implement them and things they decide to change.

If every goblins in the goblins camp had the good stats the combats would be way faster and less boring. If the rules were properly implemented I think it would be way more fun.
Originally Posted by Milkfred
OPs Original post


As someone who has played a lot of DnD 5e, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of 5e not working well for a computer game. Or rather. I think I have to phrase that differently.
I used to loath DnD for videogames, because it's not what you are used to. The "problem" isn't the DnD rules, but people not knowing the rules.

I know the DnD 5e rules very well, so I "read the language of the game" very well. To me BG3 is very fun, and my issues is with "the things that's different from 5e" not the things that are 5e. Sure it's a foregin system for many people, and I think it would be to the games benefit to explain the rules and mechanics more. (Some ingame "Players Handbook")

Skill checks seem to me to mostly be "potential of getting a different outcome from the default" and I love it. Failure usually gives you the outcome expected. Having "consecutive skill checks" is something i often use as a DM, but I use it when it create tension. Problem with Nettie is that it's just "pass or fail" each time, not "the stakes are increasing".
Most of the time though it just seems like a passed skill check gives you something "better" than the default. You want to pass, but failing isn't an issue.

With other skill checks. It does seem to me that in cases where it's something important you almost always find it? I have yet to not spot Talkative Skeleton, nor the prayer to Selune. But I'm not sure. I find it exciting honestly.

I don't really get your arguments about dialogue and stats? Larian has done a great job of making other skills work in dialogue, not just charisma. Besides charisma isn't "the role play stat" roleplaying means taking choices based on what you think your character would do, not "talking" or "acting". Me slaughtering the Goblins is roleplaying too.
And you CAN have casters cast spells during dialogue already. Just swap to another character, and cast Thaumaturgy or Guide. (Not 100% sure if it actually works as intended currently, but it should, as that's by the 5e rules)


You say modifiers are boring. I guess "only because I see it". More or less every game out there translate your stats to some form of modifer. You know in DOS2 when a weapon does 2-5 damage? yeah that's just 1d4+1 They just wrote it differently.

As I said, I think the problem is that it's not close enough to 5e. It seems to me you aren't very familiar with 5e OP. 5e and DOS2 aren't the same games, and the only reason you compare them is because they are made by Larian. But they follow different rulesets. Larian wanted to make "DnD 5e the game" this time, and they are on a path to make that game. (I still think calling it BG3 was a marketing stunt, as it makes all the BG fans all riled up).
I love DOS2, and I love BG3, but I love one for being a great original title, and the other for being the best DnD port to a CRPG to date. (in my opinion)

If Larian wanted to make DOS3 they would have made DOS3.

PS: I have clocked 90+ hours now, and still love this game as is, with improvements I think it can become even better.







Bunch of whining bastards as usual. Players want to experience everything in one playtrough? Learn to play an RPG, you get multiple playtroughs, that's the fun. Evil road is almost never used, gtfo I start out every time being as neutral evil as possible, which in this case lead to some massacres. Great fucking game, already got 75 hours. Needs work? no shit it's EA
Originally Posted by Skin Overbone
Bunch of whining bastards as usual. Players want to experience everything in one playtrough? Learn to play an RPG, you get multiple playtroughs, that's the fun. Evil road is almost never used, gtfo I start out every time being as neutral evil as possible, which in this case lead to some massacres. Great fucking game, already got 75 hours. Needs work? no shit it's EA



Be civil, Skin Overbone.
We can only hope Larian will finally update the resting system in the next patch.

Short rests are obsolete because you can rest anywhere at any time.
This makes all DnD classes unbalanced. You can't change something like that so drastically.

No, "just don't long rest" is not the solution here. Don't argue that the player is at fault for using long rests too much. The system is wrong. Players start abusing the unlimited heal and ressource refill option. At that point, you have to expect everyone to do it. Which means you have to make encounters more difficult. Which is going to force even more players to press long rest. This is a terrible system and if this doesn't get changed, then BG3 will have a bedroll just like DOS2, but the BG3 bedroll is teleporting yourself to camp, long rest and spend about a minute doing that, whereas it was only 1 button on DOS2. This is bad.

If you don't abuse long rest after every combat, you potentiall miss out on lots of nice story content. Players want to experience this content. So why does Larian force us to long rest so much just to experience story and companion dialogue? This needs to be adressed.

I can't stress enough how terrible the resting system is. Its bad for casual players who want to experience the story. And its bad for players who want a challenging game, because the game is only challenging if the player decides to not use the tools given to them, that is resting all the time.

The game has way too many scrolls and food. I hope this is just for testing purposes. Atleast 20% of food, scrolls and potions have to get removed from the game.

Empty containers drag the game out. There is nothing valuable in having like 20% of the barrels be empty. You know players are going to check those. Don't make players waste their time. Remove empty barrels so that players can have fun playing the game instead of staring down into an empty barrel.

Why do you put poison bottles to coat your weapons into the game, if you give players "4 magic candles of unlimited coat-in-fire" in the first dungeon of the game.

Remove the candles, or remove poison bottles from the game. Candles are unlimited, you can always add 1d4 damage to all of your weapon attacks. It doesn't even cost an action to drop the candle from your inventory onto the ground during a battle. This is just silly.
Yes the big issue is D&D 5e but not because it is a tabletop rule set. The problem is the fact that D&D 5e is a trivialized rule set. Compared to Pathfinder or the older versions of D&D it has no depth. Char. creation is boring as well as level ups. Nothing to do.
OP basically wants Larian to streamline the game and remove mechanics. That's exactly what I don't want in gaming. Worse enough that there is no allignment system anymore. Isn't that enough?

I was so shocked when I was able to join the mage guild in Skyrim, even though I was playing melee and didn't had one spell. Lol I was even allowed to buy a scroll to pass the test. ;(
© Larian Studios forums