Larian Studios
Posted By: Dreygor6091 When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 02:15 AM
Please, for the love of god, use the dnd rules if you are going to make a dnd game. Jump DOES NOT DO DAMAGE AND KNOCK PEOPLE PRONE, 4th lvl characters do not get two attacks a round without using action surge which is only usable once per short rest. High ground doesn't give advantage. Read the core rule books and use them. Nothing makes a game more frustrating than one that cheats the rules as written.
Posted By: Newtinmpls Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 02:43 AM
Slow down kiddo, and consider that the actual D&D rules are so restrictive that they don't translate well into a computer game if done completely literally.

And just like any home/tabletop DM will have "house rules" so also does Larian Studios. Having house rules is not a cheat if they apply to everyone.

High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).
Posted By: dunehunter Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 02:46 AM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Slow down kiddo, and consider that the actual D&D rules are so restrictive that they don't translate well into a computer game if done completely literally. ]



Just look at Solasta, 5e rules translate pretty well into a video game.
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Slow down kiddo, and consider that the actual D&D rules are so restrictive that they don't translate well into a computer game if done completely literally.

And just like any home/tabletop DM will have "house rules" so also does Larian Studios. Having house rules is not a cheat if they apply to everyone.

High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).




He could have worded it better but no, he is right. A lot of threads have already made the same point though so it is repetitive. Also don't use historical accuracy when talking about a fantasy video game balance.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 05:15 AM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls


High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



If you think it's easier to hit a target 100m away from you with a bow when you're higher in comparison than if both of you are on the same level... You never try archery...

In arena such in BG3, you wouldn't have any advantages in real life because most of the time, there isn't any obstacles wink
Posted By: Tzelanit Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 05:28 AM
Also breaking news:

My character hasn't used the bathroom ONCE in 70 hours, and there are no eating animations when I consume the food in my inventory.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls


High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



If you think it's easier to hit a target 100m away from you with a bow when you're higher in comparison than if both of you are on the same level... You never try archery...

In arena such in BG3, you wouldn't have any advantages in real life because most of the time, there isn't any obstacles wink


+1, I think irl archers stand on the wall not because they can hit better but because their body has better coverage and they see better from high ground. If you ever played Mount & Blade they simulate it well.

Also let’s say if both you and me stand 20m in front of each other, one stand on 3 boxes and one is on the ground, does one hit much better because he has the so called high ground? Apparently no, and this is what you called High ground gives advantage irl
Posted By: mahe4 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 07:10 AM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Slow down kiddo, and consider that the actual D&D rules are so restrictive that they don't translate well into a computer game if done completely literally.

that counter argument is void since solasta came out. it shows, how perfectly the dnd5e rules translate into a crpg. and how many special things can be done.
if you combine all the ideas of solasta together with bg3 ideas (but toned down area stuff), it would be such a perfect gaming experience.
so many things you could try and do.
but well. it's 2020. that won't happen...
Posted By: KingTiki Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 07:31 AM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Slow down kiddo, and consider that the actual D&D rules are so restrictive that they don't translate well into a computer game if done completely literally.


Way to be condescending.

Like others already said: just look at Solasta. The rules work quite well in a video game. Some things obviously need a solution (mostly flavor-spells like Prestidigitation and Illusion spells)

Quote
And just like any home/tabletop DM will have "house rules" so also does Larian Studios. Having house rules is not a cheat if they apply to everyone.


Lots of tables have no or minimal house rules. To be completely honest: most house rules are bad from a game design standpoint. They are absolutely okay for a specific table to have more fun, but often fail hard for wider audiences.

Quote
High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).


Real life does not translate well into a computer game if done completely literally. wink
Originally Posted by Dreygor6091
Nothing makes a game more frustrating than one that cheats the rules as written.


It's not a cheat if it applies to allies, enemies and NPCs, it's called a house rule.


Originally Posted by mahe4

if you combine all the ideas of solasta together with bg3 ideas (but toned down area stuff), it would be such a perfect gaming experience.



Can you spell L-A-W-S-U-I-T?
(And no, the fact that Larian is the bigger studio and would probably win is not a counterargument)

Personally I don't care how close they stay to the core rules. While some of their changes need balancing or toning down, just being different from the core rules doesn't make the changes automatically bad.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 07:49 AM
Originally Posted by KainLexington

Can you spell L-A-W-S-U-I-T?
(And no, the fact that Larian is the bigger studio and would probably win is not a counterargument)


Why would there be a lawsuit? Both companies use a 3rd party licence of the same game system. Larian just got more of the lore and published subclasses etc.

There is literally no ground for any of them both to sue over 5e rules.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 07:54 AM
Originally Posted by KainLexington

It's not a cheat if it applies to allies, enemies and NPCs, it's called a house rule.


Eating food during combat, jumping to avoid AOO, jumping to backstab everytime,... Yea, the firsts exemples I have in mind aren't cheat because they apply to everyone crazy
What Tiki said.

Like what? A Lawsuit lol? They both have a license to make the game... Like wut
Posted By: Svalr Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 07:55 AM
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Also breaking news:

My character hasn't used the bathroom ONCE in 70 hours.


Unless.....

*Sniff*
Originally Posted by KingTiki


Why would there be a lawsuit? Both companies use a 3rd party licence of the same game system. Larian just got more of the lore and published subclasses etc.

There is literally no ground for any of them both to sue over 5e rules.


You literally wrote "the ideas of Solasta", not referring to the 5e rules, but things that were inherent to Solasta, making them not part of the D&D license, but the makers a of Solasta's intellectual property.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by KainLexington
Originally Posted by KingTiki


Why would there be a lawsuit? Both companies use a 3rd party licence of the same game system. Larian just got more of the lore and published subclasses etc.

