Larian Studios
Posted By: IAmPageicus Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 08:57 AM
"THANK YOU
Greetings Adventurer,
Thank you for joining us in Early Access. Thank you for your feedback! It'll be read by the team.

We appreciate you taking the time to leave feedback to help create a better game for everyone to enjoy.

If by chance you've left a bug report, please either use the Help button on the Launcher, or use this link directly:
https://larian.com/support/baldur-s-gate-3#modal
Thank you for your support during Early Access and we look forward to hearing more of your feedback."




That is note they send their player base after they recieve a feedback report.

Suggesting our feedback is more than just bug reports. You can imagine a lot of us have been excited about this game and want to help Larian along the way... but for all the new boots:



NOW lets take a look on how this game was advertised to us for the past YEAR!




based on the D&D 5e ruleset. Team-based initiative, advantage & disadvantage, and roll modifiers join combat cameras, expanded environmental interactions, and a new fluidity in combat that rewards strategy and foresight.




https://www.thegamer.com/baldurs-ga...rry-over-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/



"We started by taking the ruleset that's in the Player's Handbook," Larian Studios CEO Swen Vincke told Ars Technica. "We ported it as faithfully as we could."

[/i]

https://www.newsweek.com/baldurs-gate-3-gameplay-dungeons-dragons-5th-edition-dd-1445076





CRPG and Dungeons & Dragons fans, rejoice! The game you have probably spent many days and nights longing for is coming. Baldur’s Gate 3 will be a faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules, set at the current moment in its story, according to Swen Vincke, founder and head of the game’s developer, Larian Studios.
[color:#FF0000]
[/size]




TLDR: THERE IS A REASON YOU SEE SO MANY 5e PLAYERS WHO DIDNT WANT DIVINITY 3. It is not an assumed expectation it is a reaction from their words and what was presented and promised. So instead of telling people to tone down their feedback and be happy with what was given. How about you let the consumer who was sold a product advertised this way to voice feedback (AS LARIAN REQUESTED.)

What more needs to be said? What more do I have to show the new recruits? You guys didnt wait... you just heard there was a new DIVINITY 3. The rest of us were told there was a new BALDURS GATE and it was using 5e ruleset with a 4.0 divinity engine.

So now that we are caught up... lets get this thing back on track to the original goal larian had before all the homebrew mechanics for GOOFY FUN.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 09:46 AM
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.
Posted By: Riandor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 09:53 AM
Well there are a few items I might even agree on, but Save Scum? That's hardly a DOS vs BG issue.
Posted By: Darth Rauko Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions for turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.


Agree
Posted By: Demoulius Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 10:33 AM
I mean..... They are trying to portray the 5th ed ruleset to the best of their abilities if their own words are to be believed. Just about every deviation of the rules that they did would horribly unbalance 5th ed rules in the tabletop and in the game we see that as well.

Some rules beeing deviated from (reactions for example) is understandable but most of the homebrew rules just horribly inbalance the game. I would like them to tone that down and let us test the rules as written as closely as possible. Then if something doesent work they could homebrew it with our feedback rather then homebrew half of the rules and go from there.

Quote
World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Forced multiple actions for turn by breaking the rules

Agree with these and are things that can be easily finetuned. The action economy needs some serious work but with some minor tweaks can be really spot on. Crafting gives alot of items a use but even then mundane items should be a part of the world imo. Gives you the idea that the world is lived in, you know what I mean?

Quote
Backstab
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Not sure what you mean with backstab? If you mean that standing behind enemies gives advantage, thats true to 5th ed rules. Attacking someone who cant see you gives advantage. The babysitting customer line I dont get. Save scumming isent really a baldurs gate nor a divinity issue. Its a thing players do. How is that Larian's fault? Yes we begin the game after the tutorial at a beach. Is that an issue? The game beein unbalanced id agree with dont see how thats a divinity or baldurs gate thing? Quantitiy over quality I actually disagree with. The great number of empty containers aside I see no quantity vs quality problem in the game and I dont see it beeing either a baldurs gate or DOS issue....
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 10:44 AM
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually an ennemy already engaged by another ally)


I agree. And it would be easy to implement because if you jump, you can't hide, unless you are a rogue with thief subclass. Which means you wouldn't be able to go from being in front of an enemy and backstab them in the same turn.
Posted By: TheOtter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 10:58 AM
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.
Posted By: Ole Draco Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.



Here's the deal, it's not end of story yet. Things can still be changed.
Posted By: IAmPageicus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:20 AM
Originally Posted by Ole Draco
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.



Here's the deal, it's not end of story yet. Things can still be changed.


Hey let me rage just for today as I’m seriously disappointed with community feedback smile it’s my first rage since the release so I’d appreciate your comprehension smile

I’m not saying the game is bad, for god sake. I was just expecting a masterpiece given the name of the brand & DnD5e and in my humble opinion it turns out to be an okay’ish game.

Yes, it’s early access but I’ve used my clairvoyance spells to foresee the final results and I didn’t like it smile

Wish you happiness and the greatest game of your life. I’ll have to wait more to get mine
Posted By: IAmPageicus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:24 AM
Lets give it 6 months before we except defeat. They changed two major things after the reveal that took a lot of time to fix. One was the entire initiative system. Before it was team based initiative. THEN all conversatons where past tense. FOR SOME GOD AWFUL REASON... so they re recorded Most of the finished Diolague... so that tells me Larian will listen. It took them two month to do it though!
Posted By: TheOtter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.


Point was that it is a flaw not to have facing.

It is equally a flaw that there is no reaction to a character obviously trying to get behind you, or trying to jump away or over you. Should warrant an attack of opportunity. Disengage is also nonsensical, with and without the tabletop versions action economy, where disengage would be an action in most cases, and a bonus action in few cases. The optional rule in this case, is sensible, another rule of having multiple combatants facing one should add to hit chance in my opinion.


Posted By: Dastan McKay Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by TheOtter
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.


Point was that it is a flaw not to have facing.

It is equally a flaw that there is no reaction to a character obviously trying to get behind you, or trying to jump away or over you. Should warrant an attack of opportunity. Disengage is also nonsensical, with and without the tabletop versions action economy, where disengage would be an action in most cases, and a bonus action in few cases. The optional rule in this case, is sensible, another rule of having multiple combatants facing one should add to hit chance in my opinion.



The thing is. The whole combat round is 6 second, no matter the number of participants. And everything is supposed to be imagined happening at the same time. Turns just bring order in the chaos that would transpire if every player started shouting what he wants to do at the same time.
Lets look at a duel example. In this case it makes no sense to keep facing the same way all the time, no matter your opponent actions.When you add other enemies that are engaged with you it could be reasonable. But for this case there is flanking rules.
I get that in a video game it is not easy to always rotate a character like it is a fidget spinner. Nor will it look sensible.
Posted By: Aurgelmir Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 12:28 PM
I'm all for them being more faithful to 5e, but I disagree with the "It's DOS3" arguments.

Mostly because I think those elemets people cry over, can be implemented with 5e rules as well, so as long as the game is made with the 5e rules at it's core then everything else will feel more at place.

Height: firstly, it works differently than in DOS2, and It's not really a huge issue if it gives bonuses. It's a take on the cover mechanics, so maybe just port the AC modifiers and not make it Advantage/disadvantag?
Surfaces: You guys know there's options to use that in DnD right? I just don't want Larian to make up new spells like the LarianFireBolt when the game already has Firebolt and Create Bonfire as two different cantrips. Tone down the surfaces, and make spells do what they do in 5e. It's that simple.

Make 5e FIRST, then let us Early Access players tell you where there's need for improvement.

Giving everyone Cunning Actions, to make the game more dynamic (?) instead of just making the game straight up first? And they took out things like dodge?
Posted By: VhexLambda Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 12:30 PM
Ground effects and dip are the worst offenders for me.
Posted By: TheOtter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 12:49 PM
Originally Posted by Dastan McKay
Originally Posted by TheOtter
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.


Point was that it is a flaw not to have facing.

It is equally a flaw that there is no reaction to a character obviously trying to get behind you, or trying to jump away or over you. Should warrant an attack of opportunity. Disengage is also nonsensical, with and without the tabletop versions action economy, where disengage would be an action in most cases, and a bonus action in few cases. The optional rule in this case, is sensible, another rule of having multiple combatants facing one should add to hit chance in my opinion.



The thing is. The whole combat round is 6 second, no matter the number of participants. And everything is supposed to be imagined happening at the same time. Turns just bring order in the chaos that would transpire if every player started shouting what he wants to do at the same time.
Lets look at a duel example. In this case it makes no sense to keep facing the same way all the time, no matter your opponent actions.When you add other enemies that are engaged with you it could be reasonable. But for this case there is flanking rules.
I get that in a video game it is not easy to always rotate a character like it is a fidget spinner. Nor will it look sensible.


Hence why there is a whole lot of problems involved.

I am not opposed to facing-advantages, because it still make sense even in the context that you put it. Where I can agree, is that in the context, it makes no sense that there is total inaction when someone is trying to get behind you or even away from you.

It is also why I think you should be at an disadvantage if facing multiple enemies at the same time, the more enemies the larger the disadvantage.
Posted By: denhonator Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 12:52 PM
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?
Posted By: Mythago Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


People dislike it because D&D tabletop rules don't have any mechanics for just dipping your weapon into anything in the environment. The closest, I think, are poisons you can coat your weapon with. And in that case, the target gets a saving throw instead of automatically receiving more damage. And the poison vial is a consumable item you have to craft or purchase. But in the current version of Baldur's Gate 3, holding your steel sword above a candle makes it a Flaming Sword of Horrible Burns.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by Mythago
Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


People dislike it because D&D tabletop rules don't have any mechanics for just dipping your weapon into anything in the environment. The closest, I think, are poisons you can coat your weapon with. And in that case, the target gets a saving throw instead of automatically receiving more damage. And the poison vial is a consumable item you have to craft or purchase. But in the current version of Baldur's Gate 3, holding your steel sword above a candle makes it a Flaming Sword of Horrible Burns.


It's interesting because the saving throw against poison is actually there for familiar bites.
Posted By: TheOtter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


Some, because of D&D 5e core rules.
Many others, because it currently IS terribly implemented.

As Mythago pointed out, dipping a sword in candle-light and turning it into a Flaming Sword, yeah... no. Should not happen at all.

The idea is decent enough, in my opinion, but it requires several components. Cover your weapon in grease and light it on fire, as an example, to make it flaming, cool... sure. It also requires you to prepare the proper tools for such a thing to happen. And it would let me make use of the goddamn grease bottles I carry around, making me decide whether to throw them to act as a bomb, or coat my weapon in the grease and hit stuff with it after flaming it up.
Posted By: Mythago Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
It's interesting because the saving throw against poison is actually there for familiar bites.


Yeah. There's code already for handling these things in a way that's closer to D&D rules. This is only the beginning of early access, so there's a lot of time to tweak many things. I'm just somewhat confused because Larian didn't go for D&D 5E rules first and then tweak anything that doesn't translate well into a video game.
Posted By: denhonator Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:47 PM
Alright I see. I don't use dip much outside of prologue since I have better things to do with bonus actions usually. It's not very realistic, but next to jump and shove it certainly isn't too strong.

Perhaps they should simply not allow dipping on fire until you coat the weapon with grease, maybe that would suffice? Making it too complicated would not pay off, at that point might as well remove the whole feature
Posted By: CrestOfArtorias Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by denhonator
Alright I see. I don't use dip much outside of prologue since I have better things to do with bonus actions usually. It's not very realistic, but next to jump and shove it certainly isn't too strong.

Perhaps they should simply not allow dipping on fire until you coat the weapon with grease, maybe that would suffice? Making it too complicated would not pay off, at that point might as well remove the whole feature

There is no mechanical reason to even have that feature. Most certainly not as a core mechanic that needs its own dedicated button in the UI as opposed to say the "dodge" action. Which IS a core mechanic that SHOULD have its own dedicated button in the UI.
Posted By: Madoric Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 01:57 PM
Agreed 100!!!! I love DOS, mmkay! I have 1200 Hrs played on it, but I was told that this was a "faithful recreation of 5e rule" (which it's not) Not even close atm compare to Solasta who has almost 1:1 conversion to video game and it's FUN! ( who also has a limited license of 5E). So, no I won't stop this "aggressive" feedback...
Posted By: azarhal Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 02:35 PM
Originally Posted by Mythago
Originally Posted by Nyanko
It's interesting because the saving throw against poison is actually there for familiar bites.


Yeah. There's code already for handling these things in a way that's closer to D&D rules. This is only the beginning of early access, so there's a lot of time to tweak many things. I'm just somewhat confused because Larian didn't go for D&D 5E rules first and then tweak anything that doesn't translate well into a video game.


Larian wanted more explosions and surfaces.
After adding them they realized most low CR enemies would just be one-shot by surfaces so they tweaked them to add HP but reduced AC a bit so they are technically the same difficulty but more durable totally ignoring all the spells that work based on total HD.
After increasing HP, they realized that enemies takes too much time to kill so they added more chipping power to the player via dipping, light exploding barrels and a few other rule-breaking.
After increasing the power of the player and not limiting long rest, they realized bosses were too weak so they buffed them to the point they aren't D&D creatures anymore.

Rince and repeat, it's a vicious circle of power creep that only matter at level 1 to 4 and will get bulldozed once we reach level 5-6. It also makes a lots of higher level class feature totally useless because they already have cheap replacement available at level 1.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by azarhal


so they tweaked them to add HP but reduced AC a bit so they are technically the same difficulty but more durable totally ignoring all the spells that work based on total HD



This. This is my #1 complaint and I'm worried that it's going to get lost because it shows up in so many threads. I think everyone who wants to see the HP / AC go back the 5th ed standard should use the feedback button as well as the forum.

Sacred flame, hold person, sleep, fireball -- all nerfed.
Posted By: Panda Warlord Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 05:32 PM
A couple of months ago my opinion was that 5e wouldn't be a good system for VG because there wasn't enough complexity, so I expected changes. The thing is that in a lot of places that I don't think the game works well its where there is a departure from either the rules or "spirit" of 5e (grenade laden goblins and barrelmancy) and sticking closer would fix the issue. Between BG3 and Solasta I think 5e close to as written is actually in a sweet spot of VG adaption of being intuitive and offering plenty of depth
Posted By: vometia Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
TLDR: THERE IS A REASON YOU SEE SO MANY 5e PLAYERS WHO DIDNT WANT DIVINITY 3. It is not an assumed expectation it is a reaction from their words and what was presented and promised. So instead of telling people to tone down their feedback and be happy with what was given. How about you let the consumer who was sold a product advertised this way to voice feedback (AS LARIAN REQUESTED.)

What more needs to be said? What more do I have to show the new recruits? You guys didnt wait... you just heard there was a new DIVINITY 3. The rest of us were told there was a new BALDURS GATE and it was using 5e ruleset with a 4.0 divinity engine.

So now that we are caught up... lets get this thing back on track to the original goal larian had before all the homebrew mechanics for GOOFY FUN.

IMHO if you want people to take your comments seriously, don't repeatedly mention "Divinity 3" in the OP. It's been done to death and at best results in an echo chamber.
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)

Backstab contradicts the game world. These characters aren't standing in place, facing one way. Your character is moving around in combat, swinging, dodging, etc... That's why you threaten the space "behind" you.
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
IMHO if you want people to take your comments seriously, don't repeatedly mention "Divinity 3" in the OP. It's been done to death and at best results in an echo chamber.

