Larian Studios
Posted By: Vynticator Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 07:59 AM
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:02 AM
Exactly my thought. Whats that undying obsession to be word for word like the books?! Have you guys even played BG2?.?
I recently played again BG2. Read throuh D&Dadv.2e . Half of all the spells dont match, discriptions are different ect ect....
But somehow playing BG2 was an incredible experience, as I remembered it.. It FELT d&d.The ATMOSPHERE is spot on.
BG3 doesnt have to be letter by letter a 5e game to be great.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:06 AM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time
Posted By: Zorax Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:08 AM
A changed ruleset might be fun but while the DnD 5e ruleset is balanced the stuff Larian is throwing at us is not. And with every deviation they have to balance more, time they could use better to improve the game at other points (e.g. story). And by the way there are already enough threads about DnD vs Larian rules so if you have something useful to contribute do it there. If you read these threads you will also see that there are a lot less fundamentalists than you think and many DnD folllowers have valid reasons to question Larians approach.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:19 AM
I don't really care what rules the game follows as long as it's good.

That said, I find it extremely annoying that I'm constantly on fire or drenched in acid because every goblin is spamming explosive arrows and bombs. This ceases to be tactical or fun if it's the norm.

I also don't like the amount of cheese and overpowered combat moves this game has. Like the free overpowered shoving and disengaging. Combat is reduced into mindless spamming of overpowered abilities rather than smart positioning and tactics. And this difficulty is apparently supposed to be "hard". Looking at the 5e rules, most if not all of the cheese and overpowered abilities are Larian changes.
Posted By: Sunfly Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time



Or 4 Thieves, or 4 Battlemasters, or Battlemaster (Lae'Zel) + Thief (Astarion) + Ranged Shove Warlock (Wyll) + Disposable slot (Player character). There's plenty of variety in terms of what works to the point that you may as well just be saying "Coordination is the optimal strategy".
Posted By: Sigi98 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:25 AM
I don't have that much of a problem with changes from 5e, unless they are really unbalanced.
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.

Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Exactly my thought. Whats that undying obsession to be word for word like the books?! Have you guys even played BG2?.?
I recently played again BG2. Read throuh D&Dadv.2e . Half of all the spells dont match, discriptions are different ect ect....
But somehow playing BG2 was an incredible experience, as I remembered it.. It FELT d&d.The ATMOSPHERE is spot on.
BG3 doesnt have to be letter by letter a 5e game to be great.



You know, I love people that respond like you.

Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Yes BG 1 and BG 2 were and are not Virtual Table Top engines. They changed how some spell and abilities worked. So why is that different than what Larian has butchered into DoS 3: Faerun DLC?

Black Isle made changes when it was *necessary*, because a computer can't accurately recreate various effects like a human DM.

Larian made changes based on...literally no idea. Because they felt their style of play (DoS where every surface is an effect, every fight must be at full resources, every fight has to try to have a new gimmick, barrelmancy, etc) was superior to the style of Baldur's Gate? Because a few people with minimal experience at D&D played a few rounds and didn't like seeing "miss" chances? Because they have so little knowledge about how to balance a game properly and didn't trust the rules of 5e, which have been play tested for 6+ years now?

And you're right, BG 3 doesn't have to be by the letter a 5e game to be great. In fact, in *can't* be for the same reasoning, computers today still can't handle certain spells/abilities. BUT THE DIFFERENCE is that Larian started with DoS 2 and tried to hamfist in the bare minimum buzz terms from 5e to make it seem like a D&D game, rather than starting from the base rules of 5e and tweaking them to make it work in a digital environment. That's why BG 3 feels like a buggy DoS mod, and not a D&D game.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:34 AM
Changes such as removing spell reactions (and configurable reactions in general) and drastically underpowering both players and monsters are bad, however
Posted By: Sunfly Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:40 AM
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Changes such as removing spell reactions (and configurable reactions in general) and drastically underpowering both players and monsters are bad, however


The player is underpowered?
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:43 AM
Larian sells the game as a Baldur's Gate game and a D&D game so they have to stick to the rules.
Minor changes are great because everything in the tabletop don't work in a video game but this is not supposed to be a DoS-Like (even if some DoS's mecanics are great and suits very well to the game).

D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd love this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.
Posted By: Sunfly Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 08:49 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd lobe this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.


I didn't realize all of those players were still playing the unaltered first edition, I guess it really is hard to improve perfection though.
Originally Posted by Sunfly
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd lobe this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.


I didn't realize all of those players were still playing the unaltered first edition, I guess it really is hard to improve perfection though.


BG 1 and 2 started from the table top rules and adjusted as was *necessary*. They became two of the greatest RPGs ever made, to the point where a major studio is making an unbelievable popular sequel 20 years later.

BG 3 is starting from DoS 2 and incorporating the bare minimum needed to make the game sorta seem like a D&D game, but in name only.

The rules of 5e have 6+ years of playtesting to support them in addition to baked in added content. DoS 1 and 2 were great and fun games, but their balance was laughable, to the point of being meme'd into the ground. If you think you can design a better rules system for an RPG go right on ahead. But there's a reason 5e has absolutely dwarfed every other RPG in the market.
Posted By: Vynticator Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 09:05 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by Sunfly
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd lobe this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.


I didn't realize all of those players were still playing the unaltered first edition, I guess it really is hard to improve perfection though.


If you think you can design a better rules system for an RPG go right on ahead. But there's a reason 5e has absolutely dwarfed every other RPG in the market.


It's not very helpful to make blanket statements like this or to be fundamentalist about a particular set of rules. Honestly, how many other rulesets have you ever played? 5e isn't considered the best ruleset any more than Coke is considered the best drink in the world. I've played about fifteen game systems over about thirty-five years of gaming. I'd choose almost any other system than 5e for my campaigns. It has the primary merit of being widely known, allowing Larian to reach a wider audience.
Posted By: Vynticator Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 09:11 AM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I don't really care what rules the game follows as long as it's good.

That said, I find it extremely annoying that I'm constantly on fire or drenched in acid because every goblin is spamming explosive arrows and bombs. This ceases to be tactical or fun if it's the norm.

I also don't like the amount of cheese and overpowered combat moves this game has. Like the free overpowered shoving and disengaging. Combat is reduced into mindless spamming of overpowered abilities rather than smart positioning and tactics. And this difficulty is apparently supposed to be "hard". Looking at the 5e rules, most if not all of the cheese and overpowered abilities are Larian changes.


I think your wording is rather over the top here but I do agree that shoving is rather too useful and it's odd that main hand attacks are routinely less powerful than the free shove move.

Goblins with fire arrows - again, agree, slightly too common. I think this could be toned down. Maybe they're going for lots of visual effects to showcase the EA game, and will tone it down (along with the number of empty containers, junk and scrolls, I hope). Also, clearly, barrels should weigh more.

I like the idea of disengaging being harder, too. I would suggest ladders be very risky to climb if there's a foe at the top. Holding ground/ defending a narrow area should be more doable than currently.
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by Sunfly
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd lobe this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.


I didn't realize all of those players were still playing the unaltered first edition, I guess it really is hard to improve perfection though.


If you think you can design a better rules system for an RPG go right on ahead. But there's a reason 5e has absolutely dwarfed every other RPG in the market.


It's not very helpful to make blanket statements like this or to be fundamentalist about a particular set of rules. Honestly, how many other rulesets have you ever played? 5e isn't considered the best ruleset any more than Coke is considered the best drink in the world. I've played about fifteen game systems over about thirty-five years of gaming. I'd choose almost any other system than 5e for my campaigns. It has the primary merit of being widely known, allowing Larian to reach a wider audience.


Yeah, that's the point. 5e is in a great sweet spot of accessibility without unnecessary complexity. It's a fantastic game system that is shallow in one end of the pool to help people get introduced, then gradually gets as deep as a player wants, to a point. Beyond that point, we enter the realm of splat books bullshit and such.

I don't know, a dozen or so? Nothing even holds a candle to 5e in terms of simplicity creating synergy and balance. 5e isn't even remooootely perfect. The rules for Stealth are a travesty. RAW Summons still make DMing a nightmare. But looking at 5e and trying to deny it's a better system than what's out there is like trying to say the horse and buggy is better than the car because they have lower emissions. There's a reason it became so wildly known and more popular than any other ruleset, ever.

So start with 5e. Tweak it as needed to work in a computer game. Rebalance the parts that have been identified as not working well (Ranger class, Stealth rules, etc). Don't start from DoS.
Posted By: Sunfly Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 09:19 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by Sunfly
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd lobe this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.


I didn't realize all of those players were still playing the unaltered first edition, I guess it really is hard to improve perfection though.


BG 1 and 2 started from the table top rules and adjusted as was *necessary*. They became two of the greatest RPGs ever made, to the point where a major studio is making an unbelievable popular sequel 20 years later.

BG 3 is starting from DoS 2 and incorporating the bare minimum needed to make the game sorta seem like a D&D game, but in name only.

The rules of 5e have 6+ years of playtesting to support them in addition to baked in added content. DoS 1 and 2 were great and fun games, but their balance was laughable, to the point of being meme'd into the ground. If you think you can design a better rules system for an RPG go right on ahead. But there's a reason 5e has absolutely dwarfed every other RPG in the market.


5e has 6+ years of playtesting and support as a tabletop game, claiming its history somehow validates it as a crpg is nonsensical. I'm also not sure how to tell you this but BG 1 and 2 were far from balanced and that can't be made more obvious than by the fact that you had to cite their fame as crpgs and not their fame for game balance.
Posted By: Garod Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 09:23 AM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time


Well if you look at combat you could say the same for D&D the optimum is to run 4 Druids who cast woodland beings and polymorph them into t-rex. or some other insane builds.. that's not the point in D&D and that's not the point in BG3
Posted By: Zer0 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 09:27 AM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time


The optimum tactical play in DnD has always been to run 4 Wizards because they're awesome. So it's true to the spirit of the tabletop.
Posted By: nizanegusa Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 09:51 AM
5e is not perfect but it's good.
changes to it are not necessarily bad.
but they used 5e as a base and made changes to it for the worse.

i just want a good system. 5e would be a good system.
if they changed it for the better i would be happy.
Posted By: Wrathbone Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play.


I disagree. I think the abundance of surfaces forces the available tactics down a narrow path and prevents actual ingenuity in combat.
Posted By: endolex Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 11:27 AM
Absolutely no DnD-based C-RPG (I'm not talking about MMOs like Neverwinter, or Action-RPGs like BG: Dark Alliance, but proper DnD-based computer roleplaying games in which you create characters and do combat by the rules) has bent the rules to the extent BG3 EA currently does.

All previous DnD-based RPGs have stuck very closely to the ruleset, and only made simplifcations or omissions where it was either not feasible to include the mechanic in a video game, or where the applications of a specific spell were too broad to realize all of them in a scripted way.

Larian's approach right now seems to be like "eh, we've looked at the PHB but actually we think a lot of this won't be fun for most players, so we change a lot". I remember Swen saying during the early days the even wanted to change how hit chance and HP work. Apparently they took a few steps back from that, but not nearly enough for my taste. And don't get me started on the overabundance of surfaces. They were fun for a more 'wacky' RPG like the DOS games, but not so much in a DnD setting.

I think at this point it would be good to hear from Larian what their approach will be. Either to include a difficulty / gameplay option "5E by the rules", or just outright tell us they will take a lot liberties whenever it suits them. As much as I'd prefer the first scenario: if the second one came to pass, at least then we'll know, and can stop listing differences.
Posted By: Buttery_Mess Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 05:40 PM
Surfaces aren't a departure from D&D rules, they just don't come up so much in tabletop D&D games. There's nothing particularly stopping you from throwing oil around and flinging a firebolt at it.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Sunfly
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
D&D exists for about 45 years so yes, it's a bible and it looks like the 5th edition is really appreciated by role playing players. I trust them and I'd lobe this game to become a true BG and D&D experience.


I didn't realize all of those players were still playing the unaltered first edition, I guess it really is hard to improve perfection though.


Oh.sorry, maybe I should have said the company that created / worked / build D&D over 4 decades have years of experience about balancing their games. I like DoS 2 but it has a terrible balance and that's really not the same experience, especially in it's combat mecanics.

As someone else said the problem is that their base material to start working on BG3 is NOT D&D, it's DoS.
You can feel it absolutely everywhere in the game.
I'm not saying the game is bad, it has an awesome potential to become as good as it want to. But they have to start thinking about something different.

They have 2 awesome RPG names in their catalog... It's time to really create another experience instead of a huge upgrade.

They have to stick to the rules as much as they can and deal with that constraint if they want to create a D&D experience. BG is definitely not a game in which everything burn and in which every combat is a spectacle and a challenge. I think a little bit more sobriety and personnality could really lead to an amazing experience for everyone.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.

Posted By: Argonaut Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Exactly my thought. Whats that undying obsession to be word for word like the books?! Have you guys even played BG2?.?
I recently played again BG2. Read throuh D&Dadv.2e . Half of all the spells dont match, discriptions are different ect ect....
But somehow playing BG2 was an incredible experience, as I remembered it.. It FELT d&d.The ATMOSPHERE is spot on.
BG3 doesnt have to be letter by letter a 5e game to be great.

Yes we complained about it at the time and where given a clear cut and thorough explanation as to why the changes where made and a lot of it involved technical limitations and feedback from testing. There where some glaring oversights in some parts but so much was improved by their changes that it was an even trade and eventually people decided that it was the better of two lesser choices. These technicalities are no longer an issue and yet they are choosing to outright ignore the feedback and issue by issuing a blanket statement with no explanation or validation as to why they made these choices. Most people just want a real answer.

Furthermore, the older games where not turn based and thus did not have to consider the devil in the details that is known as the action economy. 5e was built around the concept of the action economy and has already been play tested thoroughly by a pool of candidates much wider and much more diverse than the player base of Larian studios by the publisher holding the licensing rights and bankrolling the project. While this does not necessarily mean it is better consider that many kinks have been worked out while many detractors(how strong dex is as a stat for example) have been addressed by neither. In fact, it hasn't even been acknowledged. Do you not think that it is worth an explanation for why they chose to go this way as it is counterintuitive and seems to only demand more work with less consideration in lieau of the fact that we are considering spending money on it?
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a completely idiotic "hot take".


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



What a sober review of how bad those features from DOS2 impact the game balance. Couldn't do it better.

One thing is to add some flavouring in the game as they've done with the weapon skills that recharge every long rest (it even could be every short rest and it would be also ok). Other thing is completely break the essence of DnD which is based in progression (resource and action economy/management). I don't want to fight battles wiith full spell slots and full health. I want to regret decisions I've made with me resources by casting that Guiding Bolt in a minion and now have to deal with a bigger threat without it.

I'll list some refurbished Larians features that they added to the game because they think they are key success factors for every game:

High ground advantage
Itemmancy - Thousands of items - Quality over quantity
Surfaces
The necessity of having plenty of actions to do in one turn
The necessity of having battles that feels epics all the time
The comprehension that battle skills are a must - just rolling a sword attack is boring
Magical Arrows - because archers are boring
Infinite rest - because a game without bedrolls are nothing but a bad game
Particles - because a game without particles sounds too 20's
Lack of freedom - because you are going to make clever decisions that I've added in the game whether you want it or not.
No sense of attachment - I encourage you to respec your character whenever you want. No regrets.
No punishing - Everything can and will be fixable

Well, I can spend the rest of my day listing how they've built the game over DOS2 but there'll always be someone too fanboy to see.

I guess the main problem is that everyone is trying not to hurt Larians feelings while losing the capacity to think rationally.




Posted By: Paimon Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 18/10/20 11:21 PM
The big issues aren't that the game has some tweaks from 5e, changes were inevitable. The issues are the changes to the action economy and the excessive explosive/flammable barrels, and cantrips being better than leveled spells. Eldritch Blast is already incredibly powerful in regular 5e. With the changes to the health and AC of enemies, it becomes the best damage spell in the game.

Firebolt should not automatically light the target on fire, even on a miss. Stealth shouldn't be automatic outside of line of sight. You shouldn't be able to cart around fifty barrels that explode if you look at them funny. Gunpowder is supposed to be rare in D&D, and should also exist for a reason other than to be a bomb in a fight. Hell, oil should be relatively rare in D&D, and a lot heavier than what the barrels of oil claim to be. The size of the barrels looks to be about equivalent to a standard "55 Gallon" barrel. 55 Gallons of water is 460lbs. Moreover, gunpowder isn't explosive except when confined tightly or in large quantities. The barrel should either be too big to move easily, or not be explosive. The barrels should also have more than 1 hp. The barrels of wine should also not be flammable, it takes high proof alcohol to burn, not random ale or wine you find in the wilderness.

Everyone and their mother has complained about disengage being a bonus action. But the fact that it is also tied to jump is also an issue, both because of issues with pathing, and because it negates blocking movement using intelligent positioning. Also piles of surface effects isn't "tactical" unless it's a relatively rare resource. Not all over every single encounter, and not something you can cart around in your pocket.
Posted By: Xeiom Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:42 AM
Yeah I have to agree OP, it seems like people coming in with certain expectations are really quite aggressively against the changes.

I didn't come in with any expectations about the balance of skills or how closely it would match the system they based the combat on.
There are points where some improvement can be made, I swear most people are playing solo and getting messed up by allies being chained rather than things that universally affect everyone that's playing.

I just played the game, had a bunch of fun playing the game and I'm confident that the game will keep being very enjoyable even with the rule changes that Larian have made. I was very surprised to see such a negative reception to the combat when it's been such a blast for me.

Posted By: Dominemesis Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:43 AM
Originally Posted by Zorax
A changed ruleset might be fun but while the DnD 5e ruleset is balanced the stuff Larian is throwing at us is not. And with every deviation they have to balance more, time they could use better to improve the game at other points (e.g. story). And by the way there are already enough threads about DnD vs Larian rules so if you have something useful to contribute do it there. If you read these threads you will also see that there are a lot less fundamentalists than you think and many DnD folllowers have valid reasons to question Larians approach.