There is literally no ground for any of them both to sue over 5e rules.


You literally wrote "the ideas of Solasta", not referring to the 5e rules, but things that were inherent to Solasta, making them not part of the D&D license, but the makers a of Solasta's intellectual property.


Well, no. You were citing Mahe

Quote
that counter argument is void since solasta came out. it shows, how perfectly the dnd5e rules translate into a crpg. and how many special things can be done.
if you combine all the ideas of solasta together with bg3 ideas (but toned down area stuff), it would be such a perfect gaming experience.
so many things you could try and do.
but well. it's 2020. that won't happen...


Seeing the full post makes it pretty clear they are talking about using the 5e ruleset. But even if not: what do you think would be forbidden to use? I mean: just have a look at the gaming market and see how many very similar games and even clones are out there. Now tell me why there are no lawsuits all over the place.
Posted By: wpmaura Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:27 AM
Op your just talking crazy talk. All the divinity fans will get mad.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:32 AM
I've been playing Solaste a bit and now I know why Larian decided to implement automatic reactions.
The popups are terribly annoying and seem disconnected from the game.
I'm afraid something like this would be even worse in multiplayer.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:45 AM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I've been playing Solaste a bit and now I know why Larian decided to implement automatic reactions.
The popups are terribly annoying and seem disconnected from the game.
I'm afraid something like this would be even worse in multiplayer.


On the other side automatic reactions are just plain stupid. In a sense that they cannot think. A reaction is something where you can *decide* something while it is not your turn. And in the current implementation you can't. Some class features like smiting and sneak attack are similar atm. The paladin will feel outright disappointing, as they are pretty much a nova class that excels on doing insane amounts of damage in crits. But with smiting out of you control you just do a little more damage sometimes. But I'd argue that the best strategy will be to not waste spell slots on smiting. They are rare and you have other buffs. But then again: why play paladin? LoH? Its okay but in a game where any stale bread does the job who cares? Probably you are better off playing a heavy armored cleric. Better spell slots, better and earlier spell list.
Posted By: Zahur Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:53 AM
Compare True Strike and Jump. The first one is class specific cantrip, takes one full action to cast and requires concentration to make attack next round with advantage. The second takes bonus action, it gives you disengage, teleport and advantage for your attack this round. What's raison d’être of True Strike?

Or that high ground advantage. If the game does have proper cover rules, the high ground would logically remove obstacles and lets you ignore the cover. I will be even OK with some flat -+/2 bonus on hit or damage. Advantage is simply too strong. It's one of the stronges buff in game. Highround now works on spells too, which is totally unintuitive. I can somehow imagin an arrow to have better path to its target from uphill but a spell? Why? Guiding Bolt, which is beam of light does follow balistic law also?

You know the 9th level spell Foresight? This pinnacle of arcane magic does "1 creature sees its near future, can not be surprised and has advantage on his rolls. Attacks against it have disadvantage." Will you cast this high-level magic with your full action or will you just jump on high ground?
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 09:03 AM
Originally Posted by KingTiki


On the other side automatic reactions are just plain stupid. In a sense that they cannot think. A reaction is something where you can *decide* something while it is not your turn. And in the current implementation you can't. Some class features like smiting and sneak attack are similar atm. The paladin will feel outright disappointing, as they are pretty much a nova class that excels on doing insane amounts of damage in crits. But with smiting out of you control you just do a little more damage sometimes. But I'd argue that the best strategy will be to not waste spell slots on smiting. They are rare and you have other buffs. But then again: why play paladin? LoH? Its okay but in a game where any stale bread does the job who cares? Probably you are better off playing a heavy armored cleric. Better spell slots, better and earlier spell list.


I think the paladin is still not in EA because they were working with the WOTC on rework.


Originally Posted by Zahur
Compare True Strike and Jump. The first one is class specific cantrip, takes one full action to cast and requires concentration to make attack next round with advantage. The second takes bonus action, it gives you disengage, teleport and advantage for your attack this round. What's raison d’être of True Strike?

Or that high ground advantage. If the game does have proper cover rules, the high ground would logically remove obstacles and lets you ignore the cover. I will be even OK with some flat -+/2 bonus on hit or damage. Advantage is simply too strong. It's one of the stronges buff in game. Highround now works on spells too, which is totally unintuitive. I can somehow imagin an arrow to have better path to its target from uphill but a spell? Why? Guiding Bolt, which is beam of light does follow balistic law also?

You know the 9th level spell Foresight? This pinnacle of arcane magic does "1 creature sees its near future, can not be surprised and has advantage on his rolls. Attacks against it have disadvantage." Will you cast this high-level magic with your full action or will you just jump on high ground?


True Strike has always been a trash spell.
Posted By: Zahur Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 09:27 AM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
True Strike has always been a trash spell.


The point is, every spell or mechanics which gives you advantage beside Jump/Highground is trash now, because Jump/Highground is far superior and it's accessible to all classes. What's reason to e.g. lower saves with Bane and cast Blindness? I see none. Everybody can jump around or highground. Lots of the spell just losts it's meaning.
Originally Posted by Zahur
[quote=Rhobar121]

The point is, every spell or mechanics which gives you advantage beside Jump/Highground is trash now, because Jump/Highground is far superior and it's accessible to all classes. What's reason to e.g. lower saves with Bane and cast Blindness? I see none. Everybody can jump around or highground. Lots of the spell just losts it's meaning.