That's just silly. If the biggest concern with BG3 is that it's DOS instead of BG, then it's completely valid and appropriate to mention it. You're basically telling people not to mention it because you're tired of hearing it. That's irrelevant.
Posted By: tyrion85 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 06:08 PM
Originally Posted by azarhal

Rince and repeat, it's a vicious circle of power creep


This. And this is the reason I don't think messing up with 5e rules too much is a good idea. Sure, I get from where Larian is coming from, and yes, 5e is not a perfectly balanced system, and yes, Wizards don't spend enough time rebalancing things. But look, if there is anything close to "balanced" in 5e D&D, it's the official rules released by Wizards, on which they've spent years of manpower to achieve. Sure, they can always do more, but they basically have only two jobs - take care of the lore, and take care of the rules. Larian, OTOH, have so many different things going on: programming, engine, art, story, voice acting, directing all of that, so so many things. To think they could also do a rebalancing of rules (which even the Wizards struggle with), doesn't seem too rational, to me. So why even go down this path? It's a tough job, and it's so easy to mess it up.
Posted By: Demoulius Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 06:30 PM
'Backstab' gives advantage because your opponent cant see you. Use the blind spell for backstabs to the face 😂

The AI uses it as well at times and honestly if people no longer have free disengage on everyone its alot harder to abuse tbh...
Posted By: lvl20DM Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by Demoulius
'Backstab' gives advantage because your opponent cant see you. Use the blind spell for backstabs to the face 😂

The AI uses it as well at times and honestly if people no longer have free disengage on everyone its alot harder to abuse tbh...


The use of facing (something that is in 5e, but as an optional rule in the DMG) really can work, it just needs to be handled a little better - removing the bonus action jump/disengage would help quite a bit. But the facing rules also allow someone to use their reaction to change facing. Also, moving outside of the front arc to attack someone from behind would also provoke an opportunity attack (unless you have disengaged).
Posted By: eLeF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 07:00 PM
I dont't personally care about DnD rules that much and I am fully aware they cannot be fully translated into a videogame. But Larian could atleast strive to make BG3 unique and stand on its own, it deserves that much imo. It is good that people constantly bring up DOS, let them know that we expect something more, something different.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)

Backstab contradicts the game world. These characters aren't standing in place, facing one way. Your character is moving around in combat, swinging, dodging, etc... That's why you threaten the space "behind" you.


+1, turn base doesn’t means you are a static statue that can only face one way. If you can do AoO to enemies behind you, you shall not get backstab.

Backstabbing shall only happens when enemy is not aware of u, like from stealth.
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 07:50 PM
Regarding Facing:

I'll do a bigger write-up of why the purported logic is terrible (that you can't 'see' things behind you and it's an optional rule in the DMG), but for everyone using this logic please be aware that using the former argument will absolutely break hundreds of spells and class abilities.

Many, MANY spells and abilities use language that requires you to be able to 'see' your target. So, take the below example:

W ----- X ----- Y
---------|
---------|
---------Z

In this scenario, let's say X wants to cast Bless on W, Y, and Z. Using the logic of Facing, this is impossible. They cannot 'see' each of the targets all at the same time. Add in another target on the remaining axis (Upcast Bless at second level) and it just shows how impossible that will be.

Additionally, you now need to introduce the other rules for the Facing rule. A character with a Shield equipped only gains that benefit against attacks coming from about 1/3 of the area near them, the other 2/3s is useless. Barbarian Danger Sense now stops working a lot of the time because you can't 'see' the danger. You have to start modifying HUNDREDS of spells and abilities because of one dumb rule that I personally have never heard of being used by any DM, ever.

Or just change it to be a +2 modifier so it is significantly less impactful on gameplay, or ideally, remove backstab and instead use the Flanking rule with the +2 modifier to increase the amount of tactical maneuvering required to gain a benefit in melee combat, while having no need to rebalance the hundreds of other spells/abilities.
Posted By: HustleCat Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 09:22 PM


Can you argue that game is missing a nostalgic feel because it doesn't adhere to 5e rules or previous BG games as you'd like? yes.

Can you discuss balance issues? Definitely, it's early access and of course the game won't be perfect right away

Are other players allowed to like the changes? yes

Did Larian lie? not really, even in OP's links, they never said it'd be 1 to 1 conversion. In fact they said that'd be impossible. They'd get it close as they could. Expect more changes for better or worse as the EA goes on

Keep in mind, even WoTC wanted changes in the game as well https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by HustleCat

Keep in mind, even WoTC wanted changes in the game as well https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585

True, but the ranger is almost universally disappointing in 5e. No one was going to complain about that needed change. And their update to the class is excellent. That's the kind of change that come across as "faithful" to 5e.

Many (most?) of the other 5e changes come across as unnecessary. Currently I would not describe this as a "faithful" adaptation, but it's early days.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by HustleCat


Can you argue that game is missing a nostalgic feel because it doesn't adhere to 5e rules or previous BG games as you'd like? yes.

Can you discuss balance issues? Definitely, it's early access and of course the game won't be perfect right away

Are other players allowed to like the changes? yes

Did Larian lie? not really, even in OP's links, they never said it'd be 1 to 1 conversion. In fact they said that'd be impossible. They'd get it close as they could. Expect more changes for better or worse as the EA goes on

Keep in mind, even WoTC wanted changes in the game as well https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585


There is something between "1 to 1 conversion" and a totally inacurate conversion... It looks like "as close as they could" is really subjective^^
Posted By: Duriel15 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 28/10/20 11:57 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
IMHO if you want people to take your comments seriously, don't repeatedly mention "Divinity 3" in the OP. It's been done to death and at best results in an echo chamber.



This from a mod/admin is very disappointing. You're actively discouraging feedback from the player base because, from the looks of it, you/larian don't like what is being said. This could be construed as coming from Larian themselves. If a lot of people are voicing their opinion that the game is failing at being a faithful 5e adaptation, which it objectively is, it doesn't mean we're in an echo chamber. It means Larian has pissed a lot of people off.

As for the OP, if this is what Larian thinks is a 'faithful' adaptation they are blind fools. They've changed/broken so many fundamental rules of balance in the 5e system in an effort to make "BG3 the Michael Bay Cut".
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 01:36 AM
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by HustleCat

Keep in mind, even WoTC wanted changes in the game as well https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585

True, but the ranger is almost universally disappointing in 5e. No one was going to complain about that needed change. And their update to the class is excellent. That's the kind of change that come across as "faithful" to 5e.

Many (most?) of the other 5e changes come across as unnecessary. Currently I would not describe this as a "faithful" adaptation, but it's early days.


I think Traycor hit it on the nose.

People aren't asking for a 1 to 1 conversion VTT simulator for BG 3. Many spells and class abilities simply can't be translated directly without a Human DM (Suggestion spell, for example). Additionally, there are very well known weaknesses in 5e where there is room for improvement, as shown by the many iterations of Unearthed Arcana (UA for short) released by WotC over the years to playtest various fixes and balance changes. The Ranger class, specifically the Beast Master, is probably the most well known of these problematic areas. It has received *multiple* UA adjustments to test fixes.

Which is where Larian should feel like they have the most leeway to try out new things. In areas where it is well known and accepted that the current rules of 5e are not well balanced. In fact, if you look through allllll of the posts on this Feedback forum *and* the giant single thread of feedback, do you know what literally no one has complained about?

That the Ranger was changed. People have critiques and suggestions on how Larian might make it even better, but everyone from DoS 3 supporters to the most intense 5e supporters all agree that changes to the Ranger are acceptable.

The problem arises where Larian made changes that no one was asking for or expected. Where Larian has made changes with no eye towards balancing class features and spells, and definitely no thought towards what to do in the later game. They have no faith in the rules of 5e and the years of playtesting and balancing it has undergone. That's why people are complaining, not because Larian made changes to things that *everyone* agreed were necessary.
Posted By: simsurf Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 01:46 AM
The problem for Larian is that Solasta exists. A 1:1 conversion of 5e that works and is fun to play even in EA. I had a blast. So basically all Larians homebrew bullshit is just that, bullshit. Bullshit and excuses.
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:06 AM
I played Solasta, didn't have fun. Even then, people have demonstrated that Solasta isn't even 1:1 in 5e implementation. What they have done is make a very old school interface that has all the things some of the gamers here miss from older games. The thing is, at 40 years old, I am an old gamer as well. But I didn't want the large and pointlessly empty town or needless overhead map random travel messages/events, or generic "we meet in a bar" quest start, that some feel is more "grounded" but I felt as trite and over used.

I have 154 hrs in bg3, having tons of fun. By calling the game DOS:3 as a form of insult you are being malicious and disingenuous in feedback.

"It has to be 5e, but it's ok if you change the things in 5e that "I" don't like, but don't change the other things. It is ok to have a Larian flavor, but don't add anything that I can recognize as Larian, cause that taints the sanctity of BG as I remember it."

This ambiguous and inconsistent complaint sums it down to it's not the way "I remember BG to be". Which is true, this is a new BG, with a new developer, with a new ruleset, and a new engine, and a new story 100 years after the previous game.

Don't get me wrong, there are broken things in BG3 that need fixing and balancing. Some more looks at the actions/bonus action economy and skills. Core rules that are inconsistent with the tooltip or intended effect like offhand stat modifiers or damage application from skills applying when they shouldn't. The flavor things like surfaces and barrels that "break immersion" for some, come across as looking for reasons to not like the game and to attempt to devalue the game by refusing to call it Baldur's Gate.

This is mostly loyal fans feeling betrayed, and there is no helping emotions sometimes. It can be irrational and inconsistent between the person. The best Larian can do is be consistent with their development and clear in communication. Always adapting to negative feedback will lead to split goals which detract from the overall production. Ignoring feedback leads to discontent customers. I am fine with more adherence to the 5e rules, but I am not offended by variations and changes to the rules to make sense and better fit into the environment Larian has made. We should be heard, but we shouldn't expect to be pandered to.
Posted By: Orbax Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:08 AM
@CMF

Very well said.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:22 AM
I actually don't think the feedback has been all that negative. It's a well loved game, the dev has invited feeback and most of the suggestions have been geared towards making the game better.

I've gotten my money's worth already but I also want some changes. So I say so. Often. And I'm doing so hoping that I Larian will take notice. (and they have fixed one of the bugs I reported)

Having that disagreement with the OP, I also think he's right in spirit -- BG3 is further away from 5th than BG2 was to 2nd. I really want the (unintentional) caster nerfing to be reversed.
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:25 AM
Ty @Orbax. I feel bad for always being confrontational on these forums against the negative feedback. I am just afraid there is too much bandwagoning happening and people feel like they are trying to review bomb the game out of spite. I have to be careful to not mindlessly white knight this and be a hypocrite by blindly swearing the game is perfect.

There is really valid feedback once you get past all the emotions though. I want to help clear the emotional outbursts and get to real changes and feedback that can be applied more so than just having people saying DoS:3, go play Solasta.

Not really my job, but I liked what I have seen so much I feel obligated to voice some opposition so it isn't drowned out by a single narrative. This way others that are undecided or those with similar opinions don't' feel invalidated or bullied into thinking they shouldn't like this game.

It's like the emperor's new clothes. Everyone knew he didn't have clothes, but no one wanted to say anything. Once someone did, everyone felt ok to express what they have been thinking. This happens in real life all the time with people thinking "they" are wrong, because there is only one opinion being discussed and it turns into a one sided conversation.
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:50 AM
Originally Posted by CMF
I played Solasta, didn't have fun. Even then, people have demonstrated that Solasta isn't even 1:1 in 5e implementation. What they have done is make a very old school interface that has all the things some of the gamers here miss from older games. The thing is, at 40 years old, I am an old gamer as well. But I didn't want the large and pointlessly empty town or needless overhead map random travel messages/events, or generic "we meet in a bar" quest start, that some feel is more "grounded" but I felt as trite and over used.

I have 154 hrs in bg3, having tons of fun. By calling the game DOS:3 as a form of insult you are being malicious and disingenuous in feedback.

"It has to be 5e, but it's ok if you change the things in 5e that "I" don't like, but don't change the other things. It is ok to have a Larian flavor, but don't add anything that I can recognize as Larian, cause that taints the sanctity of BG as I remember it."

This ambiguous and inconsistent complaint sums it down to it's not the way "I remember BG to be". Which is true, this is a new BG, with a new developer, with a new ruleset, and a new engine, and a new story 100 years after the previous game.

Don't get me wrong, there are broken things in BG3 that need fixing and balancing. Some more looks at the actions/bonus action economy and skills. Core rules that are inconsistent with the tooltip or intended effect like offhand stat modifiers or damage application from skills applying when they shouldn't. The flavor things like surfaces and barrels that "break immersion" for some, come across as looking for reasons to not like the game and to attempt to devalue the game by refusing to call it Baldur's Gate.

This is mostly loyal fans feeling betrayed, and there is no helping emotions sometimes. It can be irrational and inconsistent between the person. The best Larian can do is be consistent with their development and clear in communication. Always adapting to negative feedback will lead to split goals which detract from the overall production. Ignoring feedback leads to discontent customers. I am fine with more adherence to the 5e rules, but I am not offended by variations and changes to the rules to make sense and better fit into the environment Larian has made. We should be heard, but we shouldn't expect to be pandered to.


You are clearly biased and not accurately representing the feedback given regarding Solasta.

Have people praised the GUI? I mean, sort of. Definitely a more well implemented interface for mechanics, but that is very small amount of the praise.

The reason Solasta is getting praise is because they started from the base rules of 5e and then adjusted where needed to implement a computer controlled DM rather than a Human DM. A few small tweaks as well that are being discussed (Disadvantage from attacking into Dim Light which is not 5e).

I'm not calling the game DoS 3 as an insult. I'm doing it as an accurate point of discussion, because the game *does* feel like DoS 3. Here are 73 examples -> https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=720570#Post720570

Feel free to make a list of factors that make the game feel like a BG game.

You are also trying to undercut properly made criticisms. To paraphrase another poster:
We love onions, we've loved them since we first tried them 20 years ago
Larian told us they were going to sell us an onion
Larian marketed us an onion
Larian gave us a tomato
We like tomatos, but were promised onions
Give us the onions you told us you were going to sell

This isn't an emotional response. It's a rational response for the community that has supported the BG series to the point it is still so popular 20+ years after release that it is not getting what was promised. To use your own words, you are only okay with the rules changes that make since to you. Larian has taken and is taking advantage of the efforts of a community spanning two decades and actively marketing the game as an onion. So give us the onion.
Posted By: Orbax Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:52 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong


You are clearly biased and not accurately representing the feedback given regarding Solasta.


Do you have proof of this? You can't just claim stuff, dude.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by CMF
Ty @Orbax. I feel bad for always being confrontational on these forums against the negative feedback. I am just afraid there is too much bandwagoning happening and people feel like they are trying to review bomb the game out of spite. I have to be careful to not mindlessly white knight this and be a hypocrite by blindly swearing the game is perfect.

There is really valid feedback once you get past all the emotions though. I want to help clear the emotional outbursts and get to real changes and feedback that can be applied more so than just having people saying DoS:3, go play Solasta.

Not really my job, but I liked what I have seen so much I feel obligated to voice some opposition so it isn't drowned out by a single narrative. This way others that are undecided or those with similar opinions don't' feel invalidated or bullied into thinking they shouldn't like this game.