This, also, Larian advertised this as using the 5E ruleset, so no, I won't be getting over how they are messing that up. Larian used it as a big selling point. You and all the rest who don't care if the 5E rules are being badly implemented, and the game worse off for it, go sit in a corner, shut up, and wait for DOS3 instead of telling us to get over Larian failing to deliver on their promises. Also, Larian screws up way more than it fixes going off the rails and doing their own interpretation of 5E. WOTC already put 5E through a crapton of balance testing and errata to get it working as well as it does. Encouraging and supporting Larian half-assing the implementation is inviting them to unnecessarily reinvent the wheel, cause needless balance issues they failed to foresee by their bad changes to rules that have undergone years and years of testing and scrutiny in its own game, and wasting all the rest of our time while we re-test new, poor implementations of half baked changes from Larian (and that's for rules changes made on purpose, not just poorly understood and implemented ones). Larian could have a really good game here, if it sticks more faithfully to D&D 5E, and not try to make some hybrid of 5E meets DOS.
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:45 AM
Originally Posted by Garod
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time


Well if you look at combat you could say the same for D&D the optimum is to run 4 Druids who cast woodland beings and polymorph them into t-rex. or some other insane builds.. that's not the point in D&D and that's not the point in BG3


No, the point is running 4 Barrelmancers with lots of grease bottles.
Posted By: Iszaryn Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:59 AM
I stopped playing DnD at 3.0/3.5 so I really can't complain about the rules in 4th edition or 5th edition, since I don't know what was changed. What is the difference between the rules used in Baldurs Gate 3 and 5th Edition?
Posted By: WinterbornGuard Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:01 AM
I agree with the general sentiment that Larian has very much Micheal bay-ed the hell out of BG3. Its all about its big battles with fire and explosions with every moment being another attempt at an over the top epic moment. That can be cool but not all the time as it is currently.
Posted By: Argonaut Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:04 AM
@iszaryn
It's a lot, too much to cover in a post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/29tysg/35e_to_5e_summary_of_differences/ covers quite a lot of it if you are interested.
Posted By: Ozsavsta Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:08 AM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.


Yeah, this guy gets it. Well written, couldnt agree more.
Posted By: KernelPanic Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:09 AM
[/quote]


I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.

[/quote]

I agree with this for sureI have not played any of the D:OS games but I am a old school DnD player but I have not played 5E. To me I do like some aspects of the game but one thing that has bothered me is mobs always throwing grease and fire bombs multiple times in battles. I'm not sure if there are any saving throws at all I haven't checked. It would be nice if their was. I don't really ever remember having mobs throwing so much stuff and elemental stuff being such a focus in playing the table top games. Maybe it was the DM that didn't give them the ability to do so or Larian is just being too liberal with these weapons. The occasional one to spice things up is fine but It gets tiring to deal with this what feels like every battle.

I'm not too familiar with 5E and how they deal with spells and spell slots, but I feel a bit confused on how things work. I guess I'm used to the 3.5 way of doing things and seeing the spell slots for each level and then adding in which spells I want to use. I like how Neverwinter Nights by Bioware handled the spells. Maybe once I play more and get a more understanding of things It will make more sense. But I also think it would be cool to adapt in some 3.5 stuff.

That being said the rest of the game so far I like, the story is enjoyable, character customization is great, but I just have this feeling that just doesn't feel like DnD to me.
Posted By: Victordeus Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Iszaryn
I stopped playing DnD at 3.0/3.5 so I really can't complain about the rules in 4th edition or 5th edition, since I don't know what was changed. What is the difference between the rules used in Baldurs Gate 3 and 5th Edition?


There are about 4 or 5 posts in this thread that list differences. But I'll name a few just because.

Cantrips: extra effects that Larian added are OP and make cantrips better than some first or second level spells.
Enermy Armor and health: There are clear rules already established for this so I don't understand why they are having so much trouble.
Advantage on High ground and Disadvantage from lowground. No real rule in D&D for high ground that I can think of offhand. If they made it a +/- 1-2 modifier instead it would be a lot less of an issue.
So many surfaces. Yes, surfaces can happen if you are creative and prepared in D&D, but that requires resources and preparing, not just walking into a room and seeing there are twelve barrels and every enemy has a fire arrow or bomb.
Disengage in D&D is a full action unless you are a rogue or have another class ability like step of the wind that lets you use a resource and do it as a bonus action, and it isn't tied to jumping.

A positive change is that weapons have a bonus effect that you can use once a day or more if it is higher quality. Which gives some variety to weapon attacks, I think they should lean into this and maybe expand the list of options later on for martial characters.
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:18 AM
The builds in Pillars of Eternity 2 for example were based on Specific Legendary Gear.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:43 AM
At first I was concerned about Larian doing BG3 because I simply couldn't appreciate DOS2 mechanically and history wise.

DOS2 have several flaws in my opinion which makes it a bad game, yet I'm not going to go deeper in it.

Then I've heard they were being aided by WotC and using 5e rule set, and I got quite confident that we would see a good quality game. I've even bought Early Access so I could support them and provide as much feedback as possible.
How can you ruin something that already survived the tests of time? Well, they did it.

Larian claims that their are deeply involved in that culture of feedback, yet we haven't been asked what we would expect of that new house rules and that's currently their big mistake in this project so far.

I always though that the worst part of Larian was this culture of adding way too much content which lead to lack of personality in general. They lacks so much in personality that the respec feature is present in the game and anyone can be anything at anytime. It's okay for DOS where there's no typical classes? Maybe. Its certainly not for DnD.

The sense of progression is broken.
The sense of class is broken.
And finally the sense of attachment is broken.

Summarizing I'm going to keep complaining about those dumb decisions not solely because its not RAW DnD5e which they've promised us but because this game is unbalanced as fuck because of this decisions.

Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:47 AM
As it stands the 5e ruleset is whatever they feel like it so none of this is a surprise for some of us.
Posted By: Newtinmpls Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


Quoted for being delightfully blunt without being profane.

I think that in a way this compares to a particular DM's "house rules" which sometimes can certainly cross games/genres (or at least mine certainly do).

Originally Posted by 1varangian
I don't really care what rules the game follows as long as it's good.

<snippage>

I like the idea of disengaging being harder, too. I would suggest ladders be very risky to climb if there's a foe at the top. Holding ground/ defending a narrow area should be more doable than currently.


I agree. At one point 3 of our 4 member party were at the top of a ladder and an enemy climbed up and I think we all ought to have gotten free attacks or advantage or something.
Posted By: UnderworldHades Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:18 AM
Originally Posted by Stabbey


I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



What he said, so to answer your thread title. No.
Posted By: Panda Warlord Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:09 AM
The thing is the sentiment here is a generalisation, where as in most cases when people point out a difference it's because it works better in 5e, or the core mechanics of D&D are being reduced in importance for a more DoS style of combat. Complaining about people expressing those opinions seems much more "frothy" and isn't really feedback.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:49 AM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



Nice summary! And also constant advantage from backstab.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:27 AM
Originally Posted by dunehunter


Nice summary! And also constant advantage from backstab.


Engaged ? Just jump behind your opponent, now its a backstab !
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 05:24 AM
Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."


Fair. However, they are based on the 5e rules. They may not be a 1:1 implementation of them, but you can very clearly see the rules have been implemented, even if they have taken some liberties with them. It doesn't matter which rules they changed in a video game adaptation, there was always going to be someone who complained about that specific rule.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.


The question then arises, are you required to rest after every fight in the EA? The answer to this btw, is very clearly no. In my current solo play through with a Warlock, the first time I rested was after clearing out the temple to Jergal+ all of the bandits in there. This is in a 1 player play through, where I have much fewer resources available to me. In the very first play through I did, when I was effectively going in blind, I only rested 3 times during the entire EA. There is nothing in the current EA that forces you to rest and putting elemental surfaces into the game does not magically change this.

Often reading the complaints leveled by 5e purists here I get the feeling that they are just not very good at playing video games and they want a game that reflects that, which, if you implemented the rules 1:1, is a situation you would have. There is nothing wrong with this and no shame in this situation, but it ignores the fact that there are other people, who want challenging gameplay. I personally am all for a game mode with perma death, enemies with both high ac and high hp, preferably with very good AI that heavily take advantage of surfaces. Oh, I would also put a time limit on the main quest with a hard coded failure state, to force players to be resource efficient so they cannot just spam rests.

Obviously this is not acceptable for most people who are playing the game, but having optional difficulty settings for this doesn't impact their gameplay, considering that you are then only opting into it if its what you want. Btw, challenge modes do not need to be "balanced" either, so long as the player's implicit understanding is that the challenge mode is going to be unfair to begin with. The Ultimate Challenge in Deadfire for example is in no way, shape or form balanced, but those of us who do try to beat it, enjoy doing so even though we know the game is very clearly stacked against us. Kingmaker's Unfair difficulty even has the name "unfair" in the title, that hasn't stopped me or others from enjoying playing the game on it.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.


Yeah, D&D's HP values are not balanced around the idea of surfaces, which means that if you want to include surfaces in the game, you also need to increase the values of monster hitpoints. This would ofc penalize non caster classes, which would also result in you likely having to reduce monster AC values, in order to act as a correcting factor. This seems to more or less match up with the system we have now. Other correcting factors can and should probably be implemented, like the saves which you have pointed out.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.


As for concentration spells, from my perspective the current situation is fine. If they break because you are standing in a surface, the chances are, its as a result of poor play on your part, because it is mostly avoidable. When I did the goblin camp in my current playthrough for example, I did not have concentration break once on hex during the entire fight. By breaking line of sight and taking proper advantage of terrain, maintaining concentration is not a problem. Basically, concentration in the current status quo rewards good gameplay. It adds an extra element of risk/reward to using concentration spells and forces a player to make more careful decisions than they would otherwise, which is imo a good thing.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.

When it comes to spell balance, everyone who is upset about the changes to monster HP seems to forget one thing - You can very easily adjust the HP thresholds of those spells. Double the monster HP? You can double the threshold for sleep as well. Similarly, you can make adjustments to sacred flame.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.


I agree advantage/disadvantage should not be provided for terrain differences, purely because it makes them too easy to acquire. There should either be a much smaller bonus for high ground (+1 or +2) to reward good positioning, or no bonus at all, because there is a more subtle advantage in terms of being able to position better against enemies from above.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.


No complaints here, these should be adjusted.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.


The rules of 5e are intended for a different design space, they are intended to make a game which is played on a tabletop. This has some constraints, for example, you cannot run 1000's of calculations for lots of small details, but it also does allow for spells like wish to exist, because you can come up with inventive and new results for the spell on the fly. If you are adapting the rules for a different design space, in this case, a computer game, it makes sense to take some liberties with the rules to better take advantage of the tools the new medium has available to it.

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.
Posted By: Vynticator Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:07 AM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



See, now that's the Stabbey I know and love. Totally needless hostile tone in the intro, then some really well argued points in the main body of the post.

I argued against 'frothy' objections to variations from 5e. Arguments like "Fun is relative term. People are here for the DnD 5e rules not some bastardisation of it." which I see all over the place here. Objecting to the smallest variation from 5e. Many people seem to be coming it feedback from that odd angle, as if Larian can't read the ruleset. That's what I'm arguing against, and you yourself have 'strawmanned' my argument.

What you're doing in your main body is exactly what I suggested people focus on (far from 'telling others to shut up') which is focus on what works in *this game* and critique it in game terms. That's what you go on to do, and you do so admirably. I always find your arguments interesting and often well evidenced from lots of thoughtful play time. I agree especially with the HP/AC balance, the rest/battle cycle being off. And I think almost everyone would conceded that shoves are too strong and disengagement is too simple. Those truths flow from gameplay, they need tweaking to be closer to the 5e source.
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:09 AM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
... if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. ...

It doesn't work in the game hence why we criticise it.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:25 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.


Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

In BG3 there is no such thing. Using my action for the strongest AoE I can throw is not a tactic really, there is nothing to think about. Barrelmancy goes bzzz.
Posted By: Vynticator Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:38 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Sharp

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.


Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

In BG3 there is no such thing. Using my action for the strongest AoE I can throw is not a tactic really, there is nothing to think about. Barrelmancy goes bzzz.


You're dead right about barrelmancy. Carrying barrels in inventory has to go, really. It's crazy, even if I did enjoy it on a test playthrough. It's clearly abusive. It detracts from all the core skills of every character, which should be the focus of the game, surely. The best attacks for the wizard shouldn't be stealth/barrel/ignite/shove.


Posted By: Vynticator Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:41 AM
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Originally Posted by Vynticator
... if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. ...

It doesn't work in the game hence why we criticise it.


Those (gameplay-based) criticisms are not the criticisms on which I was focusing in this post. Many people in the forums are in the habit of criticising change from 5e rules as if that was a problem in an of itself ("Fun is relative term. People are here for the DnD 5e rules not some bastardisation of it." - quite a few posts like this (real) quote around the forums.)
Posted By: Wrathbone Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:53 AM
Originally Posted by Vynticator

You're dead right about barrelmancy. Carrying barrels in inventory has to go, really. It's crazy, even if I did enjoy it on a test playthrough. It's clearly abusive. It detracts from all the core skills of every character, which should be the focus of the game, surely. The best attacks for the wizard shouldn't be stealth/barrel/ignite/shove.


100% agree, and it highlights one of the biggest problems with surfaces in BG3: they dominate almost every fight.

Chess is a game with beautifully balanced rules tested over thousands of years. Variations on the standard rules have been tried over the years, but ultimately they all suffer the same problem, which is that the new or modified rules become the focus of the game. It's inescapable, really, given that the standard rules are so intricately tied to each other.

I wouldn't dare suggest that the 5E rules are as balanced as chess, but the same issue applies. Surfaces can be a thing in tabletop D&D, but not in the excessive and overabundant way that Larian has implemented them, to the extent that most battles become an exercise in surface management.

It's not a problem unique to games, either. Imagine if Galadriel's gift to the Fellowship had been a set of assault rifles and a tonne of ammunition - the story would suddenly revolve around that. Introducing a new and substantial presence to something established and tightly constructed will inevitably change the focus to the new thing. These things are pathogens.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:58 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

Stabbey makes many assumptions, for example, the assumption that adding surfaces does not work in a game where you are expected to go many encounters without resting. As nice as this assumption is, its demonstrably false. Just like any other resource drain, it depends on how they are used. You could have a fight with no surfaces at all which would drain all of your resources to beat it. You can also have a fight which is a single caster and a lot of surfaces and simply dispelling the surfaces or avoiding them, almost automatically wins you the fight.

I also pointed out why, if you want to have surfaces in the game, it makes sense to increase enemy HP values (and possibly decrease AC, although I am fine with high AC as well).

Originally Posted by KingTiki


But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

Surfaces, in a proper implementation of them, have many tactical elements to them. Even in their current implementation, there are the following considerations.
• Do I want to avoid the surface, thus constraining my movement, or do I want to go through them, taking incidental damage.
• If there is not currently a surface on the ground, but I suspect an enemy is capable of applying one, how do I position my characters to minimize the threat from surfaces

And with adjustments (proper tools to deal with surfaces and ideally also a trade off for using them), they would also add.
• Do I want to remove the surface, or perform some other action (A trade off between making the arena less constraining and another action).
• Do I want to apply a surface, or perform some other action.

These are all considerations added by surfaces. I would argue that surfaces in DOS:2 were actually flawed in that you never wanted to remove them, because in terms of action economy, it always took far too much effort to remove them relative to an enemy like an ooze just moving around and spreading them everywhere. Furthermore, because of the armor type, there wasn't really any real threat from the surfaces themselves and you could just ignore them almost all of the time.

Posted By: Pupito Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:02 AM
Originally Posted by Wrathbone
Originally Posted by Vynticator

You're dead right about barrelmancy. Carrying barrels in inventory has to go, really. It's crazy, even if I did enjoy it on a test playthrough. It's clearly abusive. It detracts from all the core skills of every character, which should be the focus of the game, surely. The best attacks for the wizard shouldn't be stealth/barrel/ignite/shove.


100% agree, and it highlights one of the biggest problems with surfaces in BG3: they dominate almost every fight.

Chess is a game with beautifully balanced rules tested over thousands of years. Variations on the standard rules have been tried over the years, but ultimately they all suffer the same problem, which is that the new or modified rules become the focus of the game. It's inescapable, really, given that the standard rules are so intricately tied to each other.

I wouldn't dare suggest that the 5E rules are as balanced as chess, but the same issue applies. Surfaces can be a thing in tabletop D&D, but not in the excessive and overabundant way that Larian has implemented them, to the extent that most battles become an exercise in surface management.

It's not a problem unique to games, either. Imagine if Galadriel's gift to the Fellowship had been a set of assault rifles and a tonne of ammunition - the story would suddenly revolve around that. Introducing a new and substantial presence to something established and tightly constructed will inevitably change the focus to the new thing. These things are pathogens.


Now I really wanna see a LOTR where Frodo and the Fellowship just go marching straight into Mordor with a bunch of M4's and frag grenades
Posted By: arion Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:09 AM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


I guess the main problem is that everyone is trying not to hurt Larians feelings while losing the capacity to think rationally.



I will not say for everyone, but for me the main thing will be to see the first corrections based on the received feedback in EA, if they ignore it, then for me interest in this game will disappear.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:22 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp

As nice as this assumption is, its demonstrably false.


Just presenting edge cases is not a great argument for a game, where you should be able to play with any given party and the balancing is worked out for that. You already see how they had to come up with new ways to circumvent the rebalancing issues they created, namely the abundance of healing potions and food that heals you. Which in is just another factor, that invalidates balance between the classes, as martial classes get another edge over spellcasters. Martials are restrained by their HP normally. But with healing this abundant you dont really need to rest, so they can go all day long with just basic attacks, while spellcasters would be severely hindered in doing anything meaningful.

Quote

Surfaces, in a proper implementation of them, have many tactical elements to them. Even in their current implementation, there are the following considerations.
• Do I want to avoid the surface, thus constraining my movement, or do I want to go through them, taking incidental damage.
• If there is not currently a surface on the ground, but I suspect an enemy is capable of applying one, how do I position my characters to minimize the threat from surfaces

And with adjustments (proper tools to deal with surfaces and ideally also a trade off for using them), they would also add.
• Do I want to remove the surface, or perform some other action (A trade off between making the arena less constraining and another action).
• Do I want to apply a surface, or perform some other action.


The first two are really shallow and not really a tactical play. Because as long as the surface is not killing you outright, there is no downside. Healing is abundant and just a BA, so what gives? No trade-off really. Even if 1-2 of your PCs die, just rezz them.

The latter two are just a cascade that becomes necessary because of the implementation of surfaces in the first place. And if they get implemented there will be other stuff to rebalance again.