Not every fight has easily accessible high ground and your enemies can also jump to reach you. I actually used Bane quite a lot because AoE disadvantage can be a life saver in big group fights with enemies surrounding you.
Posted By: UnknownEvil Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 11:37 AM
Well.
When i look at the 4th and 5th edition rules they seem to be more "mmo-like". I have started with AD&D 30 years ago and even though i like that, the new rules are a bit more enjoyable in certain areas. I haven't read a lot of 5e but playing BG3 shows that some changes can be good for fluid gameplay, while others are not.
I find the jumping pretty hilarious. First too far for normal, fully equipped chars. And the transition form jump to fall needs work. (meaning prone stat and damage)

The height advantage good for ranged. The bonus may be a bit high though. Look at the curve an arrow takes. Then you will recognize why higher ground makes hitting a bit easier.

What annoys me more is that i cannot aim some spells when the enemy is higher and get the "too far" info.
That’s Larian saying to WotC: your system sucks for video game.
BG3 87% positive reviews in EA. Solasta 93%. (Steam)
Both unpolished and somehow expensive games as they are in the early access, so we’re not comparing a finished game against an unfinished game.

Yes, I know that we’re not talking about the same audience. The fact is: Solasta customers are more happier with what they’ve got. That’s undeniable.
Posted By: cgexile Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 12:05 PM
"because Solasta" is a pretty weak argument; because someone else did it therefore so and so should. Solasta longevity remains to be seen. As long as changes are for the better, breaking convention is not a bad thing.

Rules are meant to be broken wink
Originally Posted by cgexile
"because Solasta" is a pretty weak argument; because someone else did it therefore so and so should. Solasta longevity remains to be seen. As long as changes are for the better, breaking convention is not a bad thing.

Rules are meant to be broken wink



I would agree with you IF the customer satisfaction was the same. It’s not.
Posted By: Dapoolp Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by UnderworldHades
What Tiki said.

Like what? A Lawsuit lol? They both have a license to make the game... Like wut


Solasta's team doesn't get the license, they said it. That's why they have to create their own background, etc...
Posted By: denhonator Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 12:36 PM
Steam reviews aren't a very good measurement. BG3 had a lot more expectations from fans and a higher price, which played a big role in reviews
Originally Posted by denhonator
Steam reviews aren't a very good measurement. BG3 had a lot more expectations from fans and a higher price, which played a big role in reviews


What is a good measurement other than customer satisfaction my good sir?
People thinks rationally, cost vs benefits.
Posted By: Argonaut Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 01:16 PM
I like how reviews and sales works for Larian fanboys until it stops supporting their narrative.

Have some dignity lmao.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 01:27 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
That’s Larian saying to WotC: your system sucks for video game.
BG3 87% positive reviews in EA. Solasta 93%. (Steam)

I am not sure it means anything - I am confident that Solasta’s audience is much smaller, and probably more expecting what they get. During crowdfunding it had a very small amount of supporter, and those supporters got to try the demo.

BG3 is a big IP with an interest of both BG and Larian games. Some disappointment is unavoidable - by both fans of BG and Divinities. And a decent amount of complaints I see is about price tag, not actual content.

I think it is fair to say that there will be a group of players to whom Solasta will appeal more - but it doesn’t mean that a high budget production, like BG3 is doing something wrong by altering systems to their needs.
Posted By: Kendaric Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by cgexile
"because Solasta" is a pretty weak argument; because someone else did it therefore so and so should. Solasta longevity remains to be seen. As long as changes are for the better, breaking convention is not a bad thing.

Rules are meant to be broken wink



Making unnecessary changes to the ruleset, i.e. having hide &disengage as bonus actions for everyone or throwing out advantages left and right, isn't going to make for better gameplay. It only takes away from classes that get similiar things as class features and weakens them.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
That’s Larian saying to WotC: your system sucks for video game.
BG3 87% positive reviews in EA. Solasta 93%. (Steam)

I am not sure it means anything - I am confident that Solasta’s audience is much smaller, and probably more expecting what they get. During crowdfunding it had a very small amount of supporter, and those supporters got to try the demo.

BG3 is a big IP with an interest of both BG and Larian games. Some disappointment is unavoidable - by both fans of BG and Divinities. And a decent amount of complaints I see is about price tag, not actual content.

I think it is fair to say that there will be a group of players to whom Solasta will appeal more - but it doesn’t mean that a high budget production, like BG3 is doing something wrong by altering systems to their needs.


Well, that’s why it’s a percentage base and not an absolute base. Conclusion: Solasta customers are happier.
Adding price tag on the loop: Solasta customers found that the price they’ve paid it’s more worthy of what they’ve got.

I know, I know... percentages are ruthless.

Conclusion: Larian will have to spend more resources to raise their customers satisfaction than Solasta (IF they care about it)
Posted By: mahe4 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 01:47 PM
Just to be clear. i think most people that advocate for being closer to 5e don't say, that any changes from 5e are bad.
i have no problem if they change some things of 5e.
but there basic core principles to the 5e rule system, that balance the game (against other character as well as against monsters)
and larian broke many of those core balancing principles, in many ways.
not to mention, that some changes mean, that class abilities get obsolete, which means that they basically reinvent the wheel. why? i have no idea...
i can understand, that they don't want to add popups for reactions. and i could understand, to change the rules for that.
but giving a special rogue ability to every character is just plainly stupid from a balancing perspective.
or handing out advantage makes the barbarian feature "reckless attack" obsolete.
so they have to invent new abilities, which is just simply unnessecary. it just causes a rippling effect, to reinvent a lot of features.

it's simply wasted time and the only reason i can see, why they did that is, to give the game their own special touch...
it's a pretty narcistic approach if you ask me...
Originally Posted by mahe4
Just to be clear. i think most people that advocate for being closer to 5e don't say, that any changes from 5e are bad.
i have no problem if they change some things of 5e.
but there basic core principles to the 5e rule system, that balance the game (against other character as well as against monsters)
and larian broke many of those core balancing principles, in many ways.
not to mention, that some changes mean, that class abilities get obsolete, which means that they basically reinvent the wheel. why? i have no idea...
i can understand, that they don't want to add popups for reactions. and i could understand, to change the rules for that.
but giving a special rogue ability to every character is just plainly stupid from a balancing perspective.
or handing out advantage makes the barbarian feature "reckless attack" obsolete.
so they have to invent new abilities, which is just simply unnessecary. it just causes a rippling effect, to reinvent a lot of features.

it's simply wasted time and the only reason i can see, why they did that is, to give the game their own special touch...
it's a pretty narcistic approach if you ask me...