It's like the emperor's new clothes. Everyone knew he didn't have clothes, but no one wanted to say anything. Once someone did, everyone felt ok to express what they have been thinking. This happens in real life all the time with people thinking "they" are wrong, because there is only one opinion being discussed and it turns into a one sided conversation.



CMF, I agree with your positioning in regard of this subject even though I do not share the very same joy by playing the game as it is. I’m not asking you to accept the criticism directed toward Larian but I’d you like to pretend that you’ve played the game for 120 hours and you’ve reached the conclusion that the game is bad. Wouldn’t it feel different if you compare with your current state? Personal taste is a very unique thing and people have many shades of how expressing their feelings smile

I like to be pragmatic but this subject touches a very emotional part of me.

Well, my statement for the game once I’ve finished it is that the game is cheap.
I appreciate fine arts and that wasn’t a piece of art in my humble opinion. The game adds to much uncoordinated content. You can clearly see that they were worried not to give content enough as if the quantity was the key buying factor for a good game.

Well, other than that, I was expecting Larian to be like CD projekt and be a disruptive company once again. Getting their golden egg to another level.
Being fearless of breaking the paradigm of their only success and move on.

We can both discuss about Solasta & BG3, but in the end that wouldn’t be a fair comparison to begin with. We’re talking about different budgets & different backgrounds. Yet, keep that in mind that the ones that should prove a point is Larian.
Posted By: Vaell Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:08 AM
The feedback should be aggressive. There is A LOT of divinity in this game, and we were promised a faithful D&D experience under the baldurs gate name. Instead we got divinity 3 with d20 skill checks. Overpowered consumables and inventory manipulation to cheese fights (aka barrelmancy) is a clear sign that they are extremely off the mark. If they truly were faithful to the source material things like this would not be remotely possible. Even the music feels like its ripped right out of divinity and doesn't remotely sound like anything similar to the old baldurs gate soundtracks. Every time i hear music in the game i just get filled with sadness because its a constant reminder this isn't actually a D&D game. Thus far a lot of the promises have not been delivered, and i am going to continue pointing that out until it is corrected. If a game as bad as no mans sky can have a turn around, this game certainly can, so i am going to stay cautiously hopeful up until release. People should ALWAYS question and criticize developers until promises have been delivered.
Posted By: 00zim00 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by azarhal


Larian wanted more explosions and surfaces.
After adding them they realized most low CR enemies would just be one-shot by surfaces so they tweaked them to add HP but reduced AC a bit so they are technically the same difficulty but more durable totally ignoring all the spells that work based on total HD.
After increasing HP, they realized that enemies takes too much time to kill so they added more chipping power to the player via dipping, light exploding barrels and a few other rule-breaking.
After increasing the power of the player and not limiting long rest, they realized bosses were too weak so they buffed them to the point they aren't D&D creatures anymore.

Rince and repeat, it's a vicious circle of power creep that only matter at level 1 to 4 and will get bulldozed once we reach level 5-6. It also makes a lots of higher level class feature totally useless because they already have cheap replacement available at level 1.


This ,+1. I really worry about higher levels based on how i see it going at the lower levels. I have tried using the environment alot to see the difference vs purposely not using it. Most of the time i use it, it doesn't feel satisfying it feels cheesy. I want combat strategy to be all about what my character can do not what the environment can do. Part of the repeatability of bg1/2 was depending on your class and party composition encounters could play very differently. As it is now it the environment is the best way to do something, therefore any future play though would just be repeating the same strategy over and over. I dont think this game will have as high repeatability from a combat point of view.



Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by azarhal


so they tweaked them to add HP but reduced AC a bit so they are technically the same difficulty but more durable totally ignoring all the spells that work based on total HD



This. This is my #1 complaint and I'm worried that it's going to get lost because it shows up in so many threads. I think everyone who wants to see the HP / AC go back the 5th ed standard should use the feedback button as well as the forum.

Sacred flame, hold person, sleep, fireball -- all nerfed.


Yes! Their are so many "unforeseen" consequences from these changes which i don't know if they are obvious to or just don't care because its "better". The more they change things the less it closely resembles 5e. During early interviews they said something along the lines of "Our game will more closely implement the 5e rule set then any other game" yet that is not the case at all, especially compared to other 5e games.
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:16 AM
For sure, you guys are entitled to a negative opinion. Nothing should be globally accepted without dissenting opinions.

Aggressive feedback is good, but hateful feedback is non-constructive. (not that you two specifically had hateful feedback, just saying that as an example)

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

Simply put, this game isn't for everyone. I don't think it is fair to trash the game though. We should be able to acknowledging the things done well while accepting it was for a different demographic. I don't like country music, but I can appreciate when someone is a good singer. I won't listen to their music, but I know they have a powerful or moving voice.
Posted By: Vaell Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:22 AM
Originally Posted by CMF
For sure, you guys are entitled to a negative opinion. Nothing should be globally accepted without dissenting opinions.

Aggressive feedback is good, but hateful feedback is non-constructive. (not that you two specifically had hateful feedback, just saying that as an example)

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

Simply put, this game isn't for everyone. I don't think it is fair to trash the game though. We should be able to acknowledging the things done well while accepting it was for a different demographic. I don't like country music, but I can appreciate when someone is a good singer. I won't listen to their music, but I know they have a powerful or moving voice.

Pointing out flaws is not "trashing the game." Flaws should always be pointed out regardless of peoples feelings or views. People can have an opinion, but as soon as it opposes a fact they are just wrong. Larian hasn't lived up to all their promises, and that is a documented fact because there are many quotes and claims out there that have yet to be fulfilled. That is the basic truth of it and they should be brought to task.
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:36 AM
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong


You are clearly biased and not accurately representing the feedback given regarding Solasta.


Do you have proof of this? You can't just claim stuff, dude.


First, you made the initial claim and provided exactly zero evidence to support it. Burden of proof is on you.

However, I will provide sources for my rebuttal:

1. Solasta's main forums for feedback - https://forums.solasta-game.com/forums/balance-feedback

Overwhelmingly positive feedback, most negative feedback related to changes to the Lighting rules. The Dev team has come forward and stated their reasons for the change, as well as having described in quite some detail the reason for the change.

2. Solasta's discussion on these forums
- https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=714049&page=1
- https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=93529&Number=718310
- https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=711894&page=1
- https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=719770&page=1

Wanna know how often the UI is praised? Rarely, mostly as a statement that it is more 'basic' but also much more 'functionable', but that's it. The remaining discussion centers larger on adhering closer to the rules and actual implementation of Reactions. So please, provide your evidence.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:41 AM
Originally Posted by Vaell
Originally Posted by CMF
For sure, you guys are entitled to a negative opinion. Nothing should be globally accepted without dissenting opinions.

Aggressive feedback is good, but hateful feedback is non-constructive. (not that you two specifically had hateful feedback, just saying that as an example)

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

Simply put, this game isn't for everyone. I don't think it is fair to trash the game though. We should be able to acknowledging the things done well while accepting it was for a different demographic. I don't like country music, but I can appreciate when someone is a good singer. I won't listen to their music, but I know they have a powerful or moving voice.

Pointing out flaws is not "trashing the game." Flaws should always be pointed out regardless of peoples feelings or views. People can have an opinion, but as soon as it opposes a fact they are just wrong. Larian hasn't lived up to all their promises, and that is a documented fact because there are many quotes and claims out there that have yet to be fulfilled. That is the basic truth of it and they should be brought to task.


+1
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:47 AM
Originally Posted by CMF
*snip*

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

*snip*


That's not true at all. I do not know nearly enough about music to make an accurate objective analysis, but I have seen it done repeatedly. You can compare the type of instruments used, vocals, tones, etc. I would absolutely love for someone with expertise in music analysis to compare the BG/BG 2 soundtracks as against the BG 3 music. To me, it subjectively feels like DoS music due to the amount of 'airiness', 'chanting' and usage of harps, lacking the impact of the big brass used throughout BG. But the composer of the BG 3 soundtrack did state that he took inspiration and elements from the BG/BG 2 soundtracks, so I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge to prove if that is true or not.

DOS 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwNSyGamJg
DOS 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-Dcwq4i2g
BG 3 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC7z3fAYDs
BG 2 TOB Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7T6Kd9cYg
BG 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88zyFLzIXQ
BG 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7vWiaxw7Y

Subjectively, to me, BG 3 just doesn't sound similar to BG 1&2. There are elements there, but the emphasis and tone seems all wrong. Instead I hear the airy chanting and harps of DoS 2 (but not DoS 1, which does seem to have a unique feel to me), rather than the big brass and emphatic drums of BG.
Posted By: IAmPageicus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:06 AM
[quote=HustleCat]

"Can you argue that game is missing a nostalgic feel because it doesn't adhere to 5e rules or previous BG games as you'd like? yes."
BG 1-2 didnt use 5e they used an older system. I started playing BG about two months after the BG3 anouncement. So I dont have nostalgic lenses. What I did read and watch in interviews that I provided in 5 minutes of google. Not the only ones mind you. Is that this game was pushing 5e with Wizards backing them up. They also expressed they had to ask Wizards for rules changes for a specific class.

"Can you discuss balance issues? Definitely, it's early access and of course the game won't be perfect right away."
My friend we are going to talk about more than BALANCE ISSUES no we are going to try to change current sytems entirely. Like we did with GROUP initiative 3 months ago. And all the recorded and paid for Dialogue in past tense was changed entirely from scratch due to our feedback. Knowing that we are going to push for a lot of other drastic changes. That just like those two things will benefit everyone in the long run.

"Are other players allowed to like the changes? yes"
Oh yea... but the majority of players probably do not understand why you cannot just lower ac and bloat hp in the long run. There are more DND Players than PLAYTESTERS we are here for one job TO PLAYTEST it is what we love to do. The math is completely off yet NOT FOR THE PLAYER. This would never make it to print as is in tabletop. But it takes a very vocal minorty with experience in this field. If you dont have an understanding of the base systems and how they ripple into others when changes have been made. Well than your point will always be wrong from a mathematical standpoint. Opinion is great but when dealing with Math based mechanics you can largely be WRONG.

We like the game as is. But the game is on the verge of being more than good. This game is so so so damn close to Being ONE OF THE GREATS! We believe in it... dont think we are against it. Most of us want it to succeed it just need help. Sometimes its hard to show your game master that he is running poorly... most would say its his game let him run it like that. But I always prefer to help new gamemasters to a system cause I know everyone has potential to run the mechanics in a fun and interesting way that wont punish the players.

Just look at all the skills NOT BEING USED... AT ALL outside of a social check. This game master only knows how to run Attack and AC and Saves... there are skills that work in and out of combat and during downtime. Arcana is not just for discussion. Nature is not just for discussion. Medicine? Insight? Why is getting a feel of a character mood only work on scripted events? Why is there no system built into social behavior like is standard for rpg's? Right now we have AGGRESSIVE KILL and I LIKE YOU PEACE. What about Neutral, Hostile, cautious, friendly, and helpful? These things dont exist in the game. So social skills to improve their mood are moot ATM.

I belive things will improve... I love Larian but lets not settle for less thats not even what they want. They said LETS make this the best RPG EVER TOGETHER!!!
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:11 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by CMF
*snip*

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

*snip*


That's not true at all. I do not know nearly enough about music to make an accurate objective analysis, but I have seen it done repeatedly. You can compare the type of instruments used, vocals, tones, etc. I would absolutely love for someone with expertise in music analysis to compare the BG/BG 2 soundtracks as against the BG 3 music. To me, it subjectively feels like DoS music due to the amount of 'airiness', 'chanting' and usage of harps, lacking the impact of the big brass used throughout BG. But the composer of the BG 3 soundtrack did state that he took inspiration and elements from the BG/BG 2 soundtracks, so I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge to prove if that is true or not.

DOS 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwNSyGamJg
DOS 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-Dcwq4i2g
BG 3 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC7z3fAYDs
BG 2 TOB Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7T6Kd9cYg
BG 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88zyFLzIXQ
BG 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7vWiaxw7Y

Subjectively, to me, BG 3 just doesn't sound similar to BG 1&2. There are elements there, but the emphasis and tone seems all wrong. Instead I hear the airy chanting and harps of DoS 2 (but not DoS 1, which does seem to have a unique feel to me), rather than the big brass and emphatic drums of BG.


Not a music major, but I am an analyst by job, so I'll do my best:

BG1 music was very cadenced and sounded like a war march (does this match with the story narrative?). Militaristic might or a campaign to fight a common enemy?

BG2 music had a few sections in it which the style changed as to tell a story. Had hints of intrigue and mystique in the beginning, as the curtains raised it moves back to a march cadence with trumpets of valor/victory heralding on the heroes, or describing adventure, moving back to a somber tone of loss or maybe recovery from the action and ending on danger and doom.

Both the BG songs were more "operatic" in structure, and more like the sounds of an odyssey taking place.

DOS1 music was interesting because it had a sense of adventure and beginnings of exploration and at the same time had a sense of loss and ruin with a sad or longing tone from the violin. It sounded like an adventure of duty and guilt.

DOS2 music also had hints of sadness and loss in them while having moments of haste and adventure then reverting back to angelic callings and longing.

Both of the DOS songs were very folktale-esque and sounded like a a bard tale or songs you would hear at a medieval festival or travelers tavern.

Interestingly, BG3 music is closer to BG than DOS to me, because it goes back to the more operatic tone in the sense of drums and loud horns versus flutes and violins. Then in the middle of the BG3 music they fall back to a DOS style angelic choir of folk tale singing and story telling. This keeps going back and forth between the two styles as it plays....which makes sense as they are probably trying to emulate both.
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
[quote=HustleCat]

"Can you argue that game is missing a nostalgic feel because it doesn't adhere to 5e rules or previous BG games as you'd like? yes."
BG 1-2 didnt use 5e they used an older system. I started playing BG about two months after the BG3 anouncement. So I dont have nostalgic lenses. What I did read and watch in interviews that I provided in 5 minutes of google. Not the only ones mind you. Is that this game was pushing 5e with Wizards backing them up. They also expressed they had to ask Wizards for rules changes for a specific class.

"Can you discuss balance issues? Definitely, it's early access and of course the game won't be perfect right away."
My friend we are going to talk about more than BALANCE ISSUES no we are going to try to change current sytems entirely. Like we did with GROUP initiative 3 months ago. And all the recorded and paid for Dialogue in past tense was changed entirely from scratch due to our feedback. Knowing that we are going to push for a lot of other drastic changes. That just like those two things will benefit everyone in the long run.

"Are other players allowed to like the changes? yes"
Oh yea... but the majority of players probably do not understand why you cannot just lower ac and bloat hp in the long run. There are more DND Players than PLAYTESTERS we are here for one job TO PLAYTEST it is what we love to do. The math is completely off yet NOT FOR THE PLAYER. This would never make it to print as is in tabletop. But it takes a very vocal minorty with experience in this field. If you dont have an understanding of the base systems and how they ripple into others when changes have been made. Well than your point will always be wrong from a mathematical standpoint. Opinion is great but when dealing with Math based mechanics you can largely be WRONG.

We like the game as is. But the game is on the verge of being more than good. This game is so so so damn close to Being ONE OF THE GREATS! We believe in it... dont think we are against it. Most of us want it to succeed it just need help. Sometimes its hard to show your game master that he is running poorly... most would say its his game let him run it like that. But I always prefer to help new gamemasters to a system cause I know everyone has potential to run the mechanics in a fun and interesting way that wont punish the players.