They make it harder with every step to deliver a balanced experience, as they stumble from one "Fix" to another, all the while a mostly balanced option is ignored. As I said, I love DOS. More fun than I had in a long time. But Larian should not be afraid to (mostly) trust the 5e rules as they are. The people at WOTC had some great ideas there, and they paid off immensely. Make the systems work on PC and in the engine and trust the success that is 5e.
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Surfaces were great in DOS:2, but Stabbey has delivered really good points, that you fail to address in a meaningful matter.

Stabbey makes many assumptions, for example, the assumption that adding surfaces does not work in a game where you are expected to go many encounters without resting. As nice as this assumption is, its demonstrably false. Just like any other resource drain, it depends on how they are used. You could have a fight with no surfaces at all which would drain all of your resources to beat it. You can also have a fight which is a single caster and a lot of surfaces and simply dispelling the surfaces or avoiding them, almost automatically wins you the fight.

I also pointed out why, if you want to have surfaces in the game, it makes sense to increase enemy HP values (and possibly decrease AC, although I am fine with high AC as well).

Originally Posted by KingTiki


But I say one thing about the surfaces in this game: they are not tactical. In any way or form. See in DOS you had 2 types or armor, that you could use to ignore the ground for an amount of time, so you had to manage things in time or maybe even convert the ground into something you want. You had to do some decisions, you had to plan ahead how you deal with your armor and the ground that is currently present.

Surfaces, in a proper implementation of them, have many tactical elements to them. Even in their current implementation, there are the following considerations.
• Do I want to avoid the surface, thus constraining my movement, or do I want to go through them, taking incidental damage.
• If there is not currently a surface on the ground, but I suspect an enemy is capable of applying one, how do I position my characters to minimize the threat from surfaces

And with adjustments (proper tools to deal with surfaces and ideally also a trade off for using them), they would also add.
• Do I want to remove the surface, or perform some other action (A trade off between making the arena less constraining and another action).
• Do I want to apply a surface, or perform some other action.

These are all considerations added by surfaces. I would argue that surfaces in DOS:2 were actually flawed in that you never wanted to remove them, because in terms of action economy, it always took far too much effort to remove them relative to an enemy like an ooze just moving around and spreading them everywhere. Furthermore, because of the armor type, there wasn't really any real threat from the surfaces themselves and you could just ignore them almost all of the time.


See the thing that you don't get is this: 5e does not revolve around the management of surfaces and items that create surfaces. It is based around the action economy. While 5e does have some items that would create "surfaces" you will be hard pressed to find them the core of the combat or being widely used because in 5e they are simply less efficient and the system does not emphasise their effects. A good example is the spell "Grease", that spell is a CC spell, its not a "primer" to set it on fire.

That is the issue. BG3 is centered around surface interaction, its not an optional part, it is the very core of the combat system and thats just not what 5e is about.

The moment I found "grenades" in the intro scene I knew where this was going, I played DOS2.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:48 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Just presenting edge cases is not a great argument for a game, where you should be able to play with any given party and the balancing is worked out for that. You already see how they had to come up with new ways to circumvent the rebalancing issues they created, namely the abundance of healing potions and food that heals you. Which in is just another factor, that invalidates balance between the classes, as martial classes get another edge over spellcasters. Martials are restrained by their HP normally. But with healing this abundant you dont really need to rest, so they can go all day long with just basic attacks, while spellcasters would be severely hindered in doing anything meaningful.


Except its not an edge case. I have finished the entire EA with a single character, not taking advantage of surfaces at all. I have also finished it with a party and the party only had to rest 3 times throughout the entire playthrough. And no, it wasn't because I ate stuff after every fight, its because for most fights you can either alpha strike enemies during a surprise round, giving them no chance at all to respond, or because there are plenty of environmental obstacles you can take advantage of to constrain enemies. The game does not force you to use surfaces at all, you can use them if you wish to. You are also not forced to rest after every encounter. If you can finish the EA with a single character, pretty much any party of 4 will also manage.

Originally Posted by KingTiki


The first two are really shallow and not really a tactical play. Because as long as the surface is not killing you outright, there is no downside. Healing is abundant and just a BA, so what gives? No trade-off really. Even if 1-2 of your PCs die, just rezz them.

The latter two are just a cascade that becomes necessary because of the implementation of surfaces in the first place. And if they get implemented there will be other stuff to rebalance again.

They make it harder with every step to deliver a balanced experience, as they stumble from one "Fix" to another, all the while a mostly balanced option is ignored. As I said, I love DOS. More fun than I had in a long time. But Larian should not be afraid to (mostly) trust the 5e rules as they are. The people at WOTC had some great ideas there, and they paid off immensely. Make the systems work on PC and in the engine and trust the success that is 5e.


Healing costs you a bonus action, which is very definitely not "just a bonus action." If you are a warlock or a ranger, consuming a heal is costing you 1d6 damage from reapplying hex or reapplying hunter's mark. If you are dual wielding, its costing you an additional hit. The overabundance of healing items does not negate the fact that there is a meaningful consideration to make. The correct solution there is very clearly to reduce the number of healing items, so there is a genuine risk of running out of them.

Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias

See the thing that you don't get is this: 5e does not revolve around the management of surfaces and items that create surfaces. It is based around the action economy. While 5e does have some items that would create "surfaces" you will be hard pressed to find them the core of the combat or being widely used because in 5e they are simply less efficient and the system does not emphasise their effects. A good example is the spell "Grease", that spell is a CC spell, its not a "primer" to set it on fire.

That is the issue. BG3 is centered around surface interaction, its not an optional part, it is the very core of the combat system and thats just not what 5e is about.

The moment I found "grenades" in the intro scene I knew where this was going, I played DOS2.

The thing you don't get is, my care for what system of rules they use is absolutely 0. I am mostly interested in playing a game with tactical combat. If a change to the ruleset adds some tactical considerations and makes the combat more interesting from my PoV, I am all for it. I care very little about the story, because if I judge RPGs on their story, I then compare them to books and the writing in games is nowhere near comparable to something like Dostoevsky. The early access is about us as players giving our feedback on what we like/dislike about the game. Obviously, that means that there will be a lot of disagreement, because there will be both players like me, who don't care 1 whit about "the ruleset" as well as players like you, who do.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:59 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp

Except its not an edge case. I have finished the entire EA with a single character, not taking advantage of surfaces at all. I have also finished it with a party and the party only had to rest 3 times throughout the entire playthrough. And no, it wasn't because I ate stuff after every fight, its because for most fights you can either alpha strike enemies during a surprise round, giving them no chance at all to respond, or because there are plenty of environmental obstacles you can take advantage of to constrain enemies. The game does not force you to use surfaces at all, you can use them if you wish to. You are also not forced to rest after every encounter. If you can finish the EA with a single character, pretty much any party of 4 will also manage.


Powergaming is an edgecase. You have not beaten the game solo on either your first run, no savescumming or doing everything. This kind of meta stuff IS fun, yes. But it is not something you should take as an argument for balance. There are too many encounters that you cannot "see coming" or scout out to just do them solo without reloading a few times to make a strategy.


Quote
Healing costs you a bonus action, which is very definitely not "just a bonus action." If you are a warlock or a ranger, consuming a heal is costing you 1d6 damage from reapplying hex or reapplying hunter's mark. If you are dual wielding, its costing you an additional hit. The overabundance of healing items does not negate the fact that there is a meaningful consideration to make. The correct solution there is very clearly to reduce the number of healing items, so there is a genuine risk of running out of them.


Hex and HM are not a thing you MUST do every round. You are always presenting specific situations, not things that are general. But balance has to work in general.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 09:13 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki

Powergaming is an edgecase. You have not beaten the game solo on either your first run, no savescumming or doing everything. This kind of meta stuff IS fun, yes. But it is not something you should take as an argument for balance. There are too many encounters that you cannot "see coming" or scout out to just do them solo without reloading a few times to make a strategy.
.

You completely missed the point of this paragraph. Which was, you know, that if "that specific absurd case" is possible, than a party of 4, which is far less extreme than the absurd case, is not only possible, but not even difficult. There is nothing in the game forcing you to use surfaces. There is also nothing in the game that forces you to rest after every encounter. Those were the claims that were made. The assumption was, "surfaces don't work in a system where you are expected to go through multiple fights without resting." The funny thing is, to disprove an absolute like that, I only have to present a single counter example (which I did). But even if you look at the game itself and not the hypothetical I presented, its just not the case. You aren't forced to rest after every fight. You can play through multiple fights without resting, yes, even without meta knowledge.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

Hex and HM are not a thing you MUST do every round. You are always presenting specific situations, not things that are general. But balance has to work in general.

The *point* was, that there are many useful bonus actions you could potentially use. There is an opportunity cost to using a heal and on MOST turns, your bonus action would be better used doing something else. I could give other examples if you want them, but since it seems you don't like specific examples, think of it in terms of, "out of the list of all the things you could possibly do with a bonus action, healing yourself does the least to either mitigate damage or deal damage to the enemy." In combat, you want to spend the amount minimum of time possible healing yourself, since its only extending the fight and leading you to take more damage over all.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 11:21 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp
You aren't forced to rest after every fight.


I did not say that. I was talking about balance between all classes and the game as a whole. I already laid out that because of the surfaces they HAD to implement healing opportunities in abundance, which atm favors the non-casters heavily. Which in turn is a balance issue. Imagine playing co-op and I play as a Warlock and my buddy is a Champion fighter. So yeah, I am not forced to long rest necessarily, but atm we have only short rest. So after between long rests I have 1 SR to get 4 spells in total. While the fighter has no real need to rest soo often at all. Because his restriction lies in HP, which in turn were heavily buffed by food/potions. So he goes all day no problem, while the warlock is not too great at that point. Without the rebalancing of AC/HP and surface effects the fighter and WL would both maybe do 2 short rests but at some point the fighter is out of hit dice and needs to get a good sleep. And this inner party friction is not only present in Coop, but also in singleplayer. What if I want to use Wyll, because I like him? It is kind of immersion breaking to choose between long resting in the middle of a dungeon or having a PC being useless.

I see that your perspective is that you want a tactical arena game, but you fail to recognize that this is marketed as an RPG. Its not the main aspect to beat the a game in "some possible way" but also to immerse people in it and having a good roleplaying experience. And the latter thing gets kind of screwed if the balance is butchered in favor of some flashy features that really dont offer very much in decision making. I'd argue that the real ruleset of 5e is giving you much harder tradeoffs and decisions than the current "yolo jump and disengage"-balance. It is much thougher to use your action to save your ass, instead of disengaging, moving and attacking either way.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

The *point* was, that there are many useful bonus actions you could potentially use. There is an opportunity cost to using a heal and on MOST turns, your bonus action would be better used doing something else. I could give other examples if you want them, but since it seems you don't like specific examples, think of it in terms of, "out of the list of all the things you could possibly do with a bonus action, healing yourself does the least to either mitigate damage or deal damage to the enemy." In combat, you want to spend the amount minimum of time possible healing yourself, since its only extending the fight and leading you to take more damage over all.


See point above. You have so many things to do, there is almost no tradeoff. In ONE round, you maybe have to choose between a potion or a shove, but who cares? I still can use a potion and my Battlemaster shove attack. Trade-off quality beats Trade-off quantity.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 11:26 AM

The best argument that we’ve seen in 2020 to justify whether a game is balanced or not is “I’ve beaten the game with a single character” or “you’re not good in video gaming”. The game mechanics as is are completely unbalanced, arguments have been made around the subject but the argumentation is always “I think surfaces add another layer to the strategy”.
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 11:58 AM
Originally Posted by Sharp

The thing you don't get is, my care for what system of rules they use is absolutely 0. I am mostly interested in playing a game with tactical combat. If a change to the ruleset adds some tactical considerations and makes the combat more interesting from my PoV, I am all for it. I care very little about the story, because if I judge RPGs on their story, I then compare them to books and the writing in games is nowhere near comparable to something like Dostoevsky. The early access is about us as players giving our feedback on what we like/dislike about the game. Obviously, that means that there will be a lot of disagreement, because there will be both players like me, who don't care 1 whit about "the ruleset" as well as players like you, who do.

Oh I am well aware of that.

Here is the thing though, if you were familar with 5e you would have tactical combat. Spamming surfaces isn't tactics and if spamming surfaces is the core mechanic the game is build around of course those of us who wanted a 5e experience are gonna be upset, not because they deviated from the rules, thats expected, but because they are delivering an experience that is not what we wanted.

We didn't want to essentially play the DOS combat system with some 5e tweaks. We wanted 5e combat adjusted for use in a video game.
Overall I like it as it is. I played through it 4 times already.

Coming from older DnD Games the surfaces were totally new and I ignored them on my first play through - which felt balanced. I often stumbled into enemy encounters and set-ups and tried to gain the upper hand in mid fight. I didnt have to rest very often, but I had to nevertheless. On the first playthrough I never felt too weak or too powerful!

In the later playthroughs I already knew the encounters and the positions. I understood the mechanics, from there on it was very easy. I cleared the complete world over and underdark without having hard trouble.

I understand all the criticism pro and contra surfaces etc.

From my point of view the game felt balanced in the 1st run through - which it should be. (In the final game they can add harder difficulties for additional playthroughs).

After reading good posts in this thread I have to agree though that high ground advantage and surface effects play a big role and should be toned down a bit. Because only from understanding high ground, surfaces and stealth alone I could play through very easy compared to balanced on my first play through.

But we should have in mind that the game should feel balanced on normal difficulties for 1st playthroughs and "newcomers". make other difficulties for other cases.
For example make access to a hardcore 5e ruleset with permadeath after having finished the game once! I would love that.
Posted By: Cowoline Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:17 PM
+1 to the OP's statement. If you want 100% accuracy then make your own D&D campaign instead of having unrealistic expectations to a video game.
Posted By: seikojin Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:24 PM
+1 to the OP. I gave been on both sides of the screen and think of some of the changes in BG3 are a nice, welcome, tactical option. And I am glad enemies use it. I haven't seen the spamming of bottles people are complaining about, so I dunno how rough it is. I think I haven't mainlined a cleric class yet, so there is chance for one playthrough to be rough with grenades.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki


I did not say that. I was talking about balance between all classes and the game as a whole. I already laid out that because of the surfaces they HAD to implement healing opportunities in abundance, which atm favors the non-casters heavily. Which in turn is a balance issue. Imagine playing co-op and I play as a Warlock and my buddy is a Champion fighter. So yeah, I am not forced to long rest necessarily, but atm we have only short rest. So after between long rests I have 1 SR to get 4 spells in total. While the fighter has no real need to rest soo often at all. Because his restriction lies in HP, which in turn were heavily buffed by food/potions. So he goes all day no problem, while the warlock is not too great at that point. Without the rebalancing of AC/HP and surface effects the fighter and WL would both maybe do 2 short rests but at some point the fighter is out of hit dice and needs to get a good sleep. And this inner party friction is not only present in Coop, but also in singleplayer. What if I want to use Wyll, because I like him? It is kind of immersion breaking to choose between long resting in the middle of a dungeon or having a PC being useless.


Except they didn't? I am certainly not relying on the abundant healing in my playthrough. I suspect that the healing was implemented more by accident (due to them wanting to add some utility to food) than as a deliberate design decision in order to balance surfaces. The best defense against anything is not getting hit and this game emphasizes that heavily, with many areas having narrow corridors to bottleneck enemies in, or ladders leading to high up areas where its easy to break line of sight. The arenas are designed in a way where there is a very clear, convenient, easy to reach location which would give the player a significant combat advantage and at the same time severely dampen the damage output of enemies, to the point where they land maybe 1 or 2 hits during the entire fight. You don't even need metagame knowledge to see this either. The fight starts, if before you act you take say a minute to pan the camera and inspect the arena, you will notice the area is constructed with sections that provide you with advantages.

In addition to that, I am not really seeing the argument for how these changes favor fighter classes. Its the casters which can easily create surfaces. Its the casters which have lots of long ranged abilities, who need to spend the least amount of time positioning relative to surfaces. As it currently stands, the most effective way to play is to not engage enemies in melee at all, but to snipe them at range with either a bow or cantrips for the most part.

Even if this was the case however, lets be realistic here. Larian is not going to implement penalties for resting, or time restrictions, because it would go down poorly with the majority of people who play the game. Even if we both dislike rest spamming and enjoy playing against the clock, its just not going to happen. The fact of the matter is, the people who want to start every fight on a wizard with a full list of memorized spells are going to be able to do that, so its a moot point regardless.

Originally Posted by KingTiki


I see that your perspective is that you want a tactical arena game, but you fail to recognize that this is marketed as an RPG. Its not the main aspect to beat the a game in "some possible way" but also to immerse people in it and having a good roleplaying experience. And the latter thing gets kind of screwed if the balance is butchered in favor of some flashy features that really dont offer very much in decision making. I'd argue that the real ruleset of 5e is giving you much harder tradeoffs and decisions than the current "yolo jump and disengage"-balance. It is much thougher to use your action to save your ass, instead of disengaging, moving and attacking either way.


I mainly play CRPGs, Turn Based Strategy and Real Time Strategy for the same thing, I enjoy tactical combat. All 3 of them offer it, usually in slightly different flavors. Whilst it is the combat is my main interest, I will humor you for a moment and discuss the role playing aspect of it (which I usually ignore, because if I was to judge it I would judge it really harshly). When it comes to stories/narrative, I am somewhat of a simulationist, its important to me that the world is believable, it needs to have verisimilitude. That does not necessarily mean that it needs to follow the laws of physics, but the "rules" of the world need to be internally consistent. The moment I cannot think of a good reason for something to function that way, I am no longer immersed in the world.

In a high magic world where some people can warp reality, it makes no sense for combat to be "balanced," its like asking for a gun to be balanced against a sword. In fact, if you are trying to make a world like Faerun believable, there would be a very big lack of balance. I personally consider D&D to be a particularly weak system in the verisimilitude department, if you start asking the question, "why does this work this way," you very quickly hit against the wall of, "because someone arbitrarily decided it does," where as in a more believable fantasy universe, you could probably think of more than a dozen good reasons for that feature to function in that way. An easy example of this is, in the thousands of years that the world has existed, why hasn't gunpowder become something known and used across the entirety of the realms.

From a narrative perspective, I personally consider balance to be one of the least important factors to a rule system, in some cases downright adversarial to immersion. You just need to take 5 seconds to look at the real world to realize that "balance" is a myth, balance is not something included in a set of rules to make the setting more believable, or to make it better facilitate role playing, balance is included to make the combat more interesting because combat is not interesting when the solution is, "so he pulled the trigger and shot him and the encounter is over," for every single fight. Its sacrificing realism in an effort to create a tactical experience. So if all you care about is the "role playing experience" so to speak, then from my pov balance should be the least of your concerns, because a believable world is not a balanced world.