Divinityzation touch, I would say.
3 months ago I’d rage against people saying that the game should call DOS3. Seriously.

Now they’re my best friends.
Posted By: frequentic Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 02:06 PM
I will regret this, but toxicity here I come!

Originally Posted by Argonaut
I like how reviews and sales works for Larian fanboys until it stops supporting their narrative.

Have some dignity lmao.


I don't understand why you feel a need to call someone names just because you're of a different opinion. I don't love how you do it, and I think you should look yourself in the mirror before you start talking about whether other people's actions are dignified or not (as should everyone).

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by denhonator
Steam reviews aren't a very good measurement. BG3 had a lot more expectations from fans and a higher price, which played a big role in reviews


What is a good measurement other than customer satisfaction my good sir?
People thinks rationally, cost vs benefits.


What I've seen people mention is whether this small difference between the ratings is a good way of measuring Early Access success or not. Personally, I rarely review on steam at all, but I definitely don't during an alpha, for (to me) quite obvious reasons. Back to the point, I think it's very relevant to consider the expectations of the people picking up the two games. I know I don't access to that kind of data, nor an interest in trying to obtain it.

As far as reviews go the current counr is 1k reviews for Solasta and approximately 25k reviews for BG3. If anyone want to make a point about that specific fact it should probably me made in relation to how many copies the game sold, and preferably with a motivation as to why it matters. Else this will be yet another toxic topic with no real point to it.

ps. seems like Sludge Khalid has a bone to pick with Larian due to his own disappointment. Maybe you should be the one providing a good argument for why the difference in steam reviews matter, so that there can possibly be a decent discussion coming out of it. ds.
Originally Posted by frequentic
I will regret this, but toxicity here I come!

Originally Posted by Argonaut
I like how reviews and sales works for Larian fanboys until it stops supporting their narrative.

Have some dignity lmao.


I don't understand why you feel a need to call someone names just because you're of a different opinion. I don't love how you do it, and I think you should look yourself in the mirror before you start talking about whether other people's actions are dignified or not (as should everyone).

Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by denhonator
Steam reviews aren't a very good measurement. BG3 had a lot more expectations from fans and a higher price, which played a big role in reviews


What is a good measurement other than customer satisfaction my good sir?
People thinks rationally, cost vs benefits.


What I've seen people mention is whether this small difference between the ratings is a good way of measuring Early Access success or not. Personally, I rarely review on steam at all, but I definitely don't during an alpha, for (to me) quite obvious reasons. Back to the point, I think it's very relevant to consider the expectations of the people picking up the two games. I know I don't access to that kind of data, nor an interest in trying to obtain it.

As far as reviews go the current counr is 1k reviews for Solasta and approximately 25k reviews for BG3. If anyone want to make a point about that specific fact it should probably me made in relation to how many copies the game sold, and preferably with a motivation as to why it matters. Else this will be yet another toxic topic with no real point to it.

ps. seems like Sludge Khalid has a bone to pick with Larian due to his own disappointment. Maybe you should be the one providing a good argument for why the difference in steam reviews matter, so that there can possibly be a decent discussion coming out of it. ds.


That’s the beauty of the math, my good sir smile

It’s called customer satisfaction because the only condition required to like/dislike something is to be an actual customer smile

Meaning that the sequence is: buying the game > evaluating the game > rating the game

Complaints about the price tags aren’t coming from those who couldn’t afford the game and then raged. They are coming from people who paid for that and couldn’t see the cost benefit (which is not my opinion as I’m not worried about the price of EA at all)

Raw sales define how good they’ve marketed the game. Steam rating means : AFTER the game was bought, are you satisfied with it? Yes or No.

Marketing is a double edge my good sir. You can sell a lot of game based in attributes but when the product reaches the customers hands you can’t do marketing anymore. It simply get out of control

Oh yeah, I’m mature to understand their decisions if they decide to go straight ahead in that path. It’s very disappointing but I’ll manage to survive smile
Posted By: Argonaut Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by frequentic

I don't understand why you feel a need to call someone names just because you're of a different opinion. I don't love how you do it, and I think you should look yourself in the mirror before you start talking about whether other people's actions are dignified or not (as should everyone).

I regularly get called every name under the sun for my opinion on this board by the larian support squad including the moral busybodies such as yourself. I also feel the need to call you fanboys because when the evidence presents in your favor you ooh and ahh about it and use it to prove every conjecture and equivocation under the sun but the minute it presents differntly suddenly it's not as important and the be all end all for every argument. This is hypocritical and dishonest behavior and if you don't like that then just don't be a part of it.

Posted By: denhonator Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 02:45 PM
You have to remember steam reviews are a minority of the playerbase. You're using steam reviews like they depict the opinions of all customers, while only few actually write them. You can say, based on that data, that out of all that have left reviews, Solasta has overall higher satisfaction. Not the same thing as all customers.

Also, that's only counting the ratio of recommend / not recommend. You could be extremely satisfied or only somewhat satisfied and both translate to being the same value, a recommendation. While the correlation is there, it is not an accurate measurement of customer satisfaction. If the difference was 30% vs 70% then yeah probably the 70% game is doing something better, but 87% vs 93% during early stages of EA really doesn't tell me anything.