Just look at all the skills NOT BEING USED... AT ALL outside of a social check. This game master only knows how to run Attack and AC and Saves... there are skills that work in and out of combat and during downtime. Arcana is not just for discussion. Nature is not just for discussion. Medicine? Insight? Why is getting a feel of a character mood only work on scripted events? Why is there no system built into social behavior like is standard for rpg's? Right now we have AGGRESSIVE KILL and I LIKE YOU PEACE. What about Neutral, Hostile, cautious, friendly, and helpful? These things dont exist in the game. So social skills to improve their mood are moot ATM.

I belive things will improve... I love Larian but lets not settle for less thats not even what they want. They said LETS make this the best RPG EVER TOGETHER!!!




All totally fair and respectable points and I agree. I have been the opposition to strict 5e adherence on the forums lately because it felt like there was a one sided conversation going on as a sort of echo chamber here, but as long as your mentality is spread I think it is totally productive and good critical feedback.
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:21 AM
There are simple fixes that are easily implemeted into the game. None of what I am suggesting is impossible to do with the engine they have.

Make or break changes that need to be implimented or the game will not even be close to a faithful representation of DnD

1) Backstab/facing- remove the facing aspect and make it from stealth or if target is flanked.

2) Barrelmancy - Sorry, but wine is not explosive or particularly flamable and should not catch fire at all. Could it be used for difficult terrain, yes, but not flaming death. Grease should have to be targeted specifically in order to catch fire. Limit the number to what would be actually reasonable and in places where it would make sence. Furthermore, characters should not be able to transfer items once in combat unless they use an action to do so and are in melee range of the character they wish to trade with. This also gets rid of trading healing pots in battle.

3) Jump/Disengage - In the players handbook, disengage is a full action. It just allows you to disengage from an attacker so you can move away from them without suffering an attack of opprotunity. Jump is simply a movement action, if you go past someones threat range they should get an attack of opprotunity just as if they had moved through your threat range. Jumping should also break your stealth.

4) Height advantage - High ground should never give avantage. I would reccommend the simple +1 or +2 to attack from high ground and possible range extension. Also no disadvantage to shooting from low ground. Again a simple -1 or -2 would be fair for showing possible cover

5) Dodge - Add this full action into the game. It is an essential part of the core rules.

6) HP bloat - This may be a necessary evil since missing most of the time is not fun at early levels. My solution would be a tiny increase to mage spell damage to compensate.

7) Mage cantrips - Fire bolt, acid splash, and ray of frost needs the surface functions removed and their damage set to what is in the rules. Acid splash simply does 1d6 damage to one or two targets within 5 feet of eachother, not create a persistent acid puddle, Ray of frost simply does 1d8 damage and slows the target by 10ft of movement, not create a persistent area of ice and freeze water to knock things prone, Fire bolt does simply 1d10 damage to a target, not set them on fire and a persistent fire effect below them. It even specifically states it cannot be used to set things on fire that are worn or carried by the target. These three spell changes are my biggest problems so far, these three spells are what gives this game the feeling of being more Divinity than BG. Since these are what are lending to the Barrelmancy/surface warfare part of the game.

8) Monters being faithful to the rules - Minotaur and hook horror frogs that just jump around every turn is plain silly and has no ground it the rule book at all. 4th lvl fighters do not get 2 attack every round like the two 4th lvl duergar in the underdark. If those two duergar were ment to be 5th lvl instead and the 4th lvl tag for them is a bug, then that point is moot. There is most likely many more examples of this.

9) Push - This is an attack action in the rules and needs to be one in the game as well.


More nitpicky stuff that isn't make or break for me

1) Resting - limit how often you can take long rests

2) Waypoints - This has absolutly no grounding in Forgotten Realms lore at all. There are ancient portals in the realm, but they are very few and far between, and most no longer work. I put this under nit picking, because I know modern gamers are a lazy bunch and don't like spending 5 minutes to walk around a map and just want to teleport everywhere so I have no illusion that this will be changed. Just sad that a world I have known for so long is getting it's lore gutted like this for laziness.
Posted By: Darth Rauko Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:30 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by CMF
*snip*

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

*snip*


That's not true at all. I do not know nearly enough about music to make an accurate objective analysis, but I have seen it done repeatedly. You can compare the type of instruments used, vocals, tones, etc. I would absolutely love for someone with expertise in music analysis to compare the BG/BG 2 soundtracks as against the BG 3 music. To me, it subjectively feels like DoS music due to the amount of 'airiness', 'chanting' and usage of harps, lacking the impact of the big brass used throughout BG. But the composer of the BG 3 soundtrack did state that he took inspiration and elements from the BG/BG 2 soundtracks, so I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge to prove if that is true or not.

DOS 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwNSyGamJg
DOS 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-Dcwq4i2g
BG 3 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC7z3fAYDs
BG 2 TOB Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7T6Kd9cYg
BG 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88zyFLzIXQ
BG 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7vWiaxw7Y

Subjectively, to me, BG 3 just doesn't sound similar to BG 1&2. There are elements there, but the emphasis and tone seems all wrong. Instead I hear the airy chanting and harps of DoS 2 (but not DoS 1, which does seem to have a unique feel to me), rather than the big brass and emphatic drums of BG.


Answer: 5/4 measure.

>>>>>>>> https://forums.larian.com//ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=681316
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:44 AM
Originally Posted by Darth Rauko
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by CMF
*snip*

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

*snip*


That's not true at all. I do not know nearly enough about music to make an accurate objective analysis, but I have seen it done repeatedly. You can compare the type of instruments used, vocals, tones, etc. I would absolutely love for someone with expertise in music analysis to compare the BG/BG 2 soundtracks as against the BG 3 music. To me, it subjectively feels like DoS music due to the amount of 'airiness', 'chanting' and usage of harps, lacking the impact of the big brass used throughout BG. But the composer of the BG 3 soundtrack did state that he took inspiration and elements from the BG/BG 2 soundtracks, so I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge to prove if that is true or not.

DOS 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwNSyGamJg
DOS 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-Dcwq4i2g
BG 3 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC7z3fAYDs
BG 2 TOB Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7T6Kd9cYg
BG 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88zyFLzIXQ
BG 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7vWiaxw7Y

Subjectively, to me, BG 3 just doesn't sound similar to BG 1&2. There are elements there, but the emphasis and tone seems all wrong. Instead I hear the airy chanting and harps of DoS 2 (but not DoS 1, which does seem to have a unique feel to me), rather than the big brass and emphatic drums of BG.


Answer: 5/4 measure.

>>>>>>>> https://forums.larian.com//ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=681316


Nice, I clicked on the soundcloud link the OP made of his version with 5/4 and that tempo really does change it a lot! He only used the section of the intro music that had drums and horns which was closer to the marching cadence I spoke of, but having the tempo change made it more forceful and did transform the music. I have a feeling this would feel unnatural for the other sections as they changed styles a few times through the song.
Posted By: HustleCat Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 05:53 AM
Originally Posted by Dreygor6091
There are simple fixes that are easily implemeted into the game. None of what I am suggesting is impossible to do with the engine they have.

Make or break changes that need to be implimented or the game will not even be close to a faithful representation of DnD

1) Backstab/facing- remove the facing aspect and make it from stealth or if target is flanked.

2) Barrelmancy - Sorry, but wine is not explosive or particularly flamable and should not catch fire at all. Could it be used for difficult terrain, yes, but not flaming death. Grease should have to be targeted specifically in order to catch fire. Limit the number to what would be actually reasonable and in places where it would make sence. Furthermore, characters should not be able to transfer items once in combat unless they use an action to do so and are in melee range of the character they wish to trade with. This also gets rid of trading healing pots in battle.

3) Jump/Disengage - In the players handbook, disengage is a full action. It just allows you to disengage from an attacker so you can move away from them without suffering an attack of opprotunity. Jump is simply a movement action, if you go past someones threat range they should get an attack of opprotunity just as if they had moved through your threat range. Jumping should also break your stealth.

4) Height advantage - High ground should never give avantage. I would reccommend the simple +1 or +2 to attack from high ground and possible range extension. Also no disadvantage to shooting from low ground. Again a simple -1 or -2 would be fair for showing possible cover

5) Dodge - Add this full action into the game. It is an essential part of the core rules.

6) HP bloat - This may be a necessary evil since missing most of the time is not fun at early levels. My solution would be a tiny increase to mage spell damage to compensate.

7) Mage cantrips - Fire bolt, acid splash, and ray of frost needs the surface functions removed and their damage set to what is in the rules. Acid splash simply does 1d6 damage to one or two targets within 5 feet of eachother, not create a persistent acid puddle, Ray of frost simply does 1d8 damage and slows the target by 10ft of movement, not create a persistent area of ice and freeze water to knock things prone, Fire bolt does simply 1d10 damage to a target, not set them on fire and a persistent fire effect below them. It even specifically states it cannot be used to set things on fire that are worn or carried by the target. These three spell changes are my biggest problems so far, these three spells are what gives this game the feeling of being more Divinity than BG. Since these are what are lending to the Barrelmancy/surface warfare part of the game.

8) Monters being faithful to the rules - Minotaur and hook horror frogs that just jump around every turn is plain silly and has no ground it the rule book at all. 4th lvl fighters do not get 2 attack every round like the two 4th lvl duergar in the underdark. If those two duergar were ment to be 5th lvl instead and the 4th lvl tag for them is a bug, then that point is moot. There is most likely many more examples of this.

9) Push - This is an attack action in the rules and needs to be one in the game as well.


More nitpicky stuff that isn't make or break for me

1) Resting - limit how often you can take long rests

2) Waypoints - This has absolutly no grounding in Forgotten Realms lore at all. There are ancient portals in the realm, but they are very few and far between, and most no longer work. I put this under nit picking, because I know modern gamers are a lazy bunch and don't like spending 5 minutes to walk around a map and just want to teleport everywhere so I have no illusion that this will be changed. Just sad that a world I have known for so long is getting it's lore gutted like this for laziness.


1) agreed

2) Agree with the item sharing in combat. Flammable alcohol and grease are things that exist. Could poke fun at putting out a grease fire with water though.

3) agree, wellll I can see rogue type characters jumping stealthily

4) Height is pretty much working as cover. You're not going to see as much of someone standing on a rooftop and you're going to have to put in more energy to reach them. Range extension would be nice and I think getting rid of the attack advantage from being high would be fine

5) yup

6) I would think this would be necessary evil due to how easy it to rest or even just self heal with food. Definitely wouldn't need to make mage spells stronger. To get rid of the bloat, I'd think they have to nerf food and figure out something for resting. Give it cost like gold for supplies or put quests and story events on a timer.

7) Given the current state of easy resting making spells easier to use and hp bloat, the suped up cantrips kind of work in this state of the game. I personally like that they stand out more from each with the different effects. I like the surface gameplay as well. Making the enemy wade through fire to get to me. Being splashed by poisonous spider blood and having that "oh sh!t" moment. Dropping a hanging brazier on a goblin is fun.

8) Likely is a bug and something to do with the level cap being 4 at the moment

9) Yeah it being an action would be fine. Same with Hide and Disengage. Yeeting people off the edge of things is great and I don't understand people that want to take it away entirely in other threads.

10) Yup. Seeing how people play the game and feedback from players will hopefully give them ideas the change how resting works

11)I appreciate the QoL improvements. Don't need to make an already long game longer with walking back n forth between empty places
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:23 AM
Originally Posted by Darth Rauko
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by CMF
*snip*

Subjective things like music is hard to nail down though because what you equate to Larian-esque could be considered tone setting and wonderful by others. Hence people have different taste in music as well as art and style.

*snip*


That's not true at all. I do not know nearly enough about music to make an accurate objective analysis, but I have seen it done repeatedly. You can compare the type of instruments used, vocals, tones, etc. I would absolutely love for someone with expertise in music analysis to compare the BG/BG 2 soundtracks as against the BG 3 music. To me, it subjectively feels like DoS music due to the amount of 'airiness', 'chanting' and usage of harps, lacking the impact of the big brass used throughout BG. But the composer of the BG 3 soundtrack did state that he took inspiration and elements from the BG/BG 2 soundtracks, so I'm waiting for someone with more knowledge to prove if that is true or not.

DOS 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwNSyGamJg
DOS 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-Dcwq4i2g
BG 3 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC7z3fAYDs
BG 2 TOB Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7T6Kd9cYg
BG 2 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88zyFLzIXQ
BG 1 Main Theme -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7vWiaxw7Y

Subjectively, to me, BG 3 just doesn't sound similar to BG 1&2. There are elements there, but the emphasis and tone seems all wrong. Instead I hear the airy chanting and harps of DoS 2 (but not DoS 1, which does seem to have a unique feel to me), rather than the big brass and emphatic drums of BG.


Answer: 5/4 measure.

>>>>>>>> https://forums.larian.com//ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=681316


YES, yes, a thousand times yes! Thank you for providing that link and I've already thanked the original author. That seriously changes the entire audio 'feel' of the main theme music and suddenly turns the "Intro Music is Too Similar to DoS" factor into a BG factor. It's sort of sad how (easy? I have no idea how hard that was) a single poster could produce a dramatically more authentic to BG sound. Updating my Master List to include.
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:07 AM
Originally Posted by HustleCat
[quote=Dreygor6091]

7) Given the current state of easy resting making spells easier to use and hp bloat, the suped up cantrips kind of work in this state of the game. I personally like that they stand out more from each with the different effects. I like the surface gameplay as well. Making the enemy wade through fire to get to me. Being splashed by poisonous spider blood and having that "oh sh!t" moment. Dropping a hanging brazier on a goblin is fun.

11)I appreciate the QoL improvements. Don't need to make an already long game longer with walking back n forth between empty places



7) is a must fix. The surface warfare is the main culprit that makes this game not feel like a DnD game. It's the standard Divinity game. That all fights come down to spreading either water or grease then either freezing it electrifying it or igniting it to make a huge AoE. This is very Divinity and not DnD at all.

11) as I said due to laziness. you can tranverse from any one point to one on the opposite side of the map in less than 3 minutes. That is short attention span laziness and frankly ruins established lore of a world.
Posted By: Flafnir Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:21 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)



Apparently you have never played demon souls or dark souls series. You just killed people in real time with only backsteps in the fight behind them and turned into the back. So yes that is a completely normal kill art and just as permitted in the game. There is no need for further discussion.
Posted By: Isaac Springsong Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:24 AM
Originally Posted by Flafnir
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)



Apparently you have never played demon souls or dark souls series. You just killed people in real time with only backsteps in the fight behind them and turned into the back. So yes that is a completely normal kill art and just as permitted in the game. There is no need for further discussion.


I was unaware we were playing Dark Souls 4, my bad.

That's seriously the worst argument we've seen so far, which is saying something. Dark Souls is great for a lot of things, balancing a D&D 5e based game sure ain't one of them.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:26 AM
I agree the marketing and the early access counter act each other.. We were sold promises of a D&D 5th edition game but so far we have been given a homebrew divinity game.. I personally did not like DoS games very much, which is why i was worried when Larion revealed they were making BG3.. My fears are we will not be getting what the early marketing was sold to us as..

I feel the DoS3 echo chamber is what Larion deserves as its literally what most customers didn't want.. Please Larion overhaul these fake rules asap and the angry customer noises will some what go away..
Posted By: Flafnir Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:35 AM
Originally Posted by Dreygor6091
Originally Posted by HustleCat
[quote=Dreygor6091]

7) Given the current state of easy resting making spells easier to use and hp bloat, the suped up cantrips kind of work in this state of the game. I personally like that they stand out more from each with the different effects. I like the surface gameplay as well. Making the enemy wade through fire to get to me. Being splashed by poisonous spider blood and having that "oh sh!t" moment. Dropping a hanging brazier on a goblin is fun.