From a tactics (not roleplaying) perspective however, notice, I didn't disagree that it would be better if combat was balanced, I didn't complain at all about shove being moved from a bonus action to an action or any of those other things that were talked about. In none of those cases are actions being removed, just rebalanced. All I objected to was removing surfaces entirely, because it doesn't matter how you try to spin it, by removing surfaces, you are removing an element from gameplay. I would prefer it if combat had surfaces and was balanced, rather than lacked surfaces and of course, that would mean taking liberties with additional rules in order to achieve that. No ruleset is perfect however, you can bet that in 10 years time there will be a D&D 6th or even 7th edition with updated rules and without trying to modify rules to begin with, you will never end up with a "better system."

Originally Posted by KingTiki


See point above. You have so many things to do, there is almost no tradeoff. In ONE round, you maybe have to choose between a potion or a shove, but who cares? I still can use a potion and my Battlemaster shove attack. Trade-off quality beats Trade-off quantity.


In almost no cases do you want to use a health potion during combat, because if that action can be used in any way to shorten the fight, then the act of using the health potion is simply prolonging combat.

Posted By: Goleeb Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


Yeah im going to go out on a limb here and say you are familiar with 5E rules.

For people who have experience with 5e they know certain things are op if given away to easy in 5e. Let me give you an example. In 5e very rare weapons will give you +3 to hit, and that is really powerful. While advantage is considered to be a +5 to the skill. So giving out a +5 to everyone above you, or behind you is really powerful in 5e rules. It's actually game breaking.

Now think of what that means. In 5e someone having advantage on an attack against you is the same as you having -5 to your armor. Lets say you have 17 armor class a good AC for a low level fighter. You now have effectively 12 ac considered low for even a casting in 5e. With 5e you always hit on a 20, and always miss on a 1 no matter the AC, and tie goes to the attacker. So with 17 ac for every 20 attack you will be hit 4 times. With the person attacking you having advantage you will take 9 attacks every twenty.

As you can see it might not seem like a big deal, but it makes being tanky much harder when you give away advantage.

In short you have to be careful what changes you make to the 5e system as it's easy to break, and in turn break your game balance.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 12:34 PM
The fact that many of us beaten the game mostly by using refurbished DnD rules made by Larian ( like high ground Advantage, stealth spam, OP cantrips, shove every turn, unlimited rest, disengage as a bonus action, etc) Isn’t enough of an argument to say that the game is unbalanced?

Sometimes I just want to be in a mood of hack n slash party with 4 barbarians that aren’t so smart to use tactical combat and use brute force to overwhelm a goblin army. Currently that’s not a viable option. Isn’t that the very essence of DnD? Everything being viable (some options more effective and others less) is a feature of what I define as a tactical game.

For those who played Pilars of eternity II, there was those ship battles where the player wouldn't have the advantage of adjust the battleground in their flavor. Pure RAW battle. I miss that so much in BG3
Posted By: arion Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:02 PM
Attempts to fix what is not broken already create them balance problems and will require a lot of effort in future to make it just work.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by Sharp

Fair. However, they are based on the 5e rules. They may not be a 1:1 implementation of them, but you can very clearly see the rules have been implemented, even if they have taken some liberties with them. It doesn't matter which rules they changed in a video game adaptation, there was always going to be someone who complained about that specific rule.


That might be true, although I can't recall anyone complaining about Speak with Animals lasting until the next long rest or concentration break. For the most part though, people are complaining about changes because of the effect the changes have on balance. Efforts to further balance the changes with more changes is only creating the need for further changes. This can go on indefinitely, eating up development time and resources.


Originally Posted by Sharp

The question then arises, are you required to rest after every fight in the EA? The answer to this btw, is very clearly no. In my current solo play through with a Warlock, the first time I rested was after clearing out the temple to Jergal+ all of the bandits in there. This is in a 1 player play through, where I have much fewer resources available to me. In the very first play through I did, when I was effectively going in blind, I only rested 3 times during the entire EA. There is nothing in the current EA that forces you to rest and putting elemental surfaces into the game does not magically change this.


I'm not long resting much either. That is however, because of additional changes, such as food which can be as good or better as healing potions and spells.

However, at the moment, there is nothing seemingly limiting the amount of long rests you can take. That skews the balance towards casters, who can blow all their spells in every combat. Warlocks only have a single short rest possible, so they're less attractive to use in comparison - particularly because of Fire Bolt's added strength.


Quote
Obviously this is not acceptable for most people who are playing the game, but having optional difficulty settings for this doesn't impact their gameplay, considering that you are then only opting into it if its what you want. Btw, challenge modes do not need to be "balanced" either, so long as the player's implicit understanding is that the challenge mode is going to be unfair to begin with. The Ultimate Challenge in Deadfire for example is in no way, shape or form balanced, but those of us who do try to beat it, enjoy doing so even though we know the game is very clearly stacked against us. Kingmaker's Unfair difficulty even has the name "unfair" in the title, that hasn't stopped me or others from enjoying playing the game on it.


Options and difficulty levels still need to be tested and somewhat balanced even if you slap the words "Unfair" onto a difficulty level.


Originally Posted by Sharp

Yeah, D&D's HP values are not balanced around the idea of surfaces, which means that if you want to include surfaces in the game, you also need to increase the values of monster hitpoints. This would ofc penalize non caster classes, which would also result in you likely having to reduce monster AC values, in order to act as a correcting factor. This seems to more or less match up with the system we have now. Other correcting factors can and should probably be implemented, like the saves which you have pointed out.


Player hit points and player AC have not been increased to compensate for all the surfaces enemies can throw around. Instead, they made food items you can pick up in bunches better than clerical healing, and have no limits on long rests, which make Warlocks pretty crappy with a 4-character limit in a party.


Originally Posted by Sharp

As for concentration spells, from my perspective the current situation is fine. If they break because you are standing in a surface, the chances are, its as a result of poor play on your part, because it is mostly avoidable. When I did the goblin camp in my current playthrough for example, I did not have concentration break once on hex during the entire fight. By breaking line of sight and taking proper advantage of terrain, maintaining concentration is not a problem. Basically, concentration in the current status quo rewards good gameplay. It adds an extra element of risk/reward to using concentration spells and forces a player to make more careful decisions than they would otherwise, which is imo a good thing.


"If you're standing in a surface, it's a result of your own poor play." This is an overly general statement. The maximum range on the longest range spells has been cut in half, many combat arenas are designed so that you cannot get line of sight onto enemies without being in range of enemies, and enemies have many additional surface creating effects and bombs.


Originally Posted by Sharp

When it comes to spell balance, everyone who is upset about the changes to monster HP seems to forget one thing - You can very easily adjust the HP thresholds of those spells. Double the monster HP? You can double the threshold for sleep as well. Similarly, you can make adjustments to sacred flame.


All we need to do is just change this one little thing, and that'll fix the problem, right? Until that change makes more problems apparent. What happens when we get access to the old classic Fireball, and it's a wet fart of a spell thanks to inflated monster HP? Then you need to change more things.

The domino effect of changes means that they'll need to add "other correcting factors", and then even more "other correcting factors" to correct for those changes, and later, even more "other correcting factors".


Originally Posted by Sharp
I agree advantage/disadvantage should not be provided for terrain differences, purely because it makes them too easy to acquire. There should either be a much smaller bonus for high ground (+1 or +2) to reward good positioning, or no bonus at all, because there is a more subtle advantage in terms of being able to position better against enemies from above.


I agree that+1 or +2 would be better. Or maybe a range increase like what D:OS 2 has. I had a combat where I was up in the rafters, attempting to get sneak attack from above, but despite enemies being in the circle, I had disadvantage for being "outside my normal attack range".


Originally Posted by Sharp

The rules of 5e are intended for a different design space, they are intended to make a game which is played on a tabletop. This has some constraints, for example, you cannot run 1000's of calculations for lots of small details, but it also does allow for spells like wish to exist, because you can come up with inventive and new results for the spell on the fly. If you are adapting the rules for a different design space, in this case, a computer game, it makes sense to take some liberties with the rules to better take advantage of the tools the new medium has available to it.

I defend surfaces, because they add a tactical layer to combat. They definitely need to be adjusted and aren't fine in their current form, but they make combat more interesting and better that they are adjusted than removed entirely.


Surfaces don't need to be removed entirely, they can add things, but they need significant adjustments. For starters, they are far too abundant, they require saving throws, applying them from cantrips is far too powerful (especially when a direct hit deals damage and creates a surface), and there are too many ways to create them - largely because most enemies carry tons of grenades and magic arrows for the express purpose of creating surfaces.


Originally Posted by Sharp
Except its not an edge case. I have finished the entire EA with a single character, not taking advantage of surfaces at all. I have also finished it with a party and the party only had to rest 3 times throughout the entire playthrough. And no, it wasn't because I ate stuff after every fight, its because for most fights you can either alpha strike enemies during a surprise round, giving them no chance at all to respond, or because there are plenty of environmental obstacles you can take advantage of to constrain enemies. The game does not force you to use surfaces at all, you can use them if you wish to. You are also not forced to rest after every encounter. If you can finish the EA with a single character, pretty much any party of 4 will also manage.


I don't know your exact strategy, so I am going to presume that you are abusing stealth and range to pick off enemies and run away. Especially for your solo character.

Your argument is "if you play in these exact specific ways, surfaces aren't a problem". That's a silly argument. If someone abuses mechanics and reloading enough and most fights can be beaten easily. That doesn't make it balanced for "normal" play. King Tiki explained way better than I can.
Posted By: Limz Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 01:44 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
The fact that many of us beaten the game mostly by using refurbished DnD rules made by Larian ( like high ground Advantage, stealth spam, OP cantrips, shove every turn, unlimited rest, disengage as a bonus action, etc) Isn’t enough of an argument to say that the game is unbalanced?

Sometimes I just want to be in a mood of hack n slash party with 4 barbarians that aren’t so smart to use tactical combat and use brute force to overwhelm a goblin army. Currently that’s not a viable option. Isn’t that the very essence of DnD? Everything being viable (some options more effective and others less) is a feature of what I define as a tactical game.

For those who played Pilars of eternity II, there was those ship battles where the player wouldn't have the advantage of adjust the battleground in their flavor. Pure RAW battle. I miss that so much in BG3


Every game is unbalanced. Get over it.

And yeah, you can just hack and slash away with a party of four fighters (if they had barbarians then sure), that's pretty much viable.

You don't really have a good argument at all.
Posted By: Postwave Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:02 PM
I am absolutely here and spending my money for a 5E D&D game. I get that a video game needs some adjustment, but those adjustments should feel intentional, not "we don't really get the ruleset so we changed some stuff" — which is a lot of the alterations now. It's like a newbie DM with strong ideas making changes which actually make the game less fun.

I've got no problem winning fights in this game without abusing the camp, and usually go way beyond when the characters are whining that it's a long day. I do wish they'd introduce proper short rests and hit dice. But my objection isn't that these things are making the game too hard. They're making it not feel like D&D, and, thread title to the contrary, that's a completely sufficient and valid reason.

Throwing barrels should definitely go — or require a ridiculous strength. (An ogre throwing them at me? Fine!) Likewise, not every eenemy sshould have surface creating throwables, and they shouldn't be so easy for me to come by. And cantrips having a splash effect definitely makes me sad each time.
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:25 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey

Options and difficulty levels still need to be tested and somewhat balanced even if you slap the words "Unfair" onto a difficulty level.

When the Ultimate challenge was added to Deadfire, the developer expectation was, that the challenge could not be beaten at all. Obviously, optional difficulty settings do require testing in some ways, but whether or not they can be completed, or whether or not gameplay is balanced, is not one of them. If someone is deliberately making their experience harder, they should be aware that they can make it harder than they are capable of completing.
Originally Posted by Stabbey

"If you're standing in a surface, it's a result of your own poor play." This is an overly general statement. The maximum range on the longest range spells has been cut in half, many combat arenas are designed so that you cannot get line of sight onto enemies without being in range of enemies, and enemies have many additional surface creating effects and bombs.


On most occasions, if you cannot see an enemy, they also cannot see you. If you know an enemy cannot see you, waiting until they move somewhere that is convenient to you, rather than the reverse, becomes an option. In the example above of the Goblin camp, what I did was this. I had just finished the "evil" quest line where you kill the druid grove and so the goblin camp was now hostile to me. I entered via the waypoint, immediately being placed in combat upon arrival and then I misty step above onto the encroachments above it. Following this I used the ladder as a choke point and kill enemies 1 by 1.

In most fights in the EA, there are spots you can move into to break line of sight, thus forcing enemies to move into a disadvantageous position. In my experience, almost every fight in the early access can be beaten in a similar manner barring the bulette (spelling?). There are places you can position yourself that force enemies to move into unfavorable territory and its very easy to deny enemies the opportunity to dump a surface on top of you.
Originally Posted by Stabbey

Surfaces don't need to be removed entirely, they can add things, but they need significant adjustments. For starters, they are far too abundant, they require saving throws, applying them from cantrips is far too powerful (especially when a direct hit deals damage and creates a surface), and there are too many ways to create them - largely because most enemies carry tons of grenades and magic arrows for the express purpose of creating surfaces.

There are a lot of points before this which I will skip addressing because we are more or less in agreement. I have no issues with toning down surfaces to better fit the system, I have a very strong sentiment against removing them entirely. Since it seems we agree on that, I will skip unnecessary walls of text on the subject.
Originally Posted by Stabbey

Or maybe a range increase like what D:OS 2 has. I had a combat where I was up in the rafters, attempting to get sneak attack from above, but despite enemies being in the circle, I had disadvantage for being "outside my normal attack range".


I suspect there is already something like this implemented, although I am not sure to what extent. If you stand on very high outcrops relative to an enemy and target outside of the "maximum range" threshold, you will find that up to a point, you can still hit enemies without disadvantage. This suggests to me that a system like this is already implemented and just not communicated to the player.
Originally Posted by Stabbey

I don't know your exact strategy, so I am going to presume that you are abusing stealth and range to pick off enemies and run away. Especially for your solo character.

Your argument is "if you play in these exact specific ways, surfaces aren't a problem". That's a silly argument. If someone abuses mechanics and reloading enough and most fights can be beaten easily. That doesn't make it balanced for "normal" play. King Tiki explained way better than I can.

I don't rely much on stealth, I rely much more on movement and line of sight. Melee enemies can't catch you when you are using expeditious retreat and ranged enemies suffer against line of sight. Choke points are the tool for dealing with crowds, narrow corridors and doorways are all over the place in the arenas provided to us. The question really is, what constitutes "normal" play. Obviously, you do not balance the game around optimal gameplay or mechanics abuse in the case of reload cheese, but you should not balance the game around someone who is hitting the end turn button without doing anything every single turn either.
Posted By: sonics01 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:28 PM
You know what guys? We don't need to fight like this over this issue. All we need is to ask Larian to sell us a good "DM mod" modding tool for BG3. I wrote in another post:
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=705609#Post705609

DOS2 modding tool was very good too, but it definitely has a steep learning curve, and it does not have the features to achieve true "DM mod" modding I wrote in my post. With such tools, a lot of things can be achieved, including "D&D 5e rule" BG3. If you guys agree with this, please give some positive reflection to my post, so that Larian can feel & agree with the needs of such a modding tool.



As a person who has a 2 years of D&D 5e TRPG experience, I think some part of the D&D 5e rules will resolve some balance issue of the current EA version, especially regarding the bonus action issue. But it is only EA now, so I guess Larian will try to test and fix these issues in general, and I guess Larian will also try to accept more of D&D 5e rules to fix several parts.

However, any 5e TRPG players would know this, there are some balance issues among classes and feats in the current D&D 5e rule. So, if there is an "authentic D&D 5e rule" mod for this game, there will be an additional "balance patch" for the "authentic D&D 5e rule" mod. Plus, typically, while we play TRPG, we don't 100% absolutely adhere to the 5e rule like CRPG. Sometimes, players discuss with DM to simplify the interpretation of the rule to save game time (like, "Look, guys, I wish to finish today's session but I really need to go after 20 min, so can we play this part in this way to save some time?"), and DM prepares in-house rules to fix balance or to give more challenge or to make the story more interesting. While Larian modified a good amount of 5e rules, I'm still understanding this as an attempt to make Larian's own in-house rules to develop BG3 in a better way and to blend the DOS2 style into BG3. I'm OK with that. But again, this is the EA stage, and it's only 2 weeks passed so far. I'm 100% sure full-release version will be changed a lot, as Larian would feel the necessity to fix some balance issues in the current BG3.

Honestly speaking, there can't be "absolutely 100% perfect balance" in any games. Whatever designers make, it is impossible to escape from loopholes and exploits. So, again, if there is a "DM mod" modding tool, a lot of people can be satisfied, and players and modders will try to fix these loopholes and exploits by themselves. But of course, before users make such mods, of course, I agree that the quality of the original game (BG3) should be fully satisfied, and I wish Larian finds the best spot balance to satisfy all players based on their in-house rules and 5e rules.

Posted By: JakiStow Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:35 PM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time


Then you found the best tactical way to way, congrats!
You don't like it because it's OP? Then roleplay something else instead of being tactical, literally no one is forcing you to min-max.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 02:55 PM
Originally Posted by Sharp

I don't rely much on stealth, I rely much more on [...] line of sight.


I know what you mean, but its still kinda funny.

Quote
Melee enemies can't catch you when you are using expeditious retreat and ranged enemies suffer against line of sight. Choke points are the tool for dealing with crowds, narrow corridors and doorways are all over the place in the arenas provided to us. The question really is, what constitutes "normal" play. Obviously, you do not balance the game around optimal gameplay or mechanics abuse in the case of reload cheese, but you should not balance the game around someone who is hitting the end turn button without doing anything every single turn either.


You always come back to "you can beat it by just following these steps". But it still isnt the point that you can beat it. The point is, that is not balanced in a way that makes all play styles equally viable. This is something that 5e is good at. Not perfect, but really good. There are ups and downs, and the later levels get a little whacky, but the balance between levels 5 to ~12-15 is good. And that class balance is held alive by things like bounded accuracy, saves, AC and concentration.