And if we're arguing based on this if following 5e rules closer is better, it tells us even less. Did they write the review based on that, or maybe story, soundtrack, visuals, etc played a bigger role? Or maybe they had lots of bugs/crashes?

I'm not here arguing that BG3 is better than Solasta, I wouldn't even know. I'm just saying that difference in steam reviews is not undeniable proof that Solasta customers are all in all more satisfied like you said
Originally Posted by denhonator
You have to remember steam reviews are a minority of the playerbase. You're using steam reviews like they depict the opinions of all customers, while only few actually write them. You can say, based on that data, that out of all that have left reviews, Solasta has overall higher satisfaction. Not the same thing as all customers.

Also, that's only counting the ratio of recommend / not recommend. You could be extremely satisfied or only somewhat satisfied and both translate to being the same value, a recommendation. While the correlation is there, it is not an accurate measurement of customer satisfaction. If the difference was 30% vs 70% then yeah probably the 70% game is doing something better, but 87% vs 93% during early stages of EA really doesn't tell me anything.

And if we're arguing based on this if following 5e rules closer is better, it tells us even less. Did they write the review based on that, or maybe story, soundtrack, visuals, etc played a bigger role? Or maybe they had lots of bugs/crashes?

I'm not here arguing that BG3 is better than Solasta, I wouldn't even know. I'm just saying that difference in steam reviews is not undeniable proof that Solasta customers are all in all more satisfied like you said


Hey smile it’s me again

In research the sample shouldn’t be a census. Which means you cut a portion of the playerbase and that will give the results under an error margin.
Given the sample in steam we have 0,6p.p as an error margin which somehow solidifies BG3 in that position.

But I think that this argument is shallow. Let’s stop it and focus on what Larians marketed the game to be and what it is smile
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 03:10 PM
The game has a much better result than I thought it would be.
I was expecting massive spam of poor ratings from psycho fans.
The game tries to reconcile fans of 3 different games, which is doing quite well, but it does not satisfy everyone.
Solasta is a game designed for a much smaller and fairly homogeneous group of players, so it will have better grades even if bg is a better game.
Posted By: Xeiom Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
That’s Larian saying to WotC: your system sucks for video game.
BG3 87% positive reviews in EA. Solasta 93%. (Steam)
Both unpolished and somehow expensive games as they are in the early access, so we’re not comparing a finished game against an unfinished game.

Yes, I know that we’re not talking about the same audience. The fact is: Solasta customers are more happier with what they’ve got. That’s undeniable.




You are comparing 21,000+ reviews to <1000 reviews.

There is a whole legacy that the game has to live upto, not only does it have BG's legacy but it also has Larians legacy, as shown on the forums not everyone agrees they are fully compatible.

Smaller releases like Solasta are going to have more informed users generally with players who are more likely to consider it negative to simply skip getting it, so if the devs do a decent job (as it seems they have on Solasta) then it should have quite a strong positive rating. If Solasta saw the player numbers that BG3 had, I would expect it to also see a hit to it's rating.

Heck a large portion of the positive reviews for Solasta are just to dunk on BG3 - I feel like that indicates at least some of these reviews are not quite as about Solasta as you would hope.

I'm not saying Solasta is bad or anything like that, I'm just saying that I think this comparison isn't quite as revealing about the situation as it may seem.
I think Larian also had console gamers in mind when designing this game, maybe more so than DOS2. Hence all the weird stuff done with DnD5e, cinematic dialogues etc...

BG3 design process in a nutshell: <So, how to we make a game that will loosely satisfy PnP, RPG PC players while staying accessible and fun to console gamers (our main demographic now...).>

I mean, right now the most asked question seems to be: "when will we have controller support?". lol.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls


High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



If you think it's easier to hit a target 100m away from you with a bow when you're higher in comparison than if both of you are on the same level... You never try archery...

In arena such in BG3, you wouldn't have any advantages in real life because most of the time, there isn't any obstacles wink

When I hunted, I learned things like "leading" my target. There's a reason deer blinds aren't sitting on the ground, but are up in trees, even for archery. Yes, you can get some more distance from a shot, but that's not why you go to high ground, you go to get better advantage, defined here as being able shoot over obstacles w/out having to actually shoot over them. We're not in an arena, we're in natural terrain, for the most part. There are obstacles, even when indoors. Being in a higher position means you can shoot over their cover, or nullifying it completely depending on how high you are. This isn't only realistic, but is reflected in the rules as "Advantage". On a level plane, with the target behind a waist high cover, you have a smaller target than you would have if you were higher up. In the rules, it gives a +2 AC? This has the effect of making the target harder to hit, on a level plane. If you're higher up, you have a larger target, because the waist high cover might now only be knee high, depending on the range and angles. In game, this is reflected as advantage, and it should be clear to see why it is advantageous. This is the one thing I don't miss about table top, aside from when it's at my house, and I have to clean up the next day, rules lawyers, and it's especially bad when they're lawyering away at a rule, with such a poor understanding of what's actually going on.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 03:42 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
*snip* Being in a higher position means you can shoot over their cover, or nullifying it completely depending on how high you are. This isn't only realistic, but is reflected in the rules as "Advantage". On a level plane, with the target behind a waist high cover, you have a smaller target than you would have if you were higher up. In the rules, it gives a +2 AC? This has the effect of making the target harder to hit, on a level plane. If you're higher up, you have a larger target, because the waist high cover might now only be knee high, depending on the range and angles. In game, this is reflected as advantage, and it should be clear to see why it is advantageous. This is the one thing I don't miss about table top, aside from when it's at my house, and I have to clean up the next day, rules lawyers, and it's especially bad when they're lawyering away at a rule, with such a poor understanding of what's actually going on.