11)I appreciate the QoL improvements. Don't need to make an already long game longer with walking back n forth between empty places



7) is a must fix. The surface warfare is the main culprit that makes this game not feel like a DnD game. It's the standard Divinity game. That all fights come down to spreading either water or grease then either freezing it electrifying it or igniting it to make a huge AoE. This is very Divinity and not DnD at all.

11) as I said due to laziness. you can tranverse from any one point to one on the opposite side of the map in less than 3 minutes. That is short attention span laziness and frankly ruins established lore of a world.


You don't have to use any of this. No opponent will destroy an oil barrel or throw it at you. No enemy will change weapons in battle. If you don't want to use these options then don't do it. Play the game according to your 5e rules, the game doesn't have to impose it on you, no no no. You can impose that on yourself. If you don't want you to switch to the other side so quickly then slow it down. Where is your problem. I suspect dissatisfied spirits want to force their will on others and such spirits always have something to complain about and even for broken games. I am very satisfied with the game and what I can and can do. Sure I can smoke everything out with aoe, but that doesn't mean that I do it. Since it's getting boring, I think of something new. I always invite fights like this to try what else is possible, like luring enemies onto the roof and then throwing them into the river. The game is fun but your stiff rules make it more of a fun brake (fun killer)


Sure you can't please everyone, but ride it on the devil and spoil it is not D&D is not 5E for me it hangs out after 4 weeks. We play against an AI and there is no human GM who intervenes in an emergency like at the table. This is a video game and it orientates itself as best it can without being a fun killer. In every game there are opportunities to use mechanics, but that is up to the player himself. There is no competition here you play for yourself. Sry for me bad Engl. and hard sound
Posted By: Flafnir Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:39 AM
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by Flafnir
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)



Apparently you have never played demon souls or dark souls series. You just killed people in real time with only backsteps in the fight behind them and turned into the back. So yes that is a completely normal kill art and just as permitted in the game. There is no need for further discussion.


I was unaware we were playing Dark Souls 4, my bad.

That's seriously the worst argument we've seen so far, which is saying something. Dark Souls is great for a lot of things, balancing a D&D 5e based game sure ain't one of them.


You said in a fight you can't stab an enemy from behind? I wrote, but I'm sure something like that is possible. Where is the difference between lap-based and real-time? It doesn't matter whether I run around the opponent or jump, the point backstep is allowed. What do you want to change about it. That you are no longer allowed to move in a fight, the enemy should turn with you. Then I stab him in the back with another char that easy.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:57 AM
Originally Posted by Flafnir
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)



Apparently you have never played demon souls or dark souls series. You just killed people in real time with only backsteps in the fight behind them and turned into the back. So yes that is a completely normal kill art and just as permitted in the game. There is no need for further discussion.


What the hell are you talking about ?
Dark Souls ? We're talking about Baldur's Gate and D&D...

+ "Normal kill art" cry
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:58 AM
The way the 5e rules are written without facing, you can sneak attack as long as the ally is within 5ft or 1.5m of the target and/or if you have advantage.

Flanking rules became optional apparently so you don't' have to attack from behind like most of us have been taught over the years of gaming. So if I blind the target, crouch and hide in front of the target, shove the target down to prone, or use some sort sort of CC like hold person, or even cast faerie fire or true strike, I can then sneak attack from any position (I'm sure I got something wrong there as I played table top d&d 3 times ever in my life, so correct me if needed).

If flanking rules are permitted by the DM (as they are here), you can gain advantage from side and rear flanks and perform sneak attacks without additional actions.

Many on the forums seem to object because it is too easy to flank and reach the back due to turn based combat and claim improbability or immersion breaking. As mentioned above, bad kind of a bad example, dark souls allows you to square off face to face and in real time you can still manage to get behind someone.

In real life fighting/sparing, I know for a fact it is easy to get behind an opponent in a face to face fight with proper footwork (if they go forward you move in an oblique and angle past them). Add in manipulation of the limbs and it is even easier to get behind someone in a fight...so I guess grapple as some have mentioned is a missing skill in this game.

So "back stabbing" sneak attacking is wholly possible from the front or in a 1 on 1 fight, even with d&d rules.

Anyway, why are so many of you worried about immersion and reality in a table top game revolving around magic and dragons, but it is immersion breaking to you that a guy can stab someone in the back at will?
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 08:05 AM
The problem is not only that it's immersion breaking. It looks visualy stupid but it also completely break all the combats.
A tactical game in which everything is an easy mechanic is not tactical anymore... Backstab is completely broken atm and even the heavier warrior in the heavier armor can backstab everyone in 1vs1.

What you describe "in Real life" absolutely don't looks like how backstab work in D&D, and it also look absolutely not accurate to reality... Exept if you can move way faster than your opponent... Which is something our characters aren't able to do in BG3 and D&D.
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 08:22 AM
The visual representation in this game (the jump) is an animation that could be represented by anything for disengage, for simplicity sake they made jump and disengage the same action. Enemy targets that disengage do not jump and instead create a sort of "whirl" of wind at their feet to show they are able to move away without an attack of opportunity.

Currently in game you don't have to even jump behind a target...you can...sure, but if you just use your movement to walk at a slight angle to the target you can gain advantage. People jump because it is easier to do without having to look to see if pathing is going to force you to walk too far out and cause an AoO. If they replace disengage with a different animation, all of the sudden your immersion breaking problem looks natural again...the actions are exactly the same though...so I feel that is just a shallow level of thinking on your half.

Now the argument on if disengage should be an action versus bonus action is another issue. I guess rogues have cunning action that is unique to them to allow this, so the above scenarios to permit sneak attack still work.

For the perception that "anyone" can backstab even in heavy armor....only rogues are getting the sneak attack bonus damage, the other classes are simply gaining advantage to get 2 dice rolls. It is not immersion breaking to believe that if I get you off balance and get to the side of you, it is drastically harder for you to defend yourself while it is easier for me to land a hit on you.

Just because you can't visualize or process these actions anything other than a surface level verbatim definition does not mean it is impossible and immersion breaking. Your lack of imagination and adaptability makes scenarios you are not familiar with limiting to you.

As far as breaking combat, again the rogue can already gain sneak attack through smart use of tools and should be aiming at getting bonus damage as much as possible otherwise they are not using all of the tools available to them as a class and is a misuse of your skills. Because people are more being efficient, does not inherently mean the game is being broken.

First it is immersion breaking cause that can't happen in real life, and then real life is nothing how D&D works and can't happen that way...can't have both.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 08:39 AM
Ok so things can be stupid and inconsistent as soon as you don't HAVE to do them. And yeah, it's easier to mix jump/disengage so no problem if the combats looks totally ridiculous... Because I still don't HAVE to jump, I just can.
Nice point of view.

I don't really know why you're talking about sneak attack. It's not the point. AOO are useless, that's a part of the point.

Not sure it's really usefull to talk about it if that's your arguments.

D&D and the FR have a better sense of reality than BG3 whatever you think about it.
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 08:48 AM
I don't know if video games are for you and instead tabletop allows you to not be impacted by the visuals represented, thus allowing your picture of action in your head satisfying your immersion. Some people like books over movies.

If combat "required" you to have to do something ridiculous like put on 20 hats in order to avoid being knocked out otherwise you are severely punished every round you don't have a hat on...then sure I don't want to be forced to play in a way I disagree with and I would choose a different game.

On the other hand, if a game allowed me to play as a tight rope walking gnome ranger with acrobatics and dropping animal companion squirrels on my targets to do damage....but it would be equally as practical to just use a bow and do the same amount of damage and either way is viable and fun, but up to the user...then what is the issue? Do I have to impose my will on others to ensure they don't fight with squirrels because I don't like that and I think they should only use a bow as a ranger and nothing else?

You don't have to jump, it does not provide any specifically greater advantages but it could be used if you like. Otherwise just hit them from the front or use your mobility to walk to the left or right of the target, or use your spells to blind them and get behind them, or use your allies to be in melee range with you to not require you to move at all. All those things are viable and work just fine.

The way you play the game will not break the immersion I have on my own game.

(to your edit, I was talking about sneak attacks due to the discussion 2 or 3 posts above about how impractical and immersion breaking is with sneak attack and backstabs and people jumping everywhere. Tried to show that you don't' have to jump everywhere to get a sneak attack and those are just one way of gaining advantage to enable the skill to proc extra damage)
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:12 AM
Your characters are not frogs in many tactical TB video games, so I guess it's not really related to the medium wink

Who said you can't use anything else than a bow if you're a ranger ? Just choose another class if the ranger doesn't suit... Or play a game like DoS in which classes doesn't really exist.

Jumping/disengage (because that's the beginning) in melee PROVIDE greater advantages, unbalance the game even more, combats looks visually silly, melee characters are useless, the rogue has way less specificity (even if he's still powerfull), many D&D spells, D&D skills and items become useless (i.e things that grants invisibility or and advantage), greatly reduce the tactical value of the game, Etc....

I'm glad you're fine with all this.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:14 AM
Staying true to the 5e rules will kill this game. The game is too ambitious for something like this to work.
They can't afford to ignore DoS fans and casuals. Ignoring these players will lead to a sales disaster.
Unlike Solasta, I doubt BG3 will be able to do enough on D&D fans alone.

Some changes like lowering ac and increasing HP are due to turn-based combat.
The changes to the shove and dip are here to give the character more to do on their turns. The surfaces also mainly serve to diversify low-level combat.
The changes in rest also seem to be due, although it will definitely be changed in some way.
The game has a few broken mechanics that should be fixed sooner or later, but most of them shouldn't be removed just because they aren't in the basic rules (most of them can be fixed by proper tuning).
I don't see a problem with some people not liking it, but I'm afraid a lot won't change.
It seems to me that a lot of problems with the game would be solved if we started from the 5th level but there is no chance for that.

I just don't understand people who want more and more annoying mechanics even though such things don't work well in games (or aren't liked).
Posted By: CMF Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:19 AM
The limited extrapolation of the scenarios and examples provided to demonstrate stubborn behavior rooted in flaws in logic being taken at face value and not understood in the context it is provided is somewhat frustrating and I give up, ty. I am now going back to leap frogging and playing battle toads with my green skinned dwarf rogue back stabbing to my heart's content.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:20 AM
I don't see any problems with getting the advantage by attacking from behind. It makes logical sense, but it should only be possible if there is an ally near the enemy.
Normally you are not able to defend yourself from two different directions at the same time.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:33 AM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
but it should only be possible if there is an ally near the enemy. Normally you are not able to defend yourself from two different directions at the same time.


That's something that totally make sense and that many would probably agree with.

It would also increase the value of melee characters if they also change the exploit jump/disengage... i.e, disengage should become an action instead of a bonus action IF you're engaged in melee.

That way you'll have to choose : staying engaged in melee and trying to kill your opponent - but with a risk of being backstabbed, accept an AOO to disengage OR use your action to disengage.

On the other hand, your melee characters would have a goal to rush into the melee and wouldn't have to run after every ennemies. That would increase tactical possibilites and synergies with your allies. That could also become usefull to block a door because it wouldn't be that easy to disengage.

Originally Posted by CMF
The limited extrapolation of the scenarios and examples provided to demonstrate stubborn behavior rooted in flaws in logic being taken at face value and not understood in the context it is provided is somewhat frustrating and I give up, ty. I am now going back to leap frogging and playing battle toads with my green skinned dwarf rogue back stabbing to my heart's content.


Sorry that you don't understand what we're talking about wink
Posted By: Kendaric Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:40 AM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Staying true to the 5e rules will kill this game. The game is too ambitious for something like this to work.
They can't afford to ignore DoS fans and casuals. Ignoring these players will lead to a sales disaster.
Unlike Solasta, I doubt BG3 will be able to do enough on D&D fans alone.


Currently they are catering more to D:OS fans and casuals than to D&D 5e fans and yes, I see that as a problem. Sure, I can use mods to bring it closer to D&D 5e and that's what I'm doing currently but I shouldn't have to since it is marketed as a D&D 5e game, not as D:OS 3. Sticking more closely to 5e rules won't kill the game, but it will fix a lot of issues.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes like lowering ac and increasing HP are due to turn-based combat.


No, they are due to "it's not fun to miss" complaints. They should be reverted at least for "classic" or "core rule" difficulty and only exist in lower difficulty settings once they are implemented, since 5e players know that missing quite often is part of low level gameplay and are mostly fine with it.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I just don't understand people who want more and more annoying mechanics even though such things don't work well in games (or aren't liked).


Because different people have different tastes.
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:40 AM
From another point of view ...people appear to be distilling down the whole this is not 5e & is a false marketing ploy from a few rules - sneak/jump, some modified spelll damages etc..what about all the D&D stuff the game is doing very well. I’ve not played 5e I stopped playing years ago at 3rd edition - but I still know a D&D game when I play one & this one is shaping up very well.


Posted By: Ixal Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
what about all the D&D stuff the game is doing very well


And what would that be?
Posted By: Warlord999 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 11:49 AM
Ok, so because 25 fedora hat wearing geeks that are tabletop d&d fans are complaining - now developers suddenly needs to change their direction?

Guess what, divinity combat was more fun than Boring gate 1&2. Pillars of Eternity was more fun. None of them are d&d games.

Game mechanics are game mechanics, main thing is to be balanced, challenging and fun.

Also, tip of the hat to you:

[Linked Image]
Posted By: azarhal Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 12:15 PM
Originally Posted by Flafnir

You don't have to use any of this. No opponent will destroy an oil barrel or throw it at you.


I had multiple enemies in my PTs go out of their ways to interact with barrels to create surface/explosions, whatever it's by using special arrows/bombs to hit them or their weapons (and kill themselves in the process for the last one usually).

Throw has only been done by the large enemies and the barrels have to be in their path-range for them to pick them up. Put an oil barrel near the 3 Ogres in the Village and they will pick it up and throw it at you once you start combat.
Posted By: coredumped Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 12:56 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
TLDR: THERE IS A REASON YOU SEE SO MANY 5e PLAYERS WHO DIDNT WANT DIVINITY 3. It is not an assumed expectation it is a reaction from their words and what was presented and promised. So instead of telling people to tone down their feedback and be happy with what was given. How about you let the consumer who was sold a product advertised this way to voice feedback (AS LARIAN REQUESTED.)

What more needs to be said? What more do I have to show the new recruits? You guys didnt wait... you just heard there was a new DIVINITY 3. The rest of us were told there was a new BALDURS GATE and it was using 5e ruleset with a 4.0 divinity engine.

So now that we are caught up... lets get this thing back on track to the original goal larian had before all the homebrew mechanics for GOOFY FUN.

IMHO if you want people to take your comments seriously, don't repeatedly mention "Divinity 3" in the OP. It's been done to death and at best results in an echo chamber.



IMHO if you see people mentioning "Divinity 3" a lot there might be a reason for it. So what you should actually do is look at what is causing this as it seems to be a problem for a lot of people instead of trying to hide the problem. This game does feel like a Divinity 3. DOS3 with a mangled poorly implemented 5e with a whole lot of creative freedom for *goofy fun* that completely breaks the game. That's what the game is at the moment. Calling it Baldur's Gate 3 is just false advertisement at this point.

Originally Posted by HustleCat

Did Larian lie? not really, even in OP's links, they never said it'd be 1 to 1 conversion. In fact they said that'd be impossible. They'd get it close as they could. Expect more changes for better or worse as the EA goes on


Yes, they did. "We ported it as faithfully as we could." What? They had technical issues that didn't allow them to code Fire Bolt without leaving a surface? Was there some kind of technical limitation to the language they use to program the game that doesn't allow goblins to have higher AC and lower HP? Did the computer say NO to the poor developer when he wanted to separate disengage from jump? Those poor developers. They did try to make it as close AS THEY COULD but their hands were just tied...


Originally Posted by CMF

By calling the game DOS:3 as a form of insult you are being malicious and disingenuous in feedback.


No, it's actually quite accurate and useful feedback. Granted that people saying "Go play Solasta instead" isn't very productive in this forum but I do get where they're coming from.

Someone gave a very reasonable analogy here already using onions and tomatos. I for one loved Divinity OS 2. I would love for a Divinity OS 3 to come out some time in the future. But if I'm told that a Baldur's Gate 3 is coming, that it will be a faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules ported as faithfully as possible... Well then Larian must also understand that my expectations are in that regard.
People here are saying to give it time and not give up on the game yet. I appreciate this mindset and hope but honestly it really feels like the game has been steered way too deep in the wrong direction at this point to be able to save.
To the others that keep saying "state your reasons and give accurate feedback for what's wrong etc." well, there are countless threads already full of feedback from the players in that regard. I have also given that feedback before in the right place, doesn't mean everyone is gonna keep copy pasting theirs every time they reply to a post.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 01:14 PM
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/

Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/






I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not really an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. One of the consequence of their choices is that playing melee character actually really suck.

(Nearly) All their stuff are really really cool and should definitely be a part of BG3 but in the end, they actually don't give lots of systems to players, the entire game itself turn arround/is the systems....
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:15 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by Warlord999
Ok, so because 25 fedora hat wearing geeks that are tabletop d&d fans are complaining - now developers suddenly needs to change their direction?

Guess what, divinity combat was more fun than Boring gate 1&2. Pillars of Eternity was more fun. None of them are d&d games.

Game mechanics are game mechanics, main thing is to be balanced, challenging and fun.

Also, tip of the hat to you:

[Linked Image]

Its not suddenly changing its actually following what the marketing said before we purchased.. There was sudden changes away from D&D 5e rules imo.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/




I disagree if you change all the rules to something not D&D the customers will still review it as shit.. Sorry to say.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/





Well, here we go again. I’d like to add some math in the loop before diving deep into this discussion about “players don’t like to miss”

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...p;utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Please check the link to know how the changes impacted the number of turns to kill something.

Now, getting back to the discussion:

HP bloat seems harmless at first sight, isn’t it? Seems that the game is focusing more in finishing a goblin in that two turns and that’s marvelous. Now let’s build a rational:

Bless spell DnD5e : +d4 attack rolls > MAJOR increase in the chances of hitting an high ac low hp goblin > increase the chance of killing it in the first round even further = bless spell value : gold.

Bless spell Larian: +d4 attack rolls > MINOR increase in the chances of hitting an low ac high hp goblin > still needs more than one round to finish the goblin = bless spel : why I didn’t attack from highground using my crossbow instead? Additionally surfaces breaking your conc with no save.

Bless is a concentration spell, which means that you’d always want to get the best output of your spell in the first rounds. Concentration being broken is inevitable frown

I’m using bless but all utilities spells have been nerfed with this BG3 rule atrocity.

What about blasting spells? The fireball that dex saves for half will have the same accuracy as there’s no nerf in attributes. Meaning that your dear spell slot worth less. But again, who cares as you still have Larian’s bedrolls.

The damage output of the basic weapons remains the same.
If Larian want to keep that line, they’ll have to revamp every damage output in the game.

Goodbye action economy
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.


If the goal is that players miss less often, I guess it would have been easier to add a +4 bonus to every attack roll than adjusting everything because they changed HP... They could also have add +x to attack roll if you're higher instead of using so many advantage everywhere in the game.

As Khalid said, it's not only a spell or two... It's the entire experience that has been modified in many ways. Another issue is burning hand and all "contact" damage spells... I guess nearly no one use those spells because they are really weak... even cantrips are more powerfull.
This is not because of their systems but because of their choices to implement them.

I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun (subjective), tactical, balanced in many ways and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them.

Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.


If the goal is that players miss less often, I guess it would have been easier to add a +4 bonus to every attack roll than adjusting everything because they changed HP... They could also have add +x to attack roll if you're higher instead of using so many advantage everywhere in the game.

As Khalid said, it's not only a spell or two... It's the entire experience that has been modified in many ways. Another issue is burning hand and all "contact" damage spells... I guess nearly no one use those spells because they are really weak... this is not because of their "systems", but because of the way they implement them.

I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun, tactical, balance and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they'll implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them...



If this would be so easy.
If they leave the AC reduced and restore the original HP, many of the fights in act 1 will become terribly easy and boring at the same time.
In RTwP, you can easily fix this by adding extra mobs that you can't do in a turn-based game.
Turn-based games are poorly suited to fighting a mass of weak enemies.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:40 PM
I simply don’t get your point Rhobar. Where’s the part where the game gets easy? You’re missing more. The length of a battle will remains nearly the same. The counter part of getting back to the raw rules is that your spell slot will become a valuable asset again. If it’s easy, add +1 goblin. You balance the battle CR by adding or removing pieces of the chessboard, not by changing them because you think that it’s more fun to see the hp values popping out for every single attack.

Guys, DnD is a class game. Every class must have balance. Right now they are balancing classes with damn cantrips. Oh, dear lord....
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 03:55 PM
Do I really have to explain why adding extra opponents to game where you have to wait for your turn is a bad idea?
At this point, the worst (not difficult) encounters are the fights in which you fight a lot of enemies (like a goblin camp). Adding additional enemies will only make matters worse.
The last thing I wanna do is wait 10 minutes for my turn (intentional hyperbole).
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do I really have to explain why adding extra opponents to game where you have to wait for your turn is a bad idea?
At this point, the worst (not difficult) encounters are the fights in which you fight a lot of enemies (like a goblin camp). Adding additional enemies will only make matters worse.
The last thing I wanna do is wait 10 minutes for my turn (intentional hyperbole).


First +1 goblin not +1 horde

Second: still waiting to see your analysis regarding nerfed spells

Third: still waiting to see the reasons why you think more hp less ac makes the game harder


See you soon
Posted By: Vaell Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/




Much of the claims in this quote are adamantly false. The possibility for failure is what makes things interesting, not "shit." There is a way to fix this however, implement difficulties just like the original games did. THIS would be faithful to the game. Let people CHOOSE to play by the core rules or the more forgiving homebrew rules.
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.


If the goal is that players miss less often, I guess it would have been easier to add a +4 bonus to every attack roll than adjusting everything because they changed HP... They could also have add +x to attack roll if you're higher instead of using so many advantage everywhere in the game.

As Khalid said, it's not only a spell or two... It's the entire experience that has been modified in many ways. Another issue is burning hand and all "contact" damage spells... I guess nearly no one use those spells because they are really weak... this is not because of their "systems", but because of the way they implement them.

I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun, tactical, balance and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they'll implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them...



If this would be so easy.
If they leave the AC reduced and restore the original HP, many of the fights in act 1 will become terribly easy and boring at the same time.
In RTwP, you can easily fix this by adding extra mobs that you can't do in a turn-based game.
Turn-based games are poorly suited to fighting a mass of weak enemies.


I never suggested that they leave the AC reduced and restore the original HP.

Did you read the link Khalid gave you ?
Do you know that Larian's changes about AC and HP has nearly NO consequences on the difficulty of combats and the number of turn to kill ennemies ?
It just increase your %hit and nothing more... In the end the combats are the same exept that many spells and skills become totally useless.

Do you really think changing every monsters abilities AND many spells / skills / classes / ... to give us the FEELING that we are more efficient in combat is a good way of doing things ?

And as Vaell said just above... I don't think why you're talking about adding creatures to encounters. There are way more things that can be done to increase/reduce the difficulty.

Actually the game is often inconsistent and too hard for a normal game mode. This is also partly because of Larian's homemade rules. Think about newcomers.
Posted By: HustleCat Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Vaell
[Linked Image]


90% sure this will be added in the game later. Not for awhile though as we're in the testing phase.



As far as AC and hp bloat goes. Fix resting and then they can put the values back to normal. I do enjoy hitting more, but if the encounters stay the same length it's one half a dozen or the other. Although I could maybe see a meta happening with everyone having magic missile. Depends how they'll handle casters in future changes
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Third: still waiting to see the reasons why you think more hp less ac makes the game harder


This is easy.

It's because the player's attacks and spells are largely still using the same numbers as the standard 5e system, and that system has different HP and AC for the monsters ( NOT the PC's) than BG 3 does. Spells which affect a certain amount of HP are intended to take out multiple weak foes. Good luck with Sleep, Color Spray, and Burning Hands in this game. Good luck later on with AoE spells like Fireball, which are supposed to be strong against masses of low HP foes, which no longer exist.

Spells which rely on enemy saving throws are comparatively weaker because the enemy ability scores have not been tampered with. Sacred Flame has a lower chance of impact than Firebolt because of the AC change, but it does damage still based on the standard 5e rules, and that does not account for the increased enemy HP, so when you do hit, it is not as impactful as it is intended to be.

You are now informed.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.

I agree with many of these criticisms (ie. I *HATE* the convoluted DOS2 loot/item system), but to say "end of story" in early early access is beyond silly. The obvious imbalance from virtually unrestricted rest can't be allowed to stand and Larian must surely know this. Let me address a few of your points:

"Height rules" - assume you mean the ease of getting advantage with ranged attacks from a height advantage? If so, *vehemently disagree*! It is an easily understandable tactic that makes maneuvering/mobility important and combat more interesting. It is a way to adjust difficulty of combat without necessarily introducing stronger enemies.

"Save scum" - can be fixed to some degree by disallowing saves in the middle of combat or even introducing "save stations".

"Beach" - grasping at straws here with your criticisms here. Would think the lack of a proper "day-night cycle" would be a much more glaring "DOS3" deficiency. The original BG had a more realistic system and this feels like a big step down. This is exacerbated by the storyline hinting at illithid tadpoles being ticking time bombs and Gale having an additional explosive orb in his chest on allegedly a timer. You have no sense of the passage of time and you have no sense of whether this is a leisure stroll in the park or if you're actually pressed for time. Besides, introducing day-night cycle would be another layer of tactical combat, something Larian normally excel at. Win-win. This issue will detract from the game unless addressed.



Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


1. Not in D&D rules.
2. Implementation is unrealistic, unbalanced and a chore to repeat every combat. Ie. having an perpetually burning candle in the inventory you can drop for free and dip for a bonus action - doubling your base damage with dual-wielded daggers.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Third: still waiting to see the reasons why you think more hp less ac makes the game harder


This is easy.

It's because the player's attacks and spells are largely still using the same numbers as the standard 5e system, and that system has different HP and AC for the monsters ( NOT the PC's) than BG 3 does. Spells which affect a certain amount of HP are intended to take out multiple weak foes. Good luck with Sleep, Color Spray, and Burning Hands in this game. Good luck later on with AoE spells like Fireball, which are supposed to be strong against masses of low HP foes, which no longer exist.

Spells which rely on enemy saving throws are comparatively weaker because the enemy ability scores have not been tampered with. Sacred Flame has a lower chance of impact than Firebolt because of the AC change, but it does damage still based on the standard 5e rules, and that does not account for the increased enemy HP, so when you do hit, it is not as impactful as it is intended to be.

You are now informed.


Hi my good sir. It’s the DM (according to the rules) that set the DC of the battle. Would the rules be different, the DM would have to change the battlefield in accord. If we simply change the rules, yes, the battles will be easier. Do you truly believe that changing the hp and ac values of the foes are the best way to improve the gaming experience regarding difficulty?

As you’ve mentioned and if you go some pages back, you’ll see that my point is that Larian is destroying the spells slots values for the sake of that Hp values popping out of people’s head every single turn smile

Wish you all the best


Posted By: Popsculpture Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:12 PM
Personally I'm married to the story and settings more than the rules; as long as the game play is fun I'll be happy. That being said I hope they have that difficulty choice menu in the final release.
Posted By: azarhal Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:14 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


1. Not in D&D rules.
2. Implementation is unrealistic, unbalanced and a chore to repeat every combat. Ie. having an perpetually burning candle in the inventory you can drop for free and dip for a bonus action - doubling your base damage with dual-wielded daggers.


3. Compete directly with Divine Favor, but require no spell slot, concentration to keep up and set things aflame.

It's pretty much Searing Smite with 1d2 less damage and none of the cost.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael

"Height rules" - assume you mean the ease of getting advantage with ranged attacks from a height advantage? If so, *vehemently disagree*! It is an easily understandable tactic that makes maneuvering/mobility important and combat more interesting. It is a way to adjust difficulty of combat without necessarily introducing stronger enemies.


Easily understandable does not equal good. It promotes samey combat where without fail the best strategy is to get the high ground each and every time and stay there. If you can't get the high ground, it sucks because it's harder to hit the enemies and easier for the enemies to fight you. I really, really wish people who keep saying that they love advantage for high ground would realize that it sucks when you're the one on the low ground.

One thing you do not want in a hundred hour game with lots of combat is for it all to feel the same. But it's pretty likely with fire, barrels, AoE's and surfaces everywhere and high ground/backstab advantage.


Originally Posted by Seraphael

"Save scum" - can be fixed to some degree by disallowing saves in the middle of combat or even introducing "save stations".


Both of those are terrible ideas, because it is forcing players to play a certain way.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:49 PM
Yeah, I think @Sludge Khalid and @Stabbey are making the same point and it's spot on -- the analysis of how bless and sacred flame are nerfed is fantastic. Same goes for hold person. Hold person is really one of the cleric's most powerful spells and has been so since 1st edition. But in the current BG-DOS hybrid it's not a spell worth casting.

I think people people who don't know 5ed are just concluding that clerics just suck. Look at all the threads complaining about SH stats. * But I don't think the flaw is in the build as much as the rules, right now you can't build a cleric caster you should build melee clerics.

In 5th ed -- 7hp, 15 AC goblin fails savings throw and the next round the cleric gets a guaranteed hit and crit which is good. In a "hard to hit / easy to kill" scenario this is a useful spell. You get a certain hit that worth two hits in two rounds.

But, if you are dealing with 15 hp goblins with a really high "to hit" chance it's a bad use of a spell slot -- better to attack three times in row and take the goblin down that way. You chances of hitting are much higher than the goblin losing the saving throw. It makes a class based game in which clerics combine support and offensive spells into a one where the cleric can only be effectively used as martial / healer.

I had lots of fun playing with other classes I got bored playing my cleric of mystra. I built her as a caster (because Mystra) only to find that, under current rules, I should have built her as a front line basher and backup healer.

* (although I do agree that strength and dex should be flipped -- why build a strong trickery cleric?)
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Tarorn
what about all the D&D stuff the game is doing very well


And what would that be?


Classes, races, spells, monsters, combat, the feel of a D&D world, skill checks, dice rolls, ability to approach combat & interaction in many different ways. There is so much to like in this game & we are only a month into early access.

I accept that there are some changes required & I accept that the more hard core D&D players want a perfect rendition right out of the box - that aint gonna happen & has never happened.

But for my part Im a fan of D&D first & foremost even though i stopped playing a long time ago - creating a D&D world that I can play & getting as close as we can to a tabletop version within the confines of a video game (& the developers vision, budgets, timeframes etc) is what i want.

Stuff can be debated but the amount of people who throw their toys out & hate on a game because it isnt a perfect vision - i dont think those people are objective enough & understand the commercial reality. I believe we are very lucky its Larian Studios taking this head on ..and no im not a Larian fanboy ive not played one of their games - but i appreciate their vision & passion from what I see at this early stage.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:06 PM
Spell slot value related to action economy can only be understood if you can grasp the big picture. What are the spell value of Fairie Fire? Well, depends on how much advantage you get every single battle. Is it worth using it in BG3? I’d say it’s a bad investment.

Now pretend that Larian remove the advantage homebrew. Is it worth the spell slot? No! Because there’s another homebrew that increase HP values.
Meaning that your joe will have to concentrate for more rounds until the foe is beaten.

Ok ok, Sludge. Let’s remove that two homebrew rules as we all agree that they’re bad for spell slots optimization. Now we’re good?

No!! The Joes are throwing bombs and shooting arrows with surfaces that breaks concentration!

You see the catastrophic failure of DnD rules implementation concerning action economy?

It’s a chain of bad decisions in a row for the sake of “ wow, my players do not miss :)”

id rather play JRPGs
Posted By: tyrion85 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


It’s a chain of bad decisions in a row for the sake of “ wow, my players do not miss :)”


Not to mention that the argument "missing too much is no fun" (on which, supposedly, all these changes were made) is dubious, in my book. Fun for whom? Is there a wide survey/playtest that confirms this, or is this "just" an opinion of a couple of people at Larian? Not that their opinion doesn't matter, mind you, quite the opposite, but somehow it's not the same if it's just a couple of people, or a wide consensus. Also, if "missing is not fun" - when you drive that argument to it's logical conclusion, then why even have attack rolls in the first place? Surely it would be more fun - by that logic - to have each attack automatically hit, and just roll for 1-x damage? Except that we intuitively know this is wrong, and isn't in spirit of D&D at all. And also, what does "too much" mean and how do you quantify it - what is the limit at which fights are no longer "not fun" because misses do not happen that much? Who decided on this and how?

So it's a bad argument in my opinion, because I don't see the data behind it and the logic doesn't stand, and yet the whole revamping of the rules is based on the premise that it is true.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by tyrion85
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


It’s a chain of bad decisions in a row for the sake of “ wow, my players do not miss :)”


Not to mention that the argument "missing too much is no fun" (on which, supposedly, all these changes were made) is dubious, in my book. Fun for whom? Is there a wide survey/playtest that confirms this, or is this "just" an opinion of a couple of people at Larian? Not that their opinion doesn't matter, mind you, quite the opposite, but somehow it's not the same if it's just a couple of people, or a wide consensus. Also, if "missing is not fun" - when you drive that argument to it's logical conclusion, then why even have attack rolls in the first place? Surely it would be more fun - by that logic - to have each attack automatically hit, and just roll for 1-x damage? Except that we intuitively know this is wrong, and isn't in spirit of D&D at all. So it's a bad argument in my opinion, because I don't see the data behind it and the logic doesn't stand, and yet the whole revamping of the rules is based on the premise that it is true.


And you know what to do when you’re missing way too much?
Cast faerie Fire!!! Oh yeah, we do not need to spend this spell slot anymore because the game babysited the player

Sad but true
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by Vaell
[Linked Image]


90% sure this will be added in the game later. Not for awhile though as we're in the testing phase.



As far as AC and hp bloat goes. Fix resting and then they can put the values back to normal. I do enjoy hitting more, but if the encounters stay the same length it's one half a dozen or the other. Although I could maybe see a meta happening with everyone having magic missile. Depends how they'll handle casters in future changes


This ^^^. Larian could quite realisticallty please both DDOS barrel mages and core D&D fans. It is only a question of tweeks in the code.

Second ponit is extremely good. Because you can rest "at camp" anywhere at any point even bloated HP makes little difference. If you rest in a dungon you need supplies of food and stuff otherwise you starve. You need 1lb of food per character a day otherwise you become....dead. You also run the risk of being attacked by monsters/law enforcement while camping depending on how naughty you are. Resting in the underdark is REALLY brown trouser time.

If the rest mechanics were changed and HP bloat was removed this would make it really good. I agree some mechanics are wonky like entire maps aggro from a stealth attack nobody saw or jumping beans etc. These will obviously be fixed as they have stated in the megathreads. Killing 5 gobins with a lv 3 magic missile or fireball is fine because the REST mechanics are currently allowing you to refresh spells so quickly. If you need supplies for every rest and were attacked when you rested in dungeons etc. it would make it significanly more D&D feeling.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 09:22 PM
Quote
Not to mention that the argument "missing too much is no fun"


Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

And you know what to do when you’re missing way too much?
Cast faerie Fire!!!



Perfect.

I'm still in the this can be improved camp. Like @soul-scar we could have a 'core' rules mode. But it needs to be the default, not the alternative. One of the problems with having this game made by people who only recently discovered 5th ed (as opposed the long times fans at the early Bioware / Black Isle / etc) is this misunderstanding of the "to hit" thirst. Tabletop players drool over +5 weapons. Drool drool over 17th level feat. Repeat the +12 hackmaster jokes. Why? Because those items / feats give you a better chance to hit.

This is unlike DOS where you hack away at an oak with a handaxe. In DOS2 think I only missed a few times near the end game because I didn't understand weapon level. Otherwise I always had something like 95 percent chance to hit all the time.
Posted By: Dreygor6091 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 29/10/20 11:32 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Staying true to the 5e rules will kill this game. The game is too ambitious for something like this to work.
They can't afford to ignore DoS fans and casuals. Ignoring these players will lead to a sales disaster.
Unlike Solasta, I doubt BG3 will be able to do enough on D&D fans alone.

Some changes like lowering ac and increasing HP are due to turn-based combat.
The changes to the shove and dip are here to give the character more to do on their turns. The surfaces also mainly serve to diversify low-level combat.
The changes in rest also seem to be due, although it will definitely be changed in some way.
The game has a few broken mechanics that should be fixed sooner or later, but most of them shouldn't be removed just because they aren't in the basic rules (most of them can be fixed by proper tuning).
I don't see a problem with some people not liking it, but I'm afraid a lot won't change.
It seems to me that a lot of problems with the game would be solved if we started from the 5th level but there is no chance for that.

I just don't understand people who want more and more annoying mechanics even though such things don't work well in games (or aren't liked)



Then don't make a DnD game, they should of just made a third DoS. They said they were making a DnD game, this is NOT a DnD game.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 06:15 AM
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Originally Posted by Vaell
[Linked Image]


90% sure this will be added in the game later. Not for awhile though as we're in the testing phase.



As far as AC and hp bloat goes. Fix resting and then they can put the values back to normal. I do enjoy hitting more, but if the encounters stay the same length it's one half a dozen or the other. Although I could maybe see a meta happening with everyone having magic missile. Depends how they'll handle casters in future changes

I really hope so.
Posted By: Aurgelmir Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 07:25 AM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus


I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun (subjective), tactical, balanced in many ways and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them.



Now this I can agree with. Larian started at the wrong end. And it might be as people claim that they were working on DOS3 when they got the lisence for Baldur's Gate, and had to change a lot on the fly.

Now I'm no programmer, but I don't really see how hard it is to just take the players handbook and start implementing the ruleset as is?


I personally don't mind "homebrew" monsters, but it should be pointed out that the Monsters in the Monsters manual is very very well put together mathematically, it all makes sense. Thing is: There's way to few of each monster. So you want to homebrew to get more variation. But at least start with the standard basis for a goblin, and go from there...
Posted By: HustleCat Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 08:07 AM
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA? The core rules have already been tested and a game mode for it can come later.

Having played some Solasta, I can see why they'd want to spice things up with new actions and environment interaction. Doing the same basic attack over and over gets a bit stale. Not to hate on Solasta either, I really like how they handled group dialogue, resting, and traveling on the campaign map. Both games have their pros and cons. I'll be happy playing both games as they come out for different reasons.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA? The core rules have already been tested and a game mode for it can come later.

Having played some Solasta, I can see why they'd want to spice things up with new actions and environment interaction. Doing the same basic attack over and over gets a bit stale. Not to hate on Solasta either, I really like how they handled group dialogue, resting, and traveling on the campaign map. Both games have their pros and cons. I'll be happy playing both games as they come out for different reasons.


As I’ve said. Capturing the big picture is important to know the impact of the rules that they’ve changed. If you go through the pages of this very post you’ll see some. That’s not for the sake of “be faithful to raw DnD5e” this is more about balance. No one is complaining about weapon skills in the forum because they do not break the system. As is, the current rules destroyed spell values. And taking spells out of the core of the system will do no good for the joy of the players.
Posted By: Labayu Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 10:23 AM
Originally Posted by tyrion85
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid


It’s a chain of bad decisions in a row for the sake of “ wow, my players do not miss :)”


Not to mention that the argument "missing too much is no fun" (on which, supposedly, all these changes were made) is dubious, in my book. Fun for whom? Is there a wide survey/playtest that confirms this, or is this "just" an opinion of a couple of people at Larian? Not that their opinion doesn't matter, mind you, quite the opposite, but somehow it's not the same if it's just a couple of people, or a wide consensus. Also, if "missing is not fun" - when you drive that argument to it's logical conclusion, then why even have attack rolls in the first place? Surely it would be more fun - by that logic - to have each attack automatically hit, and just roll for 1-x damage? Except that we intuitively know this is wrong, and isn't in spirit of D&D at all. And also, what does "too much" mean and how do you quantify it - what is the limit at which fights are no longer "not fun" because misses do not happen that much? Who decided on this and how?

So it's a bad argument in my opinion, because I don't see the data behind it and the logic doesn't stand, and yet the whole revamping of the rules is based on the premise that it is true.
Yeah, it's a ridiculous argument. And if it's true for some, which I assume it is, it seems like something that can be solved with an easy mode rather than a major revamping of what they claim to be porting as closely as possible.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 11:14 AM
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA?


I would argue that is exactly what we've been doing and we point out the flaws in them. Also, Larian doesn't only implement new rules, to make them fit, they change and overwrite old ones.
Now, I'm not a member of the design team so I can only take a guess on the mind mapping evolution during design discussion. And I picture it going something like this:


-Alright team. We've been cleared to do this game. How do we move forward?

-well, we know what people have liked in our other games so we should build on that.

-ok, explain.

-well, in this fight with 5 goblins it would be cool to add an explosive barrel so that players feel smart hitting that taking out all five goblins in one strike.

-I understand you, but now the fight becomes too easy don't you think.

-well, we could add more enemies.

-ok. but now the barrel only takes out 5, what about the other 5?

-Well, there could be other tactical options like surfaces the players can interact with. like oil and grease and water that gets affected by spells.

-oh oh, I have an idea. with all the fire and oil around, wouldn't it be cool if that could help the melee players as well?

-ok. we include a dip mechanic but we are still talking low levels and spells that affect environment is higher up.

-well that can be changed by small changes made to the cantrips

-yeah, but another problem is that we seem to miss a lot, how do we change that?

-easy, we lower the AC.

-doesn't that makes the fight too easy again?

-well, lets raise the hp

-ok, that settled, how do we handle defense. This isn't real time so players won't be able to move away from enemies in an instant.

-Well, I read somewhere there is this disengage option. Wouldn't that work? And also, they can just jump/move away from the npc's during their turn.

-good idea, the problem is that disengage makes you lose the attack during that turn unless you're a rogue. so now we have everyone playing cat and mouse.

-can't we combine jump with disengage so that players still will get to attack each turn?

yeah, alright team I think we have something here!

-well, sir, doesn't this affect spell mechanics and class identity?

-Oh shut up Karen, can you for once stop with your negativity. We're making something cool here!


Now, I ofc am making exaggerations but what I'm getting at is that one change, leads to another change, that leads to two new changes, that quickly spirals out throughout a whole system. When all that extra work making changes to an already working combat system, could have been avoided if the first change wasn't made. A change made just to make one of Larian's darlings fit in.

I'm not saying d&d is perfect. that's why there have been several editions of it. and there is room for improvement without affecting the whole system. What Larian did with Rangers is a perfect example of that. You can bake chocolate chip cookies for people with gluten intolerance. But can you bake them changing the chocolate chips to gummi bears?
Posted By: coredumped Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA?


I would argue that is exactly what we've been doing and we point out the flaws in them. Also, Larian doesn't only implement new rules, to make them fit, they change and overwrite old ones.
Now, I'm not a member of the design team so I can only take a guess on the mind mapping evolution during design discussion. And I picture it going something like this:


-Alright team. We've been cleared to do this game. How do we move forward?

-well, we know what people have liked in our other games so we should build on that.

-ok, explain.

-well, in this fight with 5 goblins it would be cool to add an explosive barrel so that players feel smart hitting that taking out all five goblins in one strike.

-I understand you, but now the fight becomes too easy don't you think.

-well, we could add more enemies.

-ok. but now the barrel only takes out 5, what about the other 5?

-Well, there could be other tactical options like surfaces the players can interact with. like oil and grease and water that gets affected by spells.

-oh oh, I have an idea. with all the fire and oil around, wouldn't it be cool if that could help the melee players as well?

-ok. we include a dip mechanic but we are still talking low levels and spells that affect environment is higher up.

-well that can be changed by small changes made to the cantrips

-yeah, but another problem is that we seem to miss a lot, how do we change that?

-easy, we lower the AC.

-doesn't that makes the fight too easy again?

-well, lets raise the hp

-ok, that settled, how do we handle defense. This isn't real time so players won't be able to move away from enemies in an instant.

-Well, I read somewhere there is this disengage option. Wouldn't that work? And also, they can just jump/move away from the npc's during their turn.

-good idea, the problem is that disengage makes you lose the attack during that turn unless you're a rogue. so now we have everyone playing cat and mouse.

-can't we combine jump with disengage so that players still will get to attack each turn?

yeah, alright team I think we have something here!

-well, sir, doesn't this affect spell mechanics and class identity?

-Oh shut up Karen, can you for once stop with your negativity. We're making something cool here!


Now, I ofc am making exaggerations but what I'm getting at is that one change, leads to another change, that leads to two new changes, that quickly spirals out throughout a whole system. When all that extra work making changes to an already working combat system, could have been avoided if the first change wasn't made. A change made just to make one of Larian's darlings fit in.

I'm not saying d&d is perfect. that's why there have been several editions of it. and there is room for improvement without affecting the whole system. What Larian did with Rangers is a perfect example of that. You can bake chocolate chip cookies for people with gluten intolerance. But can you bake them changing the chocolate chips to gummi bears?


Of course the scenario you paint there is an oversimplification but the path they took was certainly along those lines. It's a bunch of workarounds being added in to fix core mistakes they made because THEY think it's what the players want.
I would however also say that this is the result of EXTREME lazyness on their part. This game should have been done on a different engine. I could say that making that decision could be too radical for Larian as they could just make use of the resources they already have, but I think the current state of the game proves exactly the opposite. The engine is not adequate for what they said they were going to do. Their core changes to make something "more fun" broke the combat systems completely. So they added workarounds to deal with them, but then they need workarounds for the workarounds. It's such an idiotic and moronic approach that I honestly can't imagine that they even remotely thought this through. At this point they might as well just say that this isn't a D&D based game, change the name of the skills and market it as something else. It would still be trash, but at least it would be honest trash.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 01:16 PM
Originally Posted by coredumped

Of course the scenario you paint there is an oversimplification but the path they took was certainly along those lines. It's a bunch of workarounds being added in to fix core mistakes they made because THEY think it's what the players want.
I would however also say that this is the result of EXTREME lazyness on their part. This game should have been done on a different engine. I could say that making that decision could be too radical for Larian as they could just make use of the resources they already have, but I think the current state of the game proves exactly the opposite. The engine is not adequate for what they said they were going to do. Their core changes to make something "more fun" broke the combat systems completely. So they added workarounds to deal with them, but then they need workarounds for the workarounds. It's such an idiotic and moronic approach that I honestly can't imagine that they even remotely thought this through. At this point they might as well just say that this isn't a D&D based game, change the name of the skills and market it as something else. It would still be trash, but at least it would be honest trash.


Well. I wouldn't be so harsh, even though I definitively had my little outburst of feelings a couple of weeks ago and wrote an analogy towards Larian that isn't really fair.

I think they have a base concept here that works. But for me to like it, it needs several improvements and to revert some changes made, particularly regarding surfaces, height advantage, action economy, cantrips and the rest mechanic being tied into the narrative with a lot of the story and companion interaction happening at camp. The last part worked well in DAO where you naturally returned to camp after each mission/area but doesn't work as well in a seamless experience.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 01:34 PM
Yup. I don’t blame the engine for the outcome of this problem. I’m more leaning into the fact that they could’ve used the very same engine in a different way. Their engine is capable of removing the hp bloat and advantage in backstab / high ground. Their decision not to do it is where the problem lies.

I’ll probably write a tread to explain the issues why increasing the hit chance & increasing the hp at the same time blows some cores of DnD5e
I’ll try to explore the math behind it and explain why it doesn’t work in the overall balance of the game

Currently the only major flaw of the game is related to action economy and think it should be well addressed because it impact the whole game.
Posted By: Kendaric Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by coredumped
This game should have been done on a different engine. I could say that making that decision could be too radical for Larian as they could just make use of the resources they already have, but I think the current state of the game proves exactly the opposite. The engine is not adequate for what they said they were going to do. Their core changes to make something "more fun" broke the combat systems completely. So they added workarounds to deal with them, but then they need workarounds for the workarounds. It's such an idiotic and moronic approach that I honestly can't imagine that they even remotely thought this through.


I don't think the engine is the problem (unless you want RTwP instead of turn-based).

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that a lot of Larian's design seems to be based on "that's what people liked in D:OS/D:OS 2, so that's what they want in BG 3 as well". Which is fine for the crowd that wants a D:OS in a D&D setting, but it alienates anyone who is looking for a D&D experience.
I'm playing currently with the D&D rebalance mod enabled to get the game at least somewhat closer to what I want and refrain from using the D:OS elements. Not a perfect solution and not one I should have to rely on, but I don't see any other way currently as long as they don't change the system to more closely resemble 5e.
Posted By: Frumpkis Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Now I'm no programmer, but I don't really see how hard it is to just take the players handbook and start implementing the ruleset as is?


It's hard the CHANGE an existing game engine design, because the AI has to be programmed to use whatever rule set you use. Right now the AI is programmed to use height advantage, deal with a plethora of surface effects, and every other "homebrew" change from 5e in the game. Any change to how it's working now, means reprogramming those AI routines. Basically, rebuilding the computer DM.

This is why it's hard to make a difficulty settings menu where you could choose strict 5e rules or the current Larian mode. It's much easier to program different difficulty settings by just altering HP, AC, and a few other variables like reducing the spread between dice rolls for Advantage-Disadvantage. That doesn't require reprogramming the AI for a different rule set.

BTW, I'm not making an argument that the current design is better than a more faithful 5e adaptation, just pointing out that it's not simple to switch between systems.
Posted By: millenialboomer Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Now I'm no programmer, but I don't really see how hard it is to just take the players handbook and start implementing the ruleset as is?


It's hard the CHANGE an existing game engine design, because the AI has to be programmed to use whatever rule set you use. Right now the AI is programmed to use height advantage, deal with a plethora of surface effects, and every other "homebrew" change from 5e in the game. Any change to how it's working now, means reprogramming those AI routines. Basically, rebuilding the computer DM.

This is why it's hard to make a difficulty settings menu where you could choose strict 5e rules or the current Larian mode. It's much easier to program different difficulty settings by just altering HP, AC, and a few other variables like reducing the spread between dice rolls for Advantage-Disadvantage. That doesn't require reprogramming the AI for a different rule set.

BTW, I'm not making an argument that the current design is better than a more faithful 5e adaptation, just pointing out that it's not simple to switch between systems.

Unless they're hard coding the ai into their engine (who does that?), it should be relatively easy to script it to react differently, especially regarding the height behavior.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 06:24 PM
One thing in the beginning a single player game does not have to be perfectly balanced.
As we have already explained it, let's move on.
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

Because of this, we have changes in actions.
Changing the shove or disengage is intended to give the player more things to do on their turn.
Let's skip the discussion of whether it's a good or bad change, but it does what it was supposed to do.
I guess they could go fix it a bit by adding a disengage (even as a bonus action)

Next we have the surfaces. Personally, I think it's a nice addition to the game, although it needs some changes.
First, the fire must be weakened. Entering the fire should deal damage only once per turn (roll reducing damage by half can be added),
or it should only set the target on fire, but in this case the damage should appear only from the next turn.
I don't think other surfaces are a problem.

Cantrip with surfaces shouldn't be a problem. A fire bolt with reduced fire surface effect shouldn't be a problem,
but I think ray of frost shouldn't create ice at the target unless it is standing in liquid.

I don't see a problem with the barrels, I don't remember a fight where it would be a problem (maybe in the zhentarim hideout, but it made sense in terms of the story).
The game does not require you to use them at any time, they rarely are positioned in such a way as to be able to blow up enemies without placing them first.
And the fact that you can do it is not a problem. If you want to spoil the game then do it,
having a lot of freedom in how you want to play is great, at least as long as the game doesn't force you.

Now we come to the advantage system. Here I have to admit it is broken.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to fix. I believe that the backstab advantage should remain, but it needs some change. It should only work when one of the allies is standing next to the target.
This would add an extra tactical option and encourage proper positioning,
but it will only work if they add a disengage as a bonus action, which would make positioning difficult (As you are unable to pass through npc).
The distance advantage should be removed and you can add +/- 4 AC instead.
The change would also have one additional plus, increasing the incentive to fight in close combat.

Coming back to the fact that players don't like to miss.
Larian certainly hadn't made up this information. Otherwise, they would not waste time trying to balance the system.
I'm sure they have access to data from previous games on this subject (and they probably collect this information from BG3).
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.
Posted By: millenialboomer Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 07:11 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
One thing in the beginning a single player game does not have to be perfectly balanced.
As we have already explained it, let's move on.
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.


What? No way. D&D 5E rules at low levels offer a lot of variety: see Solasta for example. Most actual d&d play never gets beyond level 5 in the real world haha.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
One thing in the beginning a single player game does not have to be perfectly balanced.
As we have already explained it, let's move on.
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

Because of this, we have changes in actions.
Changing the shove or disengage is intended to give the player more things to do on their turn.
Let's skip the discussion of whether it's a good or bad change, but it does what it was supposed to do.
I guess they could go fix it a bit by adding a disengage (even as a bonus action)

Next we have the surfaces. Personally, I think it's a nice addition to the game, although it needs some changes.
First, the fire must be weakened. Entering the fire should deal damage only once per turn (roll reducing damage by half can be added),
or it should only set the target on fire, but in this case the damage should appear only from the next turn.
I don't think other surfaces are a problem.

Cantrip with surfaces shouldn't be a problem. A fire bolt with reduced fire surface effect shouldn't be a problem,
but I think ray of frost shouldn't create ice at the target unless it is standing in liquid.

I don't see a problem with the barrels, I don't remember a fight where it would be a problem (maybe in the zhentarim hideout, but it made sense in terms of the story).
The game does not require you to use them at any time, they rarely are positioned in such a way as to be able to blow up enemies without placing them first.
And the fact that you can do it is not a problem. If you want to spoil the game then do it,
having a lot of freedom in how you want to play is great, at least as long as the game doesn't force you.

Now we come to the advantage system. Here I have to admit it is broken.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to fix. I believe that the backstab advantage should remain, but it needs some change. It should only work when one of the allies is standing next to the target.
This would add an extra tactical option and encourage proper positioning,
but it will only work if they add a disengage as a bonus action, which would make positioning difficult (As you are unable to pass through npc).
The distance advantage should be removed and you can add +/- 4 AC instead.
The change would also have one additional plus, increasing the incentive to fight in close combat.

Coming back to the fact that players don't like to miss.
Larian certainly hadn't made up this information. Otherwise, they would not waste time trying to balance the system.
I'm sure they have access to data from previous games on this subject (and they probably collect this information from BG3).


First, asking me to change the subject because you like the way it is not very emphatic. Could you please be so kind and let us decide what is good and what is not?

Second, your arguments are not based in a manner that will help to ease the pain for the ones who understand the game mechanics (unlike yourself that clearly shows no evidence that have a minimal experience in DnD5e) and are unhappy with it.

Chill, bro. First explain how the impacts can be mitigated. The sole argument of gaming experience won’t get you nowhere. You need to know the other side of the coin to claim what is the best possible outcome, otherwise our discussion will be based in “I like it because I like it”
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.


Indeed. I don’t get this people that claims that have deeper knowledge regarding how the whole world feels with a certain attribute in game. I hate hitting all the time. Am I an outlier and should I move to another planet?
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 30/10/20 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.


Indeed. I don’t get this people that claims that have deeper knowledge regarding how the whole world feels with a certain attribute in game. I hate hitting all the time. Am I an outlier and should I move to another planet?


I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.

+ If the rules were a little bit more accurate to D&D, it could also be less penalizing.
Your melee character just miss and don't kill that goblin... No problem, I'll spend a level 1 spell slots using magic missile and I'll probably OS/finish him...
Posted By: millenialboomer Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 31/10/20 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.


Very true; Pathfinder Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous does this. Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc
Posted By: IAmPageicus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 04/11/20 01:06 PM
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.


Very true; Pathfinder Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous does this. Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE!!!!
Posted By: Svalr Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 04/11/20 02:48 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.


Indeed. I don’t get this people that claims that have deeper knowledge regarding how the whole world feels with a certain attribute in game. I hate hitting all the time. Am I an outlier and should I move to another planet?


I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.



I agree with this a lot, I think that it at least looks like you're dodging in Baldur's Gate 3 while in Pathfinder Kingmaker it just says '' miss '' but the character doesn't visually show it.
I think that maybe if you're wearing heavy armor or a shield then instead of doing the dodge animation they could have their own animation and sound effects.
Posted By: IAmPageicus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 05/11/20 04:02 AM
This I Love...
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 05/11/20 04:40 AM
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc


I would really like this happen --get rid of the HP bloat and replace it with compelling animations. Dodge is great but what about animations for "thunk" on armor, grazing to the side, swords crossing, ducking under or jumping over the slash of a weapon . . .
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 05/11/20 09:49 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc


I would really like this happen --get rid of the HP bloat and replace it with compelling animations. Dodge is great but what about animations for "thunk" on armor, grazing to the side, swords crossing, ducking under or jumping over the slash of a weapon . . .


+1, would be great. Right now you see the spell (or whatever) hit and then there's "miss" displayed. Quite unimmersive.
Posted By: Divine Star Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 05/11/20 11:36 PM
All of the complaint and hate is funny to someone who came in knowing nothing about the Baldur's Gate series, nor D&D beyond watching popular streams. I was looking for an experience and can only shake my head at how much people complain about rules and mechanics.
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by Divine Star
All of the complaint and hate is funny to someone who came in knowing nothing about the Baldur's Gate series, nor D&D beyond watching popular streams. I was looking for an experience and can only shake my head at how much people complain about rules and mechanics.


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 01:33 AM
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".


The problem with that position is that there is a better adaptation of the rules out there -- Solasta -- and the adaptations have caused problems (some of which you've identified).

So the question is will Larian listen or try to cure this sickness with the hair of dog? Say bolstering the scared flame cantrip? Increasing the damage fireball does? Further bumping up the average number of enemies the spell 'sleep' knocks out? If so then you get even further from the rules and the new problems emerge.

Also, the game is riding on the coattails of a game that had a very strict "adaptation" of the rules and criticisms like this go with the territory. Larian wouldn't have sold X number of copies of DOS3, the extra sales numbers came from the BG name and the D&D ruleset. If you get to direct one of the Star Wars sequels you aren't evaluated on the basis of "is this a good sci-fi film?" but "is this a worthy successor?" "did they get the tone right?" etc.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 02:14 AM
True, but Solasta is a small, niche indie game that can afford to be appealing almost entirely to 5e D&D fans. Baldur's Gate 3 is MUCH bigger, and has to be fun for a much wider audience, many of whom will know nothing about D&D. So for each rule, they have to ask themselves, "Is it worth keeping this strictly on point with the official D&D rules, or would more people enjoy it better if we tweaked it?" I can't say whether the decisions they've made so far are good or not, because I don't know how the game will ultimately be received by "the masses". There are things I would like changed, of course, but even if NOTHING on my list is changed, I will still love this game. Some of the more glaring rules changes, that a lot of people are unhappy about, don't really bother me. If they change Fire Bolt back to it's official 5e version, that would be fine. If they don't, also fine.

I also quite disagree that the original Baldur's Gate games were a "very strict" adaptation of D&D in their day. Bioware took plenty of liberties, too.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 02:26 AM
If it were not for BG3, hardly anyone would have heard about Solasta. The game would sell up to 100k (it would probably be less) copies, which would be enough for the creators.
And when it comes to larger titles, relying on a specific (limited) fanbase might not end well (see Obsidian)

Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 02:52 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

The problem with that position is that there is a better adaptation of the rules out there -- Solasta --


But here's the thing. Who are you to say it's better? And why is that your opinion is more right than mine or anyone else's? I own both games. I have spent 13 hours playing Solasta and 330 hours playing BG3. Care to guess which one I feel is a better "adaptation"?

It's one thing for people to express their opinion. We all have them and we all have the same right to express them. But many on these forums seem to think their opinion is more right and/or that they speak some cosmic truth that everyone should agree with when in fact... it's just their individual opinion. Like all opinions, some will agree with it and some won't.
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 02:55 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
True, but Solasta is a small, niche indie game that can afford to be appealing almost entirely to 5e D&D fans. Baldur's Gate 3 is MUCH bigger, and has to be fun for a much wider audience, many of whom will know nothing about D&D. So for each rule, they have to ask themselves, "Is it worth keeping this strictly on point with the official D&D rules, or would more people enjoy it better if we tweaked it?" I can't say whether the decisions they've made so far are good or not, because I don't know how the game will ultimately be received by "the masses". There are things I would like changed, of course, but even if NOTHING on my list is changed, I will still love this game. Some of the more glaring rules changes, that a lot of people are unhappy about, don't really bother me. If they change Fire Bolt back to it's official 5e version, that would be fine. If they don't, also fine.

I also quite disagree that the original Baldur's Gate games were a "very strict" adaptation of D&D in their day. Bioware took plenty of liberties, too.


LoL I should just let you speak for me