And those things get positively broken by unavoidable damage through surfaces. Look at the mighty firaball. 20 foot radius of pure fire carnage. Even here you get a save to avoid at least the full force of it, while some classes even can avoid it completely. Not even the mighty magic missile spell, a spell that is by design always hitting is unavoidable (hello shield spell).

Why would anyone learn the Create Bonfire spell? It is just a strictly worse option, when I just can buy some firebombs, that cant be avoided and dont require my concentration (not that concentration would be up for longer than 1 round anyway). These things actively invalidate spells and effects that 5e already brings zu the table. But 5e does it better.
Posted By: Argonaut Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Sharp

I don't rely much on stealth, I rely much more on [...] line of sight.


I know what you mean, but its still kinda funny.

Quote
Melee enemies can't catch you when you are using expeditious retreat and ranged enemies suffer against line of sight. Choke points are the tool for dealing with crowds, narrow corridors and doorways are all over the place in the arenas provided to us. The question really is, what constitutes "normal" play. Obviously, you do not balance the game around optimal gameplay or mechanics abuse in the case of reload cheese, but you should not balance the game around someone who is hitting the end turn button without doing anything every single turn either.


You always come back to "you can beat it by just following these steps". But it still isnt the point that you can beat it. The point is, that is not balanced in a way that makes all play styles equally viable. This is something that 5e is good at. Not perfect, but really good. There are ups and downs, and the later levels get a little whacky, but the balance between levels 5 to ~12-15 is good. And that class balance is held alive by things like bounded accuracy, saves, AC and concentration.

And those things get positively broken by unavoidable damage through surfaces. Look at the mighty firaball. 20 foot radius of pure fire carnage. Even here you get a save to avoid at least the full force of it, while some classes even can avoid it completely. Not even the mighty magic missile spell, a spell that is by design always hitting is unavoidable (hello shield spell).

Why would anyone learn the Create Bonfire spell? It is just a strictly worse option, when I just can buy some firebombs, that cant be avoided and dont require my concentration (not that concentration would be up for longer than 1 round anyway). These things actively invalidate spells and effects that 5e already brings zu the table. But 5e does it better.

While I agree with your sentiment and find your reasoning to be sound the last part caught my eye. Homogenization should not be a goal and it is a problem in 5e and generally there should be clear cut reasons as to why one source is superior to another in certain regards. While I don't think perfect balance is ideal I would prefer that the best choices are tied to classes and character while consumables can offer you alternatives not otherwise available to your selected party or have niche benefits.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Argonaut

While I agree with your sentiment and find your reasoning to be sound the last part caught my eye. Homogenization should not be a goal and it is a problem in 5e and generally there should be clear cut reasons as to why one source is superior to another in certain regards. While I don't think perfect balance is ideal I would prefer that the best choices are tied to classes and character while consumables can offer you alternatives not otherwise available to your selected party or have niche benefits.


I dont really feel that classes are not distinct enough. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. But they are balanced in a way which is not over all favoring one playstyle or class over all the others. Perfect balance is pretty much not possible, but good balance with some specialties and fun party interactions is a great thing. What are the problems you see with 5e? I only have 5e and some Pathfinder experience.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by Zer0
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


The changes make the game worse

The optimum tactical play in this game is to run 4 tiefling wizards spamming magic missiles, because it ignores all the ill conceived changes to targeting they've made, and you have fire resistance to deal with the entire world being on fire all of the time


The optimum tactical play in DnD has always been to run 4 Wizards because they're awesome. So it's true to the spirit of the tabletop.


one wizard using his concentration to haste an archer with sharpshooter is better than two wizards in 5e, unless you're fighting crowds all the time
Posted By: Sharp Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:19 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki

I know what you mean, but its still kinda funny.


I knew when I was writing that, that it read weird :P
Originally Posted by KingTiki

You always come back to "you can beat it by just following these steps". But it still isnt the point that you can beat it. The point is, that is not balanced in a way that makes all play styles equally viable. This is something that 5e is good at. Not perfect, but really good. There are ups and downs, and the later levels get a little whacky, but the balance between levels 5 to ~12-15 is good. And that class balance is held alive by things like bounded accuracy, saves, AC and concentration.

Here is the fundamental difference between you and me I think. I do not believe that all styles of gameplay should be equally viable. In a tabletop game, if a group of level 1 adventurers attacked a dragon head on, would the GM have them win the fight? More likely the GM would have them all die a horrible death. Imo, some approaches to combat should be doomed to fail horribly. The thrill of overcoming all the failed attempts where tactics were insufficient for the fight is part of what makes challenging battles enjoyable to me.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

And those things get positively broken by unavoidable damage through surfaces. Look at the mighty firaball. 20 foot radius of pure fire carnage. Even here you get a save to avoid at least the full force of it, while some classes even can avoid it completely. Not even the mighty magic missile spell, a spell that is by design always hitting is unavoidable (hello shield spell).

Then adjust them, allow saves against the damage, limit them to certain items or even as you pointed out below, the "create bonfire" spell. Nobody here is saying surfaces have to remain exactly as they are, I am just saying I don't want them gone.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

Why would anyone learn the Create Bonfire spell? It is just a strictly worse option, when I just can buy some firebombs, that cant be avoided and dont require my concentration (not that concentration would be up for longer than 1 round anyway). These things actively invalidate spells and effects that 5e already brings zu the table. But 5e does it better.

Homogeneous balance is balance of the worst kind. It removes all of the flavor from a setting.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by Sharp

Here is the fundamental difference between you and me I think. I do not believe that all styles of gameplay should be equally viable. In a tabletop game, if a group of level 1 adventurers attacked a dragon head on, would the GM have them win the fight? More likely the GM would have them all die a horrible death. Imo, some approaches to combat should be doomed to fail horribly. The thrill of overcoming all the failed attempts where tactics were insufficient for the fight is part of what makes challenging battles enjoyable to me.


That is not what I am saying. I agree that there should be unwinnable encounters and strategies. If we piss of a dragon at lvl 1 we deserve to die. But if we score strategies there should be different strategies that are really great to win one specific encounter and also some that are really bad. But not 1 that is really great, some that are so-and-so and a few that are really screwed. Variety is king, as you yourself later admit wink

Quote
Then adjust them, allow saves against the damage, limit them to certain items or even as you pointed out below, the "create bonfire" spell. Nobody here is saying surfaces have to remain exactly as they are, I am just saying I don't want them gone.


That is what I am arguing for. And tbh, most others, too. When I look here or on reddit, most people argue that the surfaces need to be redesigned. It is just that:
1. not the majority of encounters needs them, make them special
2. they should some from things that are already in the rules.

Incidentally the surfaces that work like in 5e do feel like the better ones. Web for example is pretty fine:
- you get a save every round
- you only lose movement is lost
- you can try to break the enemies concentration to lose it, too
- the enemies can sacrifice the web for a round of AoE fire

See, how great that works? You actually have options here that are more interesting as "better not walk in stuff", "Better sneak into position before combat starts". Also the web fire is more interesting as even the enemy has to calculate if restricting movement is better or doing a little bit AoE. All around this works so much better. A Bonfire can create similar scenarios, where you block doors with it for example.

Quote
Homogeneous balance is balance of the worst kind. It removes all of the flavor from a setting.


Depends. Not everyone should be as good in all things, I agree. But the overall things that someone is good in should be balanced. If not you just create strictly worse options, which are also rarely fun.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by Sharp
Originally Posted by KingTiki

I know what you mean, but its still kinda funny.


I knew when I was writing that, that it read weird :P
Originally Posted by KingTiki

You always come back to "you can beat it by just following these steps". But it still isnt the point that you can beat it. The point is, that is not balanced in a way that makes all play styles equally viable. This is something that 5e is good at. Not perfect, but really good. There are ups and downs, and the later levels get a little whacky, but the balance between levels 5 to ~12-15 is good. And that class balance is held alive by things like bounded accuracy, saves, AC and concentration.

Here is the fundamental difference between you and me I think. I do not believe that all styles of gameplay should be equally viable. In a tabletop game, if a group of level 1 adventurers attacked a dragon head on, would the GM have them win the fight? More likely the GM would have them all die a horrible death. Imo, some approaches to combat should be doomed to fail horribly. The thrill of overcoming all the failed attempts where tactics were insufficient for the fight is part of what makes challenging battles enjoyable to me.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

And those things get positively broken by unavoidable damage through surfaces. Look at the mighty firaball. 20 foot radius of pure fire carnage. Even here you get a save to avoid at least the full force of it, while some classes even can avoid it completely. Not even the mighty magic missile spell, a spell that is by design always hitting is unavoidable (hello shield spell).

Then adjust them, allow saves against the damage, limit them to certain items or even as you pointed out below, the "create bonfire" spell. Nobody here is saying surfaces have to remain exactly as they are, I am just saying I don't want them gone.

Originally Posted by KingTiki

Why would anyone learn the Create Bonfire spell? It is just a strictly worse option, when I just can buy some firebombs, that cant be avoided and dont require my concentration (not that concentration would be up for longer than 1 round anyway). These things actively invalidate spells and effects that 5e already brings zu the table. But 5e does it better.

Homogeneous balance is balance of the worst kind. It removes all of the flavor from a setting.


Yes, more and more of the system will need to be redesigned around Larian's porting of divinity content to this game

or we could skip rebalancing one of the most balanced and well received tabletop combat systems and keep as close to it as is reasonable, deviating only when it's more fun or for practicality

Create Bonfire is an incomparable cantrip to others, it's worse for damage, but it's the only cantrip that's able to set things on fire and burn them down - and its function is exceeded by common consumables. 5e already has flammable consumables, they burn for 2 rounds and do exactly 5 damage a round. How about we try sticking to the ruleset they picked up and see how it works out?

Why should every combat be a goddamned michael bay battle
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:13 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki


I'm not going to requote the whole thing, but I agree with all of this.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:14 PM
Originally Posted by Cowoline
+1 to the OP's statement. If you want 100% accuracy then make your own D&D campaign instead of having unrealistic expectations to a video game.


Oh come on, it's not an unrealistic expection, there are literally mods on the nexus that go along way towards what we're asking for

How is it unrealistic?
Posted By: Abits Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:19 PM
Eh what can you do. People are passionate about different stuff. I don't envy Larian on that regard
Posted By: Argonaut Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Argonaut

While I agree with your sentiment and find your reasoning to be sound the last part caught my eye. Homogenization should not be a goal and it is a problem in 5e and generally there should be clear cut reasons as to why one source is superior to another in certain regards. While I don't think perfect balance is ideal I would prefer that the best choices are tied to classes and character while consumables can offer you alternatives not otherwise available to your selected party or have niche benefits.


I dont really feel that classes are not distinct enough. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. But they are balanced in a way which is not over all favoring one playstyle or class over all the others. Perfect balance is pretty much not possible, but good balance with some specialties and fun party interactions is a great thing. What are the problems you see with 5e? I only have 5e and some Pathfinder experience.

I don't think 5e is too bad and my main gripe with it is that the specializations are not effective enough. For example battle master should have been focused on giving fighters battlefield control rather than being optimal for damage. Champion should give you more social options etc.

In the case of this game thought take surface effects for example. They can be caused by consumables and spells and abilities but this homogenization makes them feel samey and puts consumables on a much closer tier to spells and abilities which is never a good thing. I wouldn't have even batted an eye if they added surface effects sparingly in order to boost some otherwise underpowered abilities or racial traits that lack an oomph to them. In terms of the classes take the warlock class. They are capable of being a party face while performing exceedingly well in combat as well as having options for utility and battlefield control. Compare them to every other class in the game. This is a problem that exists in 5e as well mind you. I'd like to go on more about this but due to it being EA there is too much missing and too much underdeveloped to really be sure yet.
Posted By: Limz Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by KingTiki


Depends. Not everyone should be as good in all things, I agree. But the overall things that someone is good in should be balanced. If not you just create strictly worse options, which are also rarely fun.


If there is a meta for something then everything else leaning in that direction that isn't meta is strictly a worse option. That being the case, there are plenty of examples where people have fun despite playing strictly inferior choices.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:24 PM
We can already see the changes Larian had to make, goblins have 3 times the hp and half the AC, to accommodate surfaces, and to accommodate their ridiculous height 3:1 advantage system

They're going to have to rebalance concentration as a result as well, which will rebalance concentration spells, which will...

this is just going to be a spiral of them gutting the system they were given to use, and it's going to be unrecognizable by launch (battles already feel more like Divinity than D&D, the game really wants you to just shit fire everywhere and burn your enemies out)
Posted By: Abits Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:25 PM
Originally Posted by override367
We can already see the changes Larian had to make, goblins have 3 times the hp and half the AC, to accommodate surfaces, and to accommodate their ridiculous height 3:1 advantage system

They're going to have to rebalance concentration as a result as well, which will rebalance concentration spells, which will...

this is just going to be a spiral of them gutting the system they were given to use, and it's going to be unrecognizable by launch (battles already feel more like Divinity than D&D, the game really wants you to just shit fire everywhere and burn your enemies out)

I think the goblin changes were also made so you could fight in smaller numbers
Posted By: Limz Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by override367
We can already see the changes Larian had to make, goblins have 3 times the hp and half the AC, to accommodate surfaces, and to accommodate their ridiculous height 3:1 advantage system

They're going to have to rebalance concentration as a result as well, which will rebalance concentration spells, which will...

this is just going to be a spiral of them gutting the system they were given to use, and it's going to be unrecognizable by launch (battles already feel more like Divinity than D&D, the game really wants you to just shit fire everywhere and burn your enemies out)



You're not really being smart about this are you?

You know Larian has to balance for multiple things and there are some things that 5e is not good with and some things that 5e is like any fucking system -- in short: context matters a lot and balance is always contextual.

As Abits mentioned the changes were most likely to ramp up difficulty while keeping the encounter number low, you can probably then imagine why they would want to keep the encounter number low.

You can also see how the other battles NOT involving goblins turns out. Guess what? A LOT less surface effects and a lot less manipulation of height.

Try looking at it from their shoes or what possible perspectives may have caused them to do so before going full drool cup.


Posted By: Argonaut Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367
We can already see the changes Larian had to make, goblins have 3 times the hp and half the AC, to accommodate surfaces, and to accommodate their ridiculous height 3:1 advantage system

They're going to have to rebalance concentration as a result as well, which will rebalance concentration spells, which will...

this is just going to be a spiral of them gutting the system they were given to use, and it's going to be unrecognizable by launch (battles already feel more like Divinity than D&D, the game really wants you to just shit fire everywhere and burn your enemies out)



You're not really being smart about this are you?

You know Larian has to balance for multiple things and there are some things that 5e is not good with and some things that 5e is like any fucking system -- in short: context matters a lot and balance is always contextual.

As Abits mentioned the changes were most likely to ramp up difficulty while keeping the encounter number low, you can probably then imagine why they would want to keep the encounter number low.

You can also see how the other battles NOT involving goblins turns out. Guess what? A LOT less surface effects and a lot less manipulation of height.

Try looking at it from their shoes or what possible perspectives may have caused them to do so before going full drool cup.



Your logic seems sound until you remember that 5e has been play tested and balanced already over a long period of time by a pool of candidates far greater in number and diverse in playstyle than anything larian has access to. There are many ways to balance fights to be challenging without altering mechanics and the mechanics they have altered eschew the combat in ways that are counter productive to balance. Somebody even made a thread highlighting how the surface effects are absolutely domineering when it comes to concentration checks for spells. It is creating more problems than it is solving.
Posted By: Aurgelmir Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


Nothing really "not 5e" about surfaces, they aren't the problem, it's how easy they are to come by, and the changes made to spells, that I don't like.
I'd rather see them make most items and spells behave as at the table top, and add a spell or two from their own making if they want more surfaces.

Thing is there are a plethora of rules for surfaces in 5e, and spells who create these effects. Want a burning thing on the floor? Well you got "Create Bonfire", a spell. So why does Firebolt do the same?


Swen often talks about understanding the language of the game, and I feel they are on to something but has somethings lost in transalation.
Posted By: Creslin321 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 06:06 PM
Completely agree with OP. I feel the same about the "it's not just like BG1 and 2" crowd.
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Cowoline
+1 to the OP's statement. If you want 100% accuracy then make your own D&D campaign instead of having unrealistic expectations to a video game.


Oh come on, it's not an unrealistic expection, there are literally mods on the nexus that go along way towards what we're asking for

How is it unrealistic?

Not to mention that there are other games that stuck close to 5e AND work way better than BG3.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 06:40 PM
I am definitely in the camp of not caring about 5e rules. I dislike D&D mechanics anyway, and if Larian were to take an axe to 5e rules and mechanics I would become their most vocal cheerleader.

However, I also utterly dislike the extent to which the game has those elemental surface interactions. Those don't add "tactical depth." They're just annoying, tedious, silly cheese. It is ridiculous that there would be all those surfaces so very conveniently available exactly where you want them exactly when you want them. Furthermore, it is also ridiculous that so many barrels of oil are just lying around everywhere waiting for the party to gather them up and cheese with them.
Posted By: Worm Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.


Honestly surfaces and area effects aren't a new thing to Baldur's Gate and they notoriously were pretty annoying
https://i.imgur.com/EC8OBSz.jpg
remember this guy?

I think they need to balance surfaces a little from pure gameplay perspective. Putting down brine or fire can decimate enemies since they have no option but to run through it. Fire also can remove things like grasping vines or grease and basically undermines the use of those spells completely. Also early enemies have way too many alchemist fires, acid vials, fire arrows, and acid arrows too.
Posted By: endolex Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I am definitely in the camp of not caring about 5e rules. I dislike D&D mechanics anyway, and if Larian were to take an axe to 5e rules and mechanics I would become their most vocal cheerleader.


Out of curiosity: Do you also waltz into a football game and declare you like baseball better, and that you hope they change the rules to accomodate you?
Posted By: endolex Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Cowoline
+1 to the OP's statement. If you want 100% accuracy then make your own D&D campaign instead of having unrealistic expectations to a video game.


Oh come on, it's not an unrealistic expection, there are literally mods on the nexus that go along way towards what we're asking for

How is it unrealistic?

Not to mention that there are other games that stuck close to 5e AND work way better than BG3.


For 5E specifically only the upcoming Solasta comes to my mind - do you know other examples, I'd be curious to know? But previous D&D editions: Yes, pretty much agreed. Larian right now is bending the rules more than any other D&D C-RPG game developer.
Posted By: Gaidax Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 08:04 PM
While I think surfaces themselves are ok, I do think they need to be less readily available as it is now.