You say that cover "in the rules, grants a +2AC." Correct, it does. But then you use this to argue that high ground should give advantage. There is a significant difference between "removing the enemy's +2AC buff from cover" and advantage from height. Advantage:
a) is basically a +5 bonus (2.5x more powerful than +2)
b) weakens the power of other things (spells, feats, class abilities) that grant advantage, since advantage doesn't stack.

Getting a +2 bonus from height would be more reasonable (and in line with your usage of the rules). Heck, I'd even accept getting a +4 bonus. But the fact that it grants Advantage weakens or invalidates so many other aspects of the game.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls


High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



If you think it's easier to hit a target 100m away from you with a bow when you're higher in comparison than if both of you are on the same level... You never try archery...

In arena such in BG3, you wouldn't have any advantages in real life because most of the time, there isn't any obstacles wink

When I hunted, I learned things like "leading" my target. There's a reason deer blinds aren't sitting on the ground, but are up in trees, even for archery. Yes, you can get some more distance from a shot, but that's not why you go to high ground, you go to get better advantage, defined here as being able shoot over obstacles w/out having to actually shoot over them. We're not in an arena, we're in natural terrain, for the most part. There are obstacles, even when indoors. Being in a higher position means you can shoot over their cover, or nullifying it completely depending on how high you are. This isn't only realistic, but is reflected in the rules as "Advantage". On a level plane, with the target behind a waist high cover, you have a smaller target than you would have if you were higher up. In the rules, it gives a +2 AC? This has the effect of making the target harder to hit, on a level plane. If you're higher up, you have a larger target, because the waist high cover might now only be knee high, depending on the range and angles. In game, this is reflected as advantage, and it should be clear to see why it is advantageous. This is the one thing I don't miss about table top, aside from when it's at my house, and I have to clean up the next day, rules lawyers, and it's especially bad when they're lawyering away at a rule, with such a poor understanding of what's actually going on.


Should we be using laws of physics in a game with feys being summoned from others planes of existence? Or should we discuss the rules for that realm being changed by the devs? No one so far has shown the counterpart of that adaption in the rest of the game mechanics. My main guess is there’s no counter part. And that’s what makes me sad about it.
Posted By: cgexile Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 03:53 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The game has a much better result than I thought it would be.
I was expecting massive spam of poor ratings from psycho fans.
The game tries to reconcile fans of 3 different games, which is doing quite well, but it does not satisfy everyone.
Solasta is a game designed for a much smaller and fairly homogeneous group of players, so it will have better grades even if bg is a better game.





this
Posted By: dunehunter Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 06:25 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by robertthebard
*snip* Being in a higher position means you can shoot over their cover, or nullifying it completely depending on how high you are. This isn't only realistic, but is reflected in the rules as "Advantage". On a level plane, with the target behind a waist high cover, you have a smaller target than you would have if you were higher up. In the rules, it gives a +2 AC? This has the effect of making the target harder to hit, on a level plane. If you're higher up, you have a larger target, because the waist high cover might now only be knee high, depending on the range and angles. In game, this is reflected as advantage, and it should be clear to see why it is advantageous. This is the one thing I don't miss about table top, aside from when it's at my house, and I have to clean up the next day, rules lawyers, and it's especially bad when they're lawyering away at a rule, with such a poor understanding of what's actually going on.

You say that cover "in the rules, grants a +2AC." Correct, it does. But then you use this to argue that high ground should give advantage. There is a significant difference between "removing the enemy's +2AC buff from cover" and advantage from height. Advantage:
a) is basically a +5 bonus (2.5x more powerful than +2)
b) weakens the power of other things (spells, feats, class abilities) that grant advantage, since advantage doesn't stack.

Getting a +2 bonus from height would be more reasonable (and in line with your usage of the rules). Heck, I'd even accept getting a +4 bonus. But the fact that it grants Advantage weakens or invalidates so many other aspects of the game.


Advantage also double the chance u do critical hit.
Posted By: frequentic Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by frequentic

I don't understand why you feel a need to call someone names just because you're of a different opinion. I don't love how you do it, and I think you should look yourself in the mirror before you start talking about whether other people's actions are dignified or not (as should everyone).

I regularly get called every name under the sun for my opinion on this board by the larian support squad including the moral busybodies such as yourself. I also feel the need to call you fanboys because when the evidence presents in your favor you ooh and ahh about it and use it to prove every conjecture and equivocation under the sun but the minute it presents differntly suddenly it's not as important and the be all end all for every argument. This is hypocritical and dishonest behavior and if you don't like that then just don't be a part of it.



I remark on your post because I disagree with unnecessary name calling. You start calling me names. Well, at least now I know I wasn't mistaken.
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls


High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



If you think it's easier to hit a target 100m away from you with a bow when you're higher in comparison than if both of you are on the same level... You never try archery...

In arena such in BG3, you wouldn't have any advantages in real life because most of the time, there isn't any obstacles wink

When I hunted, I learned things like "leading" my target. There's a reason deer blinds aren't sitting on the ground, but are up in trees, even for archery. Yes, you can get some more distance from a shot, but that's not why you go to high ground, you go to get better advantage, defined here as being able shoot over obstacles w/out having to actually shoot over them. We're not in an arena, we're in natural terrain, for the most part. There are obstacles, even when indoors. Being in a higher position means you can shoot over their cover, or nullifying it completely depending on how high you are. This isn't only realistic, but is reflected in the rules as "Advantage". On a level plane, with the target behind a waist high cover, you have a smaller target than you would have if you were higher up. In the rules, it gives a +2 AC? This has the effect of making the target harder to hit, on a level plane. If you're higher up, you have a larger target, because the waist high cover might now only be knee high, depending on the range and angles. In game, this is reflected as advantage, and it should be clear to see why it is advantageous. This is the one thing I don't miss about table top, aside from when it's at my house, and I have to clean up the next day, rules lawyers, and it's especially bad when they're lawyering away at a rule, with such a poor understanding of what's actually going on.


Should we be using laws of physics in a game with feys being summoned from others planes of existence? Or should we discuss the rules for that realm being changed by the devs? No one so far has shown the counterpart of that adaption in the rest of the game mechanics. My main guess is there’s no counter part. And that’s what makes me sad about it.

It's really not up there with rocket science levels of physics though, and the same physics actually do apply in game. If a character is behind a barrel, and you're on an even plane, +2 AC for the target. You could still hit them, but it's going to be harder. If you're elevated above the height of the barrel, no more cover advantage, because you can see them just like you could if they weren't and you were on a level plane. You see, when I'm talking advantage here, I'm talking pure visibility mechanics. The game rules apply, but I'm not even concerned with them, I mean, the idea of the thread is to actually use the game's rules, right? I just looked at the more practical application. In the spirit of the thread, this should be celebrated, not used as an example of something bad, right?
Posted By: wpmaura Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:29 PM
Solastra has the rules down pat. Character creation with dice rolls. Shield spell works as its supposed. All attack rolls so dice and damage. You also have shoving based on strength checks. In fact its awesome. Atleast us dnd fans have solastra only wish they had more funding for more classes
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls


High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



If you think it's easier to hit a target 100m away from you with a bow when you're higher in comparison than if both of you are on the same level... You never try archery...

In arena such in BG3, you wouldn't have any advantages in real life because most of the time, there isn't any obstacles wink


You are correct higher ground and distance is bad for both accuracy and power for an individual archer to hit a target. The closer you are to the target the more damage and accuracy regardless of bow weapon. Height or elevation from the target makes little difference where the archer aims at said target.

The shortest distance between two objects is?
The longer the arrow travels the less energy it has.

Higher ground gives a gerographical military advantage not "my weapon gains accuracy and damage" at higher ground advantage.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 09:10 PM
but if you fire at a target below you then gravity will speed up the arrow :P
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 09:20 PM

[/quote]
It's really not up there with rocket science levels of physics though, and the same physics actually do apply in game. If a character is behind a barrel, and you're on an even plane, +2 AC for the target. You could still hit them, but it's going to be harder. If you're elevated above the height of the barrel, no more cover advantage, because you can see them just like you could if they weren't and you were on a level plane. You see, when I'm talking advantage here, I'm talking pure visibility mechanics. The game rules apply, but I'm not even concerned with them, I mean, the idea of the thread is to actually use the game's rules, right? I just looked at the more practical application. In the spirit of the thread, this should be celebrated, not used as an example of something bad, right?[/quote]

If you have line of sight .. they do too - no advantage

Shooting up 4 steps is no different than shooting down 4 steps.
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 09:30 PM
So far, if they refuse to make it a DnD game then they should not be using the name, world, or lore. The game plays as divinity, and is divinity. Has nothing to do with DnD and definitly nothing to do with the forgotten realms.
Posted By: dotemtpy Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 27/10/20 09:35 PM
+1. I am on team "make this as close to 5e as possible". I understand things like reactions could be difficult to implement without breaking combat flow (especially in multiplayer). However, things like Disengage, Jump, Push, Dodge, barrels, cantrips, ground effects, backstab, high ground, sneak attack, long rest, short rest, item switching... etc. etc. etc. should be reflective of the 5e system.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar


It's really not up there with rocket science levels of physics though, and the same physics actually do apply in game. If a character is behind a barrel, and you're on an even plane, +2 AC for the target. You could still hit them, but it's going to be harder. If you're elevated above the height of the barrel, no more cover advantage, because you can see them just like you could if they weren't and you were on a level plane. You see, when I'm talking advantage here, I'm talking pure visibility mechanics. The game rules apply, but I'm not even concerned with them, I mean, the idea of the thread is to actually use the game's rules, right? I just looked at the more practical application. In the spirit of the thread, this should be celebrated, not used as an example of something bad, right?[/quote]

If you have line of sight .. they do too - no advantage

Shooting up 4 steps is no different than shooting down 4 steps.


[/quote]
I don't write the rules, I just have to play by them. If it's in the 5e rulebooks, and it's implemented in game, then what you or I think doesn't matter. As we can see from the OP's subsequent post, it's less to do with the rules, and more to do with something else entirely, that has nothing to do with the rules.

Originally Posted by Dreygor6091
So far, if they refuse to make it a DnD game then they should not be using the name, world, or lore. The game plays as divinity, and is divinity. Has nothing to do with DnD and definitly nothing to do with the forgotten realms.

Everything they implement has to be approved by WotC. You know, those pesky people that own the IP? If they thought it was too far outside the realm of their rules, it's not in game, you can bet on that. Whether WotC is handling the IP correctly is another debate, they lost me at 4e, never looked back, table top wise anyway, but as it stands right now, they own it, and they approve it. You should check out the Dragonlance author's lawsuit if you want to see just how much in the mix they get with creative stuff in their IPs. I must admit, I was a bit more than just surprised.
Posted By: Noraver Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 28/10/20 02:32 PM
Originally Posted by Newtinmpls
Slow down kiddo, and consider that the actual D&D rules are so restrictive that they don't translate well into a computer game if done completely literally.

And just like any home/tabletop DM will have "house rules" so also does Larian Studios. Having house rules is not a cheat if they apply to everyone.

High ground does give advantage in real life combat; and there are plenty of reports of people exerting themselves amazingly for short periods (historical berserkers come to mind).



So, dealing 19 damage with a Fire Bolt Cantrip is a house rule?
Which DM would ever in their right mind allow that to be a thing? Not one I'd want to play with.

HP Bloat is a house rule?
Getting Advantage for standing on a 5 foot rock is a house rule?
Spells that have a 30 foot range not having a 30 foot height too?
Dozens of barrels of oil and wine in every location you visit is a house rule?
Not being able to get up when you fall prone is a house rule?
Not getting advantage when pincering an enemy is a house rule?

Larian's "House rules" are god-awful. Like, Bhaal-god-awful.
It's not about them being cheaty or cheesy. It's about them being mechanically bad and feeling bad.

This game will genuinely become an unfun snooze-fest the more "house rules" they add.
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 01:07 AM
You forgot a few.

Minotaurs and hook horrors basically being Mario and jumping on you all the time because why not? it does damage AND knocks you prone in a large AOE.

LvL 4 Duergar that get 2 attacks a round.

Warp portals all over the place

Can literally rest as often as you like

Push being a bonus action instead of a full action

Jump also being a disengage instead of separate full actions

No dodge action
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 01:08 AM
The hook hoor and minotaur fight was aweful. They literally just jump around the map every single turn because it is basically the best option.
Posted By: CMF Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 02:19 AM
I actually avoided all the underdark fights the first play through because it was too hard. I went back in my second play through and better optimized my team and skills and I was able to fight all of those fights without cheesing as some complain. Mostly ranged, but also had one in melee range that kept it occupied as much as possible. Mino's still downed 2 of my allies before I could finish them, but hook horrors were fairly easy with proper damage. The only surface I used was a grease spell on the remaining minotaur that luckily made it fall prone and bought me enough time to help my downed allies for a turn.

As far as the jump slamming by the horrors and minotaurs, it is a little excessive, but it wasn't every round, a few good saving throws and good AC to avoid the charge/knock down damage by the minos helped a lot. Maybe applying an internal cooldown for those skills would reduce the over aggressive use but still allow them to be a threat.
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 02:47 AM
Oh, don't get me wrong, I beat the fight easy, just the jump thing is absolutely silly and not in actual DnD rules at all.
Posted By: CMF Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 02:53 AM
Couldn't the DM say something like "the hook horror rears back and glares at you...in an instant it leaps through the air and attempts to tackle you. Roll a saving throwing on...dex...to see if you get knocked prone...you failed, you are knocked to the ground taking....10 dmg as it charges into your chest and sweeps at your legs as it lands on the ground..."

Something like that....just because it isn't a specific attack, can't you adapt and use narrative?

I pick up a rock and throw it at the minotaur's eye....roll dex to see if you hit your intended mark...you hit....roll to see dmg.....you do enough damage to blind the minotaur on the left side of his vision....I keep strafing to the left to stay out of the minotaur's site, attempting to dodge his oncoming attacks....the minotaur now has a -1 to hit chance as it flails around in pain and anger.

Or are all your fights in D&D...I attack...I roll...I hit....I roll...I did 8 dmg...your turn....
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 02:58 AM
If you want monster just jumping on you all the time, go play Mario brothers. That's what those fights devolve into. It's neither interesting nore balanced by the rule at all. I have DMed DnD since 1st ed ADnD, and no, blatently making up your own combat rules for an established creature as a normal thing is bad DMing, not adding flavor.
Originally Posted by CMF
Couldn't the DM say something like "the hook horror rears back and glares at you...in an instant it leaps through the air and attempts to tackle you. Roll a saving throwing on...dex...to see if you get knocked prone...you failed, you are knocked to the ground taking....10 dmg as it charges into your chest and sweeps at your legs as it lands on the ground..."

Something like that....just because it isn't a specific attack, can't you adapt and use narrative?

I pick up a rock and throw it at the minotaur's eye....roll dex to see if you hit your intended mark...you hit....roll to see dmg.....you do enough damage to blind the minotaur on the left side of his vision....I keep strafing to the left to stay out of the minotaur's site, attempting to dodge his oncoming attacks....the minotaur now has a -1 to hit chance as it flails around in pain and anger.

Or are all your fights in D&D...I attack...I roll...I hit....I roll...I did 8 dmg...your turn....


Could the DM do that? Of course they could.

A DM could also say that aliens beam down and start a break dance competition with the Minos. Might even be fun for one single incident or a certain type of D&D group, especially if that was the expectation for that DM. Doesn't mean it would make for a good game if someone is expecting to play by the rules.

The expectation for *this* DM (referring to the BG 3 AI DM) is that it will follow the rules for a consistent approach to the game and have faith that for all its negatives, 5e is the most balanced version of D&D yet with 6+ years of playtesting behind it. BG AI isn't DMing for one group, it's DMing for every group and its been advertised as trying to be faithful to the rules of 5e. So that's what we expect the DM to do.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: When making a DnD game use the rules - 29/10/20 08:05 AM
Originally Posted by Dreygor6091
Please, for the love of god, use the dnd rules if you are going to make a dnd game. Jump DOES NOT DO DAMAGE AND KNOCK PEOPLE PRONE, 4th lvl characters do not get two attacks a round without using action surge which is only usable once per short rest. High ground doesn't give advantage. Read the core rule books and use them. Nothing makes a game more frustrating than one that cheats the rules as written.

Agreed again imersion was destroyed for me in this game so far.. as soon as i saw all these crazy rules i just lost interest.. Those friggin phase spiders were the last straw for me.. teleporting, poison aoe shooting insanity... wtrf.

Yeah i would have refunded if i could have after that.
© Larian Studios forums