Frankly, one may ask what's the point of playing something like Wizard, when your average meathead fighter can just toss explosive or oil barrel and do carnage on par with Fireball at will and every turn if he so desires, with all these countless barrels of wine/powder/whatever you can collect from everywhere and stock in camp.

I can understand when you have a specific big encounter with opportunity to drop some trash, like that
second fight at druid gate where you can blow up sappers and toss already placed 2 barrels down, which makes sense because it's siege preparation.
These kind of things ARE fine, when you have some explosive intended to be exploited in a specific encounter to help you a tad right there, where it makes sense and not overused everywhere.

But just being able to hoard barrels and toss them around willy nilly? That should be a no, IMO.
Posted By: Sinople Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 09:08 PM
The differences I really don't like, because of a bad gameplay experience (not because they are just differences).

A. Disengage as an action bonus. Make the whole concept of opportunity attack, protect by placement become totally irrelevant. Battle looks like a Benny Hill episode instead of an epic switch form bow to sword. Would say the same for pushing. But I like the idea of jumping for an action bonus cost (instead of free jump).

B. Helping people, saving them from death and putting them to their foot (instead of the saving from game-over or a really more costly resurrection). Looking at a streamer trying to help 10 ten turn in a row his fellow which go immediately back on the ground should be enough as argument. There is just no fun ! Just let helped people unconscious for the rest of the battle and make the AI stop focus them !

Bonus : The camp.

Actually, I really don't like the fact that sleeping in the camp is totaly "free". I know the problem is not simple. But having the challenge of clearing a dungeon in a single run instead of taking a snap after each encouter would be really great !
Posted By: Makeshift Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



Hear hear! Agree, nicely put.

Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 10:46 PM
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367
We can already see the changes Larian had to make, goblins have 3 times the hp and half the AC, to accommodate surfaces, and to accommodate their ridiculous height 3:1 advantage system

They're going to have to rebalance concentration as a result as well, which will rebalance concentration spells, which will...

this is just going to be a spiral of them gutting the system they were given to use, and it's going to be unrecognizable by launch (battles already feel more like Divinity than D&D, the game really wants you to just shit fire everywhere and burn your enemies out)



You're not really being smart about this are you?

You know Larian has to balance for multiple things and there are some things that 5e is not good with and some things that 5e is like any fucking system -- in short: context matters a lot and balance is always contextual.

As Abits mentioned the changes were most likely to ramp up difficulty while keeping the encounter number low, you can probably then imagine why they would want to keep the encounter number low.

You can also see how the other battles NOT involving goblins turns out. Guess what? A LOT less surface effects and a lot less manipulation of height.

Try looking at it from their shoes or what possible perspectives may have caused them to do so before going full drool cup.




I am, their height system is asinine and is going to break so many builds, it belongs in a game where everyone can teleport, not in Dungeons and Dragons

I can work through the design logic from internal testing, the monster manual goblins would be incredibly frustrating to fight with their (NOT D&D's!) elevation system, giving you an incredibly low chance to hit them with their elevated defensive positions. Furthermore, with their surfaces, it wouldn't matter because you can just throw fire

So they have to break more and more of D&D to accomodate their Michael Bay esque love of fire everywhere

What are the consequences right now? Concentrating on spells is MUCH harder than the original design intent. Spells that rely on fixed hp like Sleep are much less powerful than they are supposed to be (ignoring the further nerfs they gave sleep by not having it last for the full minute), spells like fireball aren't going to be sufficient to kill large groups of enemies.

To put this in perspective, since you obviously have no clue how D&D 5e works: A maximum level wizard getting firebolted by a level 1 enemy has (assumption: war caster, 14 constitution) a ~12% chance of losing concentration on their spell. Cool, really slim.

In baldur's gate 3, that same archmage, weaver of reality, bringer of Armageddon, getting hit by a level 1 firebolt has something like a 40% chance to lose concentration if they get hit (hit->catch fire->walk out of fire->burn for 1 tick-> 4 saves)

So this will obviously need to be fixed!

I look forward to what other parts of this incredibly well balanced TTRPG system are needlessly changed to accommodate their desire to make another Divinity game instead of a D&D game.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 19/10/20 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Cowoline
+1 to the OP's statement. If you want 100% accuracy then make your own D&D campaign instead of having unrealistic expectations to a video game.


Oh come on, it's not an unrealistic expection, there are literally mods on the nexus that go along way towards what we're asking for

How is it unrealistic?

Not to mention that there are other games that stuck close to 5e AND work way better than BG3.


Solasta Crown of the Magister is coming out in like a week and it is MUCH closer to the tabletop, for example, flying creatures can actually fly instead of shooting themselves like a missile

It's made by a small, indy team, and it has no multiplayer, and little voice acting, so its no replacement for the professional endeavor BG3 is

However it does have combats against properly statted 5e enemies and is genuinely harder in parts than BG3 because there's not very much actual cheese in a straight 5e game without a DM that lets you get away with bullshit
Posted By: Limz Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 01:38 AM
Originally Posted by override367


I am, their height system is asinine and is going to break so many builds, it belongs in a game where everyone can teleport, not in Dungeons and Dragons


Please give us some examples of builds that you would find in the PHB that would be broken by this.


Originally Posted by override367

I can work through the design logic from internal testing, the monster manual goblins would be incredibly frustrating to fight with their (NOT D&D's!) elevation system, giving you an incredibly low chance to hit them with their elevated defensive positions. Furthermore, with their surfaces, it wouldn't matter because you can just throw fire


You really can't because you haven't once addressed the problems that arise when you're in this specific context; you legitimately cannot understand design if you have no idea what the system is designed for.


Originally Posted by override367

So they have to break more and more of D&D to accomodate their Michael Bay esque love of fire everywhere

What are the consequences right now? Concentrating on spells is MUCH harder than the original design intent. Spells that rely on fixed hp like Sleep are much less powerful than they are supposed to be (ignoring the further nerfs they gave sleep by not having it last for the full minute), spells like fireball aren't going to be sufficient to kill large groups of enemies.

To put this in perspective, since you obviously have no clue how D&D 5e works: A maximum level wizard getting firebolted by a level 1 enemy has (assumption: war caster, 14 constitution) a ~12% chance of losing concentration on their spell. Cool, really slim.


D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would, understand that no system is balanced especially when you try to use it in a different context.

You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues; things like sleep can be easily tuned and keep in mind it no longer has a min/max, it's simply a flat number which makes more sense for what they're seeming to aim for. But you don't even know what kind of direction they might be headed in because all you think about is how it's not 5e, so your criticisms aren't even aligned properly.

And honestly I wouldn't bother speculating about maximum level wizards or even bringing up this scenario unless you understand what they may be aiming at. And guess what? It's not a strict interpretation of 5e, they have bigger fish to fry.

(Also, your example is fucking retarded because in any given scenario there's definitely going to be gear involved).



Originally Posted by override367

I look forward to what other parts of this incredibly well balanced TTRPG system are needlessly changed to accommodate their desire to make another Divinity game instead of a D&D game.


I look forward to your next brain dead argument. One day, you'll be able to form a coherent argument that would allow you to pass a phone screen for an architect position. That bar is really low.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367


I am, their height system is asinine and is going to break so many builds, it belongs in a game where everyone can teleport, not in Dungeons and Dragons


Please give us some examples of builds that you would find in the PHB that would be broken by this.


Originally Posted by override367

I can work through the design logic from internal testing, the monster manual goblins would be incredibly frustrating to fight with their (NOT D&D's!) elevation system, giving you an incredibly low chance to hit them with their elevated defensive positions. Furthermore, with their surfaces, it wouldn't matter because you can just throw fire


You really can't because you haven't once addressed the problems that arise when you're in this specific context; you legitimately cannot understand design if you have no idea what the system is designed for.


Originally Posted by override367

So they have to break more and more of D&D to accomodate their Michael Bay esque love of fire everywhere

What are the consequences right now? Concentrating on spells is MUCH harder than the original design intent. Spells that rely on fixed hp like Sleep are much less powerful than they are supposed to be (ignoring the further nerfs they gave sleep by not having it last for the full minute), spells like fireball aren't going to be sufficient to kill large groups of enemies.

To put this in perspective, since you obviously have no clue how D&D 5e works: A maximum level wizard getting firebolted by a level 1 enemy has (assumption: war caster, 14 constitution) a ~12% chance of losing concentration on their spell. Cool, really slim.


D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would, understand that no system is balanced especially when you try to use it in a different context.

You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues; things like sleep can be easily tuned and keep in mind it no longer has a min/max, it's simply a flat number which makes more sense for what they're seeming to aim for. But you don't even know what kind of direction they might be headed in because all you think about is how it's not 5e, so your criticisms aren't even aligned properly.

And honestly I wouldn't bother speculating about maximum level wizards or even bringing up this scenario unless you understand what they may be aiming at. And guess what? It's not a strict interpretation of 5e, they have bigger fish to fry.

(Also, your example is fucking retarded because in any given scenario there's definitely going to be gear involved).



Originally Posted by override367

I look forward to what other parts of this incredibly well balanced TTRPG system are needlessly changed to accommodate their desire to make another Divinity game instead of a D&D game.


I look forward to your next brain dead argument. One day, you'll be able to form a coherent argument that would allow you to pass a phone screen for an architect position. That bar is really low.


Jeez. Another blind Larian fanboy.
Posted By: tsundokugames Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 02:13 AM
@OP

make me. you don't get to tell me what my opinion is.
Posted By: simsurf Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 02:15 AM
Elemental surfaces are boring as hell and not a 5E thing. If they wanted to make a new divinity, just make a new divinity instead of trying to call it a 5E DnD game. Solasta with a team of 17 people, has shit all over this game.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 02:20 AM
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367
Sleep are much less powerful than they are supposed to be (ignoring the further nerfs they gave sleep by not having it last for the full minute), spells like fireball aren't going to be sufficient to kill large groups of enemies.

You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues; things like sleep can be easily tuned and keep in mind it no longer has a min/max, it's simply a flat number which makes more sense for what they're seeming to aim for.

I'm not commenting on whether the changes Larian has made are good or bad. But I will disagree that "sleep can be easily tuned." The current state of the game is that goblins we fight have more HP than 5e goblins, so sleep is weaker. The simple fix I see for Sleep is to make it affect more HP. Okay, but now what happens when enemies cast this more-powerful version of sleep on you, the party, who don't have artificially-increased HP? Sleep is now overpowered against the party. To fix this, you give all PCs their max HP on levelup to account for this. But now encounters are less challenging and you have to buff all enemies' damage or HP, which makes sleep underpowered again....etc

The example above is hyperbole, sure, but still relevant. Changes made to a small thing (like goblin HP) can cascade into having to change a whole bunch of other things. If Larian can successfully change all these other things, okay great! If not, then it's a problem.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367
Sleep are much less powerful than they are supposed to be (ignoring the further nerfs they gave sleep by not having it last for the full minute), spells like fireball aren't going to be sufficient to kill large groups of enemies.

You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues; things like sleep can be easily tuned and keep in mind it no longer has a min/max, it's simply a flat number which makes more sense for what they're seeming to aim for.

I'm not commenting on whether the changes Larian has made are good or bad. But I will disagree that "sleep can be easily tuned." The current state of the game is that goblins we fight have more HP than 5e goblins, so sleep is weaker. The simple fix I see for Sleep is to make it affect more HP. Okay, but now what happens when enemies cast this more-powerful version of sleep on you, the party, who don't have artificially-increased HP? Sleep is now overpowered against the party. To fix this, you give all PCs their max HP on levelup to account for this. But now encounters are less challenging and you have to buff all enemies' damage or HP, which makes sleep underpowered again....etc

The example above is hyperbole, sure, but still relevant. Changes made to a small thing (like goblin HP) can cascade into having to change a whole bunch of other things. If Larian can successfully change all these other things, okay great! If not, then it's a problem.


+1, valid point. Also keep in mind some enemies' HP is not tuned, so the 'sleep can be easily tuned' is a naive thought. If only goblin's hp is tuned but not other monsters, how can make sleep affect larger health pool work? It will become overpowered.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 06:28 AM
Originally Posted by Limz

D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would


While there is no perfectly balanced system out there, 5e is pretty darn good. You show little understanding for it, but are very rude to overcompensate that fact.

Quote
You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues


Maybe refrain from calling other users terrible.
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by endolex
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by Cowoline
+1 to the OP's statement. If you want 100% accuracy then make your own D&D campaign instead of having unrealistic expectations to a video game.


Oh come on, it's not an unrealistic expection, there are literally mods on the nexus that go along way towards what we're asking for

How is it unrealistic?

Not to mention that there are other games that stuck close to 5e AND work way better than BG3.


For 5E specifically only the upcoming Solasta comes to my mind - do you know other examples, I'd be curious to know? But previous D&D editions: Yes, pretty much agreed. Larian right now is bending the rules more than any other D&D C-RPG game developer.


I am thinking of Solasta specifically, should have been more clear.
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 07:10 AM
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367


I am, their height system is asinine and is going to break so many builds, it belongs in a game where everyone can teleport, not in Dungeons and Dragons


Please give us some examples of builds that you would find in the PHB that would be broken by this.


Originally Posted by override367

I can work through the design logic from internal testing, the monster manual goblins would be incredibly frustrating to fight with their (NOT D&D's!) elevation system, giving you an incredibly low chance to hit them with their elevated defensive positions. Furthermore, with their surfaces, it wouldn't matter because you can just throw fire


You really can't because you haven't once addressed the problems that arise when you're in this specific context; you legitimately cannot understand design if you have no idea what the system is designed for.


Originally Posted by override367

So they have to break more and more of D&D to accomodate their Michael Bay esque love of fire everywhere

What are the consequences right now? Concentrating on spells is MUCH harder than the original design intent. Spells that rely on fixed hp like Sleep are much less powerful than they are supposed to be (ignoring the further nerfs they gave sleep by not having it last for the full minute), spells like fireball aren't going to be sufficient to kill large groups of enemies.

To put this in perspective, since you obviously have no clue how D&D 5e works: A maximum level wizard getting firebolted by a level 1 enemy has (assumption: war caster, 14 constitution) a ~12% chance of losing concentration on their spell. Cool, really slim.


D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would, understand that no system is balanced especially when you try to use it in a different context.

You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues; things like sleep can be easily tuned and keep in mind it no longer has a min/max, it's simply a flat number which makes more sense for what they're seeming to aim for. But you don't even know what kind of direction they might be headed in because all you think about is how it's not 5e, so your criticisms aren't even aligned properly.

And honestly I wouldn't bother speculating about maximum level wizards or even bringing up this scenario unless you understand what they may be aiming at. And guess what? It's not a strict interpretation of 5e, they have bigger fish to fry.

(Also, your example is fucking retarded because in any given scenario there's definitely going to be gear involved).



Originally Posted by override367

I look forward to what other parts of this incredibly well balanced TTRPG system are needlessly changed to accommodate their desire to make another Divinity game instead of a D&D game.


I look forward to your next brain dead argument. One day, you'll be able to form a coherent argument that would allow you to pass a phone screen for an architect position. That bar is really low.

You are missing the point. Sleep cannot be "easily tuned" because if you do that something else will break along that way. For example, lets say we increase the amount of HP it affects, cool. Well damn now sleep ruins some of our encounters, ok buff their HP so only some are affected. Oh the monsters have too much HP already? Eh buff their cantrips. Their first level spells are not powerful enough anymore when compared to cantrips? Buff the spells. Etc etc.
Posted By: arion Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 07:27 AM
Quote
Swen Vincke: BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
The cool thing we found is that a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, actually survived the translation, so I think that if you like Dungeons and Dragons and you want to play BG3, you’re going to be happy.

nothing to say more
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 09:12 AM
Originally Posted by arion
Quote
Swen Vincke: BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
The cool thing we found is that a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, actually survived the translation, so I think that if you like Dungeons and Dragons and you want to play BG3, you’re going to be happy.

nothing to say more

Evidently that is not the case with quite a few DnD folks.
Posted By: Gaidax Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 08:22 PM
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias

I am thinking of Solasta specifically, should have been more clear.


I find it hilarious Solasta is mentioned when they have stuff like Wizards that are as good as Rangers with a bow with "Greenmage" school (they even get Archery AND Hunter's Mark kekw) or Paladins that can toss a bloody Fireball at level 5.

Solasta is not some paragon of D&D purity there.
Posted By: Druid_NPC Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.


That about sums it up. The problem is not that they made changes, its that they didn't have to, and it didn't made the game better.
Posted By: SilverSaint Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias

I am thinking of Solasta specifically, should have been more clear.


I find it hilarious Solasta is mentioned when they have stuff like Wizards that are as good as Rangers with a bow with "Greenmage" school (they even get Archery AND Hunter's Mark kekw) or Paladins that can toss a bloody Fireball at level 5.

Solasta is not some paragon of D&D purity there.

Solasta is playing by the rules and writing it's own subclasses.

BG3 is that DM who wrote his own 5.5 rules. For better or worse. More than needed.

I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance. I don't even mean the gernade spam-I'm fine with that, people usually ignore thrown weapons like alchemists fire entirely because they suck. If they did a little bit more via surface creation I'd be fine with it. But the timing of damage right now, and the impact of these insane goddamn barrels, is nuts. Spells like firebolt and ray of frost are insanely powerful. Bonus actions are simply stupidly broken, with any form of battlefield positioning a lost cause because everything can jump past frontline character and AOO are a myth.

There are serious issues here, more than Larian adding their own touch. They could fix this by rebalancing numbers mostly, and the timing of damage-being set of fire should have a delay before damage starts, and only trigger once unless you are still in the fire source. It should only occur if you are on a fire surface, which should require either a specific cantrip (there are spells which literally just create persistent fires, create bonfire or shape fire) or a higher level spell like fireball. The other surfaces need similar treatment. Maybe let cantrips specifically aimed at the ground create small surfaces, if it does not overlap a character. And barrels need to be reduced in impact by an order of magnitude, and almost every bonus action completely axed in the current form.
Posted By: Gaidax Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 08:59 PM
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
[
I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance.


Yes because clearly auto-upcasting Wizards or literal Wizard-Rangers backed by Scorching/Fireball Paladins do not infringe on balance.

I just find it funny how Solasta is apparently our lord and savior, while BG3 is the devil. I currently do a Solasta run and it has plenty of its own stuff that is nowhere to be found in 5e, including environmental effects. Know why? Because it's a video game and video games need a bit more than RAW 5e.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 09:04 PM
I only did the Solasta demo a few weeks back, but disregarding the homebrew classes they still do some things better atm. Reactions alone are a huge factor. What you criticize is easyly fixed, but the systems are in better shape.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Vynticator
Rather too many people here getting frothy over changes from core 5e rules. Larian do their own version of 5e rules. Elemental surfaces are fun, make the map layout and positioning absolutely crucial, and allow for much more tactical play. Some people get hung up on minute differences from 5e: maybe enjoy the game as it is, if it doesn't work in the game, then critique it in those terms. 5e isn't a bible and it's not useful to be fundamentalist.



I played D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. I enjoyed D:OS 1 and D:OS 2. This is a bad "hot take". I'd even call it a strawman argument.


  • For starters, Larian themselves have advertised this game as being based on the D&D 5e ruleset. They did not say "Based on the Divinity: Original Sin rules."
  • Don't tell people to stop complaining about the differences between 5e and this game. Larian does Early Access for a reason, which is specifically to get feedback. If you like the system as it is now, great, fine, that's feedback, and you are free to give it. Don't tell others to shut up.
  • I will now explain the reason for the complaints. It is not a reflexive, knee-jerk aversion to change.
  • Divinity: Original Sin 2 is balanced on the idea of being fully charged with all abilities available for each and every combat. Tactics are King.
  • Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition is balanced on being fully charged after a long rest, and then having resources and options slowly whittled down over the course of a day. Resource Management is King.
  • BG 3 is using Hit points, Armor Class, and Spell Slots for players from D&D 5e. They are using the Concentration mechanic from D&D 5e.
  • Monster HP in BG 3 is usually higher, Monster AC is usually lower, and Ability scores remain the same.
  • D&D's HP, AC and Concentration is not balanced around the idea of status-inflicting surfaces, status-inflicting attacks, and AoE attacks to be as prevalent as they are in BG 3.
  • Just about every single surface effect in D&D has some kind of saving throw to resist for half or no damage. There is no such thing as a guaranteed hit from a surface in 5e, but there is in BG3.
  • Concentration spells are balanced around a roll under 10 or half the damage losing concentration. The more checks you have to make, the greater the chance you will fail. You are far more likely to fail checks because you're doing a lot more of them.
  • Enemy HP is way up, enemy AC is way down. This makes spells balanced around on hitting AC more reliable. This makes spells which affect a certain amount of enemy HP far worse, such as Sleep and Color Spray, because they can affect fewer enemies.
  • Enemy saving throws remain the same. This makes spells balanced around enemies failing a saving throw will seem to suck more because they're doing less damage. Example: Sacred Flame - it does 1d8 - an average of 4.5. Fire Bolt does an average damage of 13.5 from what's supposed to be a 1d10 spell.
  • Armor Class is based around advantage being relatively rare. Statistically speaking, Advantage is an effective +4 (Disadvantage an effective -4). Constant advantage from high ground is and disadvantage from low ground means those on the high ground are dealing more damage, those on the low ground are missing more and dragging battles out longer than would be normal.
  • And I'm even leaving out bonus action shoves, disengages, and hides.
  • Larian has changed many things from 5e, but have left other things as standard. That does not work. The systems have different design goals in mind.



+1

I find it hilarious that some people are telling others (in a feedback forum no less) to stop commenting that this game, which is specifically advertised as a D&D game, vaguely resembles D&D5E. Rolling a D20 doesn't make it D&D. I'm sure the devs all have their big boy pants on and are expecting to hear all this negative feedback...they are working on one of the most publicized titles in a decade.

There are some very good components in what Larian has created so far. Unfortunately there are also some pretty unnecessary changes to core 5E rules that many of us don't feel are contributing to the game in a positive way. Some of them (I'm looking at you over-used ground effects) just ruin the experience for me completely in their current iteration. Things like endless food consumption in combat just demonstrates a change that is only needed because they gave the monsters too many hit points in the first place (and leads to long drawn out combat for no reason). I just hope Larian finds a better balance between "homebrew" and PHB rules than they have implemented so far.
Posted By: nation Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 09:18 PM
im pretty sure that even the way larian has been implementing the die role mechanic is different from traditional dnd 5e by reducing the ac rather than adding to your role - ive enjoyed ea so far, but still struggle considering this as bg3
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
[
I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance.


Yes because clearly auto-upcasting Wizards or literal Wizard-Rangers backed by Scorching/Fireball Paladins do not infringe on balance.

I just find it funny how Solasta is apparently our lord and savior, while BG3 is the devil. I currently do a Solasta run and it has plenty of its own stuff that is nowhere to be found in 5e, including environmental effects. Know why? Because it's a video game and video games need a bit more than RAW 5e.


That's because Solasta is a small studio and doesn't have access to the full 5e license from WotC, they only have access to the 5e SRD content. I've already talked to the Solasta creators and apparently it is just too expensive for them to try and get the full license, which is unfortunate.
Posted By: WarBaby2 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
[
I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance.


Yes because clearly auto-upcasting Wizards or literal Wizard-Rangers backed by Scorching/Fireball Paladins do not infringe on balance.

I just find it funny how Solasta is apparently our lord and savior, while BG3 is the devil. I currently do a Solasta run and it has plenty of its own stuff that is nowhere to be found in 5e, including environmental effects. Know why? Because it's a video game and video games need a bit more than RAW 5e.


That's because Solasta is a small studio and doesn't have access to the full 5e license from WotC, they only have access to the 5e SRD content. I've already talked to the Solasta creators and apparently it is just too expensive for them to try and get the full license, which is unfortunate.


That. Also, Solasta has the basics of 5e down pretty well already, even with their own additions...
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 10:29 PM
Get over this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv37JEeJ2as&ab_channel=TheSpiffingBrit

Philip Parker
Not sure if you are aware of the Jump + Fast Travel exploit? You cast the jump spell on your main character, and have them Jump to some place you couldn't normally reach. Normally your party would now be separated and would be very sad. However; you can open up the map, go to camp, and then leave the camp immediately, and for some reason your entire party will be spawned right next to your main character. It's a cheesy way to move your entire party anywhere in the map they normally couldn't reach.

Alison Albright
The stealth issues are actually a rules mistake on the part of Larian Studios. In D&D 5e, you cannot "Hide", "Dash", and "Attack" in the same round! In fact, you can only do one of the three, since they all require 1 "Standard Action", of which you have only one. 1 "Standard Action" per turn + 1 "Bonus Action" per turn +1 "Reaction" per turn + unlimited "Free Actions" per turn, and you can move up to your movement speed per turn before, during, and after expending the rest of the other action types.

"Standard Actions" include (but are not limited to): "Attack", "Dash", "Hide", "Help", "Disengage", "Investigate", and so on...
"Bonus Actions" are less common, but in general some class-related abilities as well as certain spells require "1 Bonus Action" to use. A Barbarian going into a Rage is an example of this, only 1 "Bonus Action" to use.
"Reactions" are pretty straightforward. Some classes and spells allow you to react by using them as a "Reaction" instead of a "Standard Action". In addition, you can use your "Standard Action" to prepare a "Reaction" to something the enemy might do. For example, preparing to dodge a flurry of arrows or sidestep a charging minotaur could be "Prepared Reactions".
"Free Actions" are things that take practically no time to accomplish, and can thus be treated as such from a gameplay standpoint. Things like drawing/sheathing your sword, or shouting a few words in the middle of a fight would fall into this category.

It seems to me like Larian Studios has classified the Hide Action and the Dash Action as "Free Actions", when in fact they are not.

Chris Toole
Are we sure Hodd Toward didn't make this game? It just works.

Paul Hawke
You can actually exploit stealth by engaging in combat with one character and doing KO attacks on enemies with another. As long as you don't actually fully KO the enemy, combat won't trigger.

Luke R
For those asking about infinite money:
It's pretty easy. Get shadow heart to 3 for pass without a trace, have Gale hit lvl 3 and pick up invisibility. Cast invis on your stealer, have Shadowheart cast pass without a trace and be near your stealer, enter turn based mode on your stealer, go up to merchant, pick pocket. With both of those spells up most items will have pickpocket dc of 0 or 1. Steal everything to your hearts content. (Be careful of the Tiefling blacksmith in the druid camp, he's a bit bugged right now and will auto aggro even if he doesn't catch you.) Once the trader is bone dry, take a long rest, this will restock their inventory, rinse and repeat.

Cody Yetze
The best stealth strat: Drop down a Fog Cloud or Darkness spell, heavily obscuring a large area. Your entire party can hide in the area, pop out to shoot someone, and hide again. Never lose a fight again!

The Potato
Larian studios: How'd you like to be an unpaid bug tester+advertiser... i mean, receive a free game?
Spiff: lmao. what are they thinking?

Yont EvenKnow
Oh look, poorly implemented stealth in a Larian game. Cant wait to have an entire town go hostile after misclicking on scenery.

yazuriha
I do hope they give some brains to the enemy. It's just too easy to kill everyone in the goblin keep/camp using highround and stealth. Just lob some smokepowder barrels and light it all up with some fire. Most of them just stand there shouting at you, totally puzzled. They should be running for the ladders (if you left those undestroyed)...but no. It's kinda funny though.

killereye
"...I hide and end my turn, and the AI does nothing..."
And this is how you f**k up the gameplay of Baldur's Gate, dear developers. You have copy/pasted Divinity gameplay onto B.G. making the same mistake as Bethesda did when they bought Fallout: You can only make one type of game. Sad thing.
On the other hand, nice exploits, TSB! Keep up the good work!

FrozenTub3
Tbh I am very disappointed with the game, I felt like playing DoS in Forgotten realms setting not playing a DnD game with some cool dos mechanics. I know it's early access but this to me is the biggest video game disappointments since diablo 3 vanila. Also for a big publisher the state of the early access is horrendous (I played quite a lot of early access games)

Papi John
Theres a bug with haste spores which you can really only use in the underdark with glut where you can run through the haste spores, attack, and run right back in to refresh your actions. I cant imagine why you would abuse it though...

Kilivin
As much as I love D&D and DOS... D&D =/= BG3 as much as they are trying to mirror one to the other, they're too invested in their DOS mechanics to do a proper job of it.
Example, you cannot stealth as a bonus action unless you're a rogue, but everyone in BG3 can stealth as a bonus action. You cannot "Summon" a pet as a ranger, you have a pet as an added character to your party. Firebolt doesn't set stuff worn or carried on fire, but in BG3 it does. The list goes on and on. Most of the exploits the game has is because they strayed from D&D's core mechanics in favor of more DOS style mechanics. Don't even get me started with stealth and enemies having "Limited vision cones" making no sense whatsoever. Stuff that blocks LOS breaks a cone that ought to be infinite upwards of what that creature has vision towards. Having a "Limited range" of vision so that you can stealth by something so long as you're far enough away from it yet in plain sight is sooooooooooooooo gamey.

Laszlo Ivanyi
Hey so that's what it was. I also did a big fight where everyone was standing. I didn't do any hide and seek, but they might have been focusing on a character that started that way. But after 2 days, I concluded this is not baldurs gate, this is Divinity 3. I couldn't see a single thing in it that would remind me of BG2.. good game regardless, just not baldurs gate.

Liquidated
You never really mentioned why the ranger is so broken at level 3. =)
This game is a riot, so large and destructible.

MorpH2k
Expecting people to pay 50€ for a buggy early access games is insane, and this video shows exactly why. smirk If they want free bug testing the least they could do is discount the price a little bit. I used to like early access, at least as a concept, but it's gotten completely out of hand.
Posted By: WarBaby2 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 10:40 PM


Case and point: That's what happens when you go "freestyle" before you nail your basic systems down...
Posted By: SilverSaint Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by nation
im pretty sure that even the way larian has been implementing the die role mechanic is different from traditional dnd 5e by reducing the ac rather than adding to your role - ive enjoyed ea so far, but still struggle considering this as bg3

Finding fault with this is just being unreasonable, and I clearly find fault with a lot with the current system. This is literally the difference between adding something to X versus subtracting it from Y, if we view this as "different" we've entered the ground of what being equivalent even means.

Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
[
I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance.


Yes because clearly auto-upcasting Wizards or literal Wizard-Rangers backed by Scorching/Fireball Paladins do not infringe on balance.

I just find it funny how Solasta is apparently our lord and savior, while BG3 is the devil. I currently do a Solasta run and it has plenty of its own stuff that is nowhere to be found in 5e, including environmental effects. Know why? Because it's a video game and video games need a bit more than RAW 5e.

It doesen't. Wizards with ranger spells aren't rangers, they don't get the features of a ranger otherwise including extra attack. Paladins with boomey spells likewise does not infringe on balance, because they lack the spell slots to really spam those spells. Heck, you can make a Paladin/Sorcerer that can do the same thing, at the same levels, and it's not broken at all.

Everything getting free disengage, on the otherhand, takes the balance out back and shoots it between the eyes in a shallow grave. It's almost impossible to control an area in the current rule-set, for instance, or to maintain concentration against fire effects, or to survive against a trap with barrels. Every problem can also be solved by liberal application of barrels of smokepowder and oil in some combination to create the ideal fuel mixture and turn the map into a damned inferno.
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 20/10/20 11:52 PM
According to most users here, interesting encounters means turning every single encounter into "The Floor is Lava" while being on a cliff ( Portable or Not ).
Posted By: nation Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by nation
im pretty sure that even the way larian has been implementing the die role mechanic is different from traditional dnd 5e by reducing the ac rather than adding to your role - ive enjoyed ea so far, but still struggle considering this as bg3

Finding fault with this is just being unreasonable, and I clearly find fault with a lot with the current system. This is literally the difference between adding something to X versus subtracting it from Y, if we view this as "different" we've entered the ground of what being equivalent even means.
oh i dont disagree - and tbh im not sure this function is finalized yet, particularly regarding crit hits/misses - i was just highlighting what i found to be another small but unnecessary difference made by larian among the variety of other changes they made when merging 5e with their dos system that in aggregate concern me about what game we can expect at launch

and at first i was struggling for the longest time trying to figure out their math, lol
Posted By: vel Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:23 AM
Isaac Springsong you're spot on with this:

Quote

Larian made changes based on...literally no idea. Because they felt their style of play (DoS where every surface is an effect, every fight must be at full resources, every fight has to try to have a new gimmick, barrelmancy, etc) was superior to the style of Baldur's Gate?


That's the most succinct summary of why these deviations from 5e and feels like a DOS D&D mod.
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:30 AM
Quote

Larian made changes based on...literally no idea. Because they felt their style of play (DoS where every surface is an effect, every fight must be at full resources, every fight has to try to have a new gimmick, barrelmancy, etc) was superior to the style of Baldur's Gate?


So Fake News about the whole D&D stuff?

Posted By: Merry Mayhem Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:30 AM


TheSpiffingBrit has months and months of content for his channel thanks to Larian. smile

I may get more enjoyment from his videos then from the game. wink
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by nation
im pretty sure that even the way larian has been implementing the die role mechanic is different from traditional dnd 5e by reducing the ac rather than adding to your role - ive enjoyed ea so far, but still struggle considering this as bg3

Finding fault with this is just being unreasonable, and I clearly find fault with a lot with the current system. This is literally the difference between adding something to X versus subtracting it from Y, if we view this as "different" we've entered the ground of what being equivalent even means.

Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
[
I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance.


Yes because clearly auto-upcasting Wizards or literal Wizard-Rangers backed by Scorching/Fireball Paladins do not infringe on balance.

I just find it funny how Solasta is apparently our lord and savior, while BG3 is the devil. I currently do a Solasta run and it has plenty of its own stuff that is nowhere to be found in 5e, including environmental effects. Know why? Because it's a video game and video games need a bit more than RAW 5e.

It doesen't. Wizards with ranger spells aren't rangers, they don't get the features of a ranger otherwise including extra attack. Paladins with boomey spells likewise does not infringe on balance, because they lack the spell slots to really spam those spells. Heck, you can make a Paladin/Sorcerer that can do the same thing, at the same levels, and it's not broken at all.

Everything getting free disengage, on the otherhand, takes the balance out back and shoots it between the eyes in a shallow grave. It's almost impossible to control an area in the current rule-set, for instance, or to maintain concentration against fire effects, or to survive against a trap with barrels. Every problem can also be solved by liberal application of barrels of smokepowder and oil in some combination to create the ideal fuel mixture and turn the map into a damned inferno.

Why is it unreasonable?

Reducing the DC instead of showing your roll removes the feeling of progression from your character

Solasta just came out and when I click a door to lockpick it, the dice rolls over my head and says "D20roll+X (sleight of hand) - SUCCESS" and it really emphasizes how good my character is
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Get over this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv37JEeJ2as&ab_channel=TheSpiffingBrit

Philip Parker
Not sure if you are aware of the Jump + Fast Travel exploit? You cast the jump spell on your main character, and have them Jump to some place you couldn't normally reach. Normally your party would now be separated and would be very sad. However; you can open up the map, go to camp, and then leave the camp immediately, and for some reason your entire party will be spawned right next to your main character. It's a cheesy way to move your entire party anywhere in the map they normally couldn't reach.

Alison Albright
The stealth issues are actually a rules mistake on the part of Larian Studios. In D&D 5e, you cannot "Hide", "Dash", and "Attack" in the same round! In fact, you can only do one of the three, since they all require 1 "Standard Action", of which you have only one. 1 "Standard Action" per turn + 1 "Bonus Action" per turn +1 "Reaction" per turn + unlimited "Free Actions" per turn, and you can move up to your movement speed per turn before, during, and after expending the rest of the other action types.

"Standard Actions" include (but are not limited to): "Attack", "Dash", "Hide", "Help", "Disengage", "Investigate", and so on...
"Bonus Actions" are less common, but in general some class-related abilities as well as certain spells require "1 Bonus Action" to use. A Barbarian going into a Rage is an example of this, only 1 "Bonus Action" to use.
"Reactions" are pretty straightforward. Some classes and spells allow you to react by using them as a "Reaction" instead of a "Standard Action". In addition, you can use your "Standard Action" to prepare a "Reaction" to something the enemy might do. For example, preparing to dodge a flurry of arrows or sidestep a charging minotaur could be "Prepared Reactions".
"Free Actions" are things that take practically no time to accomplish, and can thus be treated as such from a gameplay standpoint. Things like drawing/sheathing your sword, or shouting a few words in the middle of a fight would fall into this category.

It seems to me like Larian Studios has classified the Hide Action and the Dash Action as "Free Actions", when in fact they are not.

Chris Toole
Are we sure Hodd Toward didn't make this game? It just works.

Paul Hawke
You can actually exploit stealth by engaging in combat with one character and doing KO attacks on enemies with another. As long as you don't actually fully KO the enemy, combat won't trigger.

Luke R
For those asking about infinite money:
It's pretty easy. Get shadow heart to 3 for pass without a trace, have Gale hit lvl 3 and pick up invisibility. Cast invis on your stealer, have Shadowheart cast pass without a trace and be near your stealer, enter turn based mode on your stealer, go up to merchant, pick pocket. With both of those spells up most items will have pickpocket dc of 0 or 1. Steal everything to your hearts content. (Be careful of the Tiefling blacksmith in the druid camp, he's a bit bugged right now and will auto aggro even if he doesn't catch you.) Once the trader is bone dry, take a long rest, this will restock their inventory, rinse and repeat.

Cody Yetze
The best stealth strat: Drop down a Fog Cloud or Darkness spell, heavily obscuring a large area. Your entire party can hide in the area, pop out to shoot someone, and hide again. Never lose a fight again!

The Potato
Larian studios: How'd you like to be an unpaid bug tester+advertiser... i mean, receive a free game?
Spiff: lmao. what are they thinking?

Yont EvenKnow
Oh look, poorly implemented stealth in a Larian game. Cant wait to have an entire town go hostile after misclicking on scenery.

yazuriha
I do hope they give some brains to the enemy. It's just too easy to kill everyone in the goblin keep/camp using highround and stealth. Just lob some smokepowder barrels and light it all up with some fire. Most of them just stand there shouting at you, totally puzzled. They should be running for the ladders (if you left those undestroyed)...but no. It's kinda funny though.

killereye
"...I hide and end my turn, and the AI does nothing..."
And this is how you f**k up the gameplay of Baldur's Gate, dear developers. You have copy/pasted Divinity gameplay onto B.G. making the same mistake as Bethesda did when they bought Fallout: You can only make one type of game. Sad thing.
On the other hand, nice exploits, TSB! Keep up the good work!

FrozenTub3
Tbh I am very disappointed with the game, I felt like playing DoS in Forgotten realms setting not playing a DnD game with some cool dos mechanics. I know it's early access but this to me is the biggest video game disappointments since diablo 3 vanila. Also for a big publisher the state of the early access is horrendous (I played quite a lot of early access games)

Papi John
Theres a bug with haste spores which you can really only use in the underdark with glut where you can run through the haste spores, attack, and run right back in to refresh your actions. I cant imagine why you would abuse it though...

Kilivin
As much as I love D&D and DOS... D&D =/= BG3 as much as they are trying to mirror one to the other, they're too invested in their DOS mechanics to do a proper job of it.
Example, you cannot stealth as a bonus action unless you're a rogue, but everyone in BG3 can stealth as a bonus action. You cannot "Summon" a pet as a ranger, you have a pet as an added character to your party. Firebolt doesn't set stuff worn or carried on fire, but in BG3 it does. The list goes on and on. Most of the exploits the game has is because they strayed from D&D's core mechanics in favor of more DOS style mechanics. Don't even get me started with stealth and enemies having "Limited vision cones" making no sense whatsoever. Stuff that blocks LOS breaks a cone that ought to be infinite upwards of what that creature has vision towards. Having a "Limited range" of vision so that you can stealth by something so long as you're far enough away from it yet in plain sight is sooooooooooooooo gamey.

Laszlo Ivanyi
Hey so that's what it was. I also did a big fight where everyone was standing. I didn't do any hide and seek, but they might have been focusing on a character that started that way. But after 2 days, I concluded this is not baldurs gate, this is Divinity 3. I couldn't see a single thing in it that would remind me of BG2.. good game regardless, just not baldurs gate.

Liquidated
You never really mentioned why the ranger is so broken at level 3. =)
This game is a riot, so large and destructible.

MorpH2k
Expecting people to pay 50€ for a buggy early access games is insane, and this video shows exactly why. smirk If they want free bug testing the least they could do is discount the price a little bit. I used to like early access, at least as a concept, but it's gotten completely out of hand.


Thank you for this amazing compilation! Trilled to wait for barbarian players to notice that the reckless attack will only come with a downside due to this ridiculous advantage system. Oh, nvm, we can’t hurt Larians feelings
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 12:59 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Limz

D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would


While there is no perfectly balanced system out there, 5e is pretty darn good. You show little understanding for it, but are very rude to overcompensate that fact.

Quote
You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues


Maybe refrain from calling other users terrible.


Yeah.... 5e is INCREDIBLY well balanced

there are only a handful of "Broken" characters, and even then they really aren't, it often requires some level of DM buy in

there are obvious shenanigans that Larian should nerf like Spell Sniper + Eldritch Spear + buying a spyglass + the fly spell so that players can't just be an orbital ion cannon, but in general 5e is an amazingly well balanced system. The most overpowered (statistically) abilities (like the lucky feat) tend not even to be taken by minmaxers because they don't give you Bigger Numbers
Posted By: Limz Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 01:38 AM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Limz

D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would


While there is no perfectly balanced system out there, 5e is pretty darn good. You show little understanding for it, but are very rude to overcompensate that fact.

Quote
You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues


Maybe refrain from calling other users terrible.


Yeah.... 5e is INCREDIBLY well balanced

there are only a handful of "Broken" characters, and even then they really aren't, it often requires some level of DM buy in

there are obvious shenanigans that Larian should nerf like Spell Sniper + Eldritch Spear + buying a spyglass + the fly spell so that players can't just be an orbital ion cannon, but in general 5e is an amazingly well balanced system. The most overpowered (statistically) abilities (like the lucky feat) tend not even to be taken by minmaxers because they don't give you Bigger Numbers



Nah, both of you two are pretty terrible when it comes to understanding basic concepts which makes it kind of a chore to even begin warranting a discussion.

It's pretty funny that King Tiki says I show little understanding of it yet this is all you need to understand that no system/framework is ever going to be a perfect fit right out of the box when you change its context in which it is built in. This is literally a fact of life and any engineer or architect gets it; you have your standard parts and always a ton of proprietary parts.

5e performs well at certain level ranges and with a DM as a guide, it also performs well as a table top game with a certain group of people. It also makes some assumptions before you even begin a campaign or design one or think of one which is that the balance that does exist relies on short rests and long rests. This is called context.

Once you take 5e out of context and apply it to different situations you'll either have to change the situations or change the rule set. These different situations can include anything from intended audience, narrative liberty, and constraints such as time.

Never once have either of you have thought of this from Larian's perspective, but always an egocentric memememe! mentality - it's fucking retarded to say the least. I mean, I get it, this isn't 5e and we have our god emperor Solasta for that because that's their only goal and context (which I have bought as well).


So, bottom line is this: No system is perfectly balanced and this worsens when you take it out of the context in which it was originally designed in. Larian has a different context and, by demonstration, different priorities as well which is a POSSIBLE reason as to why they're taking the liberties that they are (and possibly a reason why WotC doesn't actually care -- it'll probably boost sales one way or another).

Not really a hard concept to get. Like I said, go work a day or two as a systems architect or a game designer, take an existing framework and try to break it in as many ways as possible without even touching the internals and you'll see it's pretty easy ... because people build and design systems with a certain context in mind.

It's probably also never occurred to you either that adopting table top rules in a vacuum for a CRPG is a handicap, but that's an aside.












Posted By: SilverSaint Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by nation
im pretty sure that even the way larian has been implementing the die role mechanic is different from traditional dnd 5e by reducing the ac rather than adding to your role - ive enjoyed ea so far, but still struggle considering this as bg3

Finding fault with this is just being unreasonable, and I clearly find fault with a lot with the current system. This is literally the difference between adding something to X versus subtracting it from Y, if we view this as "different" we've entered the ground of what being equivalent even means.

Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
[
I don't have a problem with the changes, I have a problem with how much the infringe on balance.


Yes because clearly auto-upcasting Wizards or literal Wizard-Rangers backed by Scorching/Fireball Paladins do not infringe on balance.

I just find it funny how Solasta is apparently our lord and savior, while BG3 is the devil. I currently do a Solasta run and it has plenty of its own stuff that is nowhere to be found in 5e, including environmental effects. Know why? Because it's a video game and video games need a bit more than RAW 5e.

It doesen't. Wizards with ranger spells aren't rangers, they don't get the features of a ranger otherwise including extra attack. Paladins with boomey spells likewise does not infringe on balance, because they lack the spell slots to really spam those spells. Heck, you can make a Paladin/Sorcerer that can do the same thing, at the same levels, and it's not broken at all.

Everything getting free disengage, on the otherhand, takes the balance out back and shoots it between the eyes in a shallow grave. It's almost impossible to control an area in the current rule-set, for instance, or to maintain concentration against fire effects, or to survive against a trap with barrels. Every problem can also be solved by liberal application of barrels of smokepowder and oil in some combination to create the ideal fuel mixture and turn the map into a damned inferno.

Why is it unreasonable?

Reducing the DC instead of showing your roll removes the feeling of progression from your character

Solasta just came out and when I click a door to lockpick it, the dice rolls over my head and says "D20roll+X (sleight of hand) - SUCCESS" and it really emphasizes how good my character is

Okay, that's actually a good reason, but it's cosmetic-a UI complaint not actual math. I want that to be clear. But in general, I don't understand why people care at all-while your reasoning makes sense, I can just as easily feel accomplishment over seeing low numbers.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 01:58 AM
Quite Frankly, let’s translate every shit in our lives like Limz did and claiming it’s a context matter and problem solved.

I don’t give a shit by your empty statements as long as I enjoy the product that I’ve bought. I don’t. I’ve payed. That gives the right to complain and hope for the best. Do your thing being larian’s errand boy but don’t tell how to manage MY expectations that they’ve created by using DnD appeal and giving instead a damn DOS
Posted By: JDCrenton Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 02:04 AM
A conformist never achieves anything of value. It's like being a walking corpse.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 02:18 AM
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
A conformist never achieves anything of value. It's like being a walking corpse.


This is far worse than being conformist. This is a specimen of Blind Fanboy.

Posted By: vometia Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 02:57 AM
Originally Posted by Limz
Never once have either of you have thought of this from Larian's perspective, but always an egocentric memememe! mentality - it's fucking retarded to say the least. I mean, I get it, this isn't 5e and we have our god emperor Solasta for that because that's their only goal and context (which I have bought as well).

We'll have less of this, thanks. I'm not trawling back to see "whose fault" it was, but don't wish to see our discussions being conducted in this manner. Be nice or people risk being suspended. Thanks.
Posted By: Benny89 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 03:29 AM
Game is advertised as Baldurs Gate 3 game. And as DnD game based on 5e.

I expect that. I want to play 5e. We have been waiting since NWN2 to play another DnD game. That's what we want. DnD.

I don't mind DOS system but for that I will have another DOS game in future.

DnD 5e does not need to be mixed with another system. It's been playtested for 6 years and is perfectly developed and designed. I don't mind some small bufff and nerfs, but I don't like when devs promise me 5e game and I get DOS game 1.5 mixed with some 5e rules.

Either give me Cyberpunk or Witcher. Don't give me Cyberwitcher.
Posted By: override367 Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 03:39 AM
Originally Posted by Limz
Originally Posted by override367
Originally Posted by KingTiki
Originally Posted by Limz

D&D was broken from the get go so stop putting it on a pedestal and actually approach this like a professional would


While there is no perfectly balanced system out there, 5e is pretty darn good. You show little understanding for it, but are very rude to overcompensate that fact.

Quote
You're also terrible because you keep conflating issues


Maybe refrain from calling other users terrible.


Yeah.... 5e is INCREDIBLY well balanced

there are only a handful of "Broken" characters, and even then they really aren't, it often requires some level of DM buy in

there are obvious shenanigans that Larian should nerf like Spell Sniper + Eldritch Spear + buying a spyglass + the fly spell so that players can't just be an orbital ion cannon, but in general 5e is an amazingly well balanced system. The most overpowered (statistically) abilities (like the lucky feat) tend not even to be taken by minmaxers because they don't give you Bigger Numbers



Nah, both of you two are pretty terrible when it comes to understanding basic concepts which makes it kind of a chore to even begin warranting a discussion.

It's pretty funny that King Tiki says I show little understanding of it yet this is all you need to understand that no system/framework is ever going to be a perfect fit right out of the box when you change its context in which it is built in. This is literally a fact of life and any engineer or architect gets it; you have your standard parts and always a ton of proprietary parts.

5e performs well at certain level ranges and with a DM as a guide, it also performs well as a table top game with a certain group of people. It also makes some assumptions before you even begin a campaign or design one or think of one which is that the balance that does exist relies on short rests and long rests. This is called context.

Once you take 5e out of context and apply it to different situations you'll either have to change the situations or change the rule set. These different situations can include anything from intended audience, narrative liberty, and constraints such as time.

Never once have either of you have thought of this from Larian's perspective, but always an egocentric memememe! mentality - it's fucking retarded to say the least. I mean, I get it, this isn't 5e and we have our god emperor Solasta for that because that's their only goal and context (which I have bought as well).


So, bottom line is this: No system is perfectly balanced and this worsens when you take it out of the context in which it was originally designed in. Larian has a different context and, by demonstration, different priorities as well which is a POSSIBLE reason as to why they're taking the liberties that they are (and possibly a reason why WotC doesn't actually care -- it'll probably boost sales one way or another).

Not really a hard concept to get. Like I said, go work a day or two as a systems architect or a game designer, take an existing framework and try to break it in as many ways as possible without even touching the internals and you'll see it's pretty easy ... because people build and design systems with a certain context in mind.

It's probably also never occurred to you either that adopting table top rules in a vacuum for a CRPG is a handicap, but that's an aside.


Obviously you can't adopt a ruleset in a vacuum, nobody is saying it should be literally 1:1, I think what people are pretty universally upset about are not elements that were changed to better fit the CRPG mold, but elements added, and everything else has to be changed to fit those elements

Solasta: Crown of the Magister is on steam right now, I've spent the last few hours playing it. It's an extremely faithful adaptation of 5e and handles the rule system just fine

-All characters can respond to dialogue (so the charismatic paladin can be charismatic and the smart wizard can be smart
-The game accurately translates 5e's cover system
-The game accurately translates the game's benefits from height
-Enemies have accurate statistics and hitpoints for their CR
-Limited long resting so that you can fight 7hp goblins and have it be meaningful
-Spells are accurately translated (including cantrips!)
-Environmental hazards are present (falling bricks, etc), but they are a lot more subdued
-Enemies are not inexplicably loaded with consumables
-All items enemies possess all the equipment you see them using, but you are heavily hindered by carry weight
-The 4-part brief tutorial explains how all the major mechanics of 5e work that you will need to play the game

It does have changes from the tabletop because, duh, its a CRPG, not a TTRPG, and it's about 2 tiers below Baldur's Gate 3 in terms of production value, but if they can do it, so can BG3.

I'm not saying it's better than Baldur's Gate 3, but boy howdy could Baldur's Gate 3 learn some lessons from it.

Edit: as an aside, I have done development work, and I understand everything you are saying. I don't think you're fully listening to anyone else in here: It's not that Larian tried a system and it wasn't working and had to change it. Dig into the game files, they clearly *started* from Divinity and worked their way over to where we are now.

I'd like them to keep going away from Divinity.

Posted By: KingTiki Re: Get over the differences from 5E - 21/10/20 06:29 AM
Originally Posted by Limz

Nah, both of you two are pretty terrible when it comes to understanding basic concepts which makes it kind of a chore to even begin warranting a discussion.


Is that the reason you deliver no arguments?

Quote
It's pretty funny that King Tiki says I show little understanding of it yet this is all you need to understand that no system/framework is ever going to be a perfect fit right out of the box when you change its context in which it is built in. This is literally a fact of life and any engineer or architect gets it; you have your standard parts and always a ton of proprietary parts.


You could realize that I never said that and you just built a giant strawman. Obviously you cannot do everything from the tabletop 1:1 in a pc game. But you can do a lot of things and we mostly criticize that Larian changed even those parts that did not need changing.

Quote
5e performs well at certain level ranges and with a DM as a guide, it also performs well as a table top game with a certain group of people. It also makes some assumptions before you even begin a campaign or design one or think of one which is that the balance that does exist relies on short rests and long rests. This is called context.


And you fail to show which of these things are not possible to deliver in BG3.

Quote
Once you take 5e out of context and apply it to different situations you'll either have to change the situations or change the rule set. These different situations can include anything from intended audience, narrative liberty, and constraints such as time.


All changes I see are deliberate changes for points where Larian is not trusting the 5e ruleset and thinks they will do it better. Which as a systems architect I can understand, but as a consumer I find too lazy to justify. (Should these things be not just "EA faults").

Quote
Never once have either of you have thought of this from Larian's perspective, but always an egocentric memememe! mentality - it's fucking retarded to say the least. I mean, I get it, this isn't 5e and we have our god emperor Solasta for that because that's their only goal and context (which I have bought as well).


Whoa whoa, a little personal aren't we? "memememe! mentality"? For giving feedback in a feedback forum? The thing the Devs explicitly asked for? ("Tell us what you dont like and why!") Okay...?

Retarded? Are those the words of someone who has huge problems delivering arguments with actual substance? Yes. Also I have not even bought Solasta, but played the demo for 2hrs maybe. So that "fanboy" argument is weak. But its a fact that they show really good that the 5e rules can be adhered to and make something that is fun in the process. I really hope Solasta gets really popular in their EA, too. Maybe Larian will get over their fear that some aspects of 5e are not "fun enough".

Quote
So, bottom line is this: No system is perfectly balanced and this worsens when you take it out of the context in which it was originally designed in. Larian has a different context and, by demonstration, different priorities as well which is a POSSIBLE reason as to why they're taking the liberties that they are (and possibly a reason why WotC doesn't actually care -- it'll probably boost sales one way or another).


Oh a another strawman.

Quote
Like I said, go work a day or two as a systems architect or a game designer


Oh look at that. Thats my actual job laugh + requirements engineering. Well shite. Better call my boss and tell her I never really worked until now, because some really smart dude on the internet has me all figured out frown
© Larian Studios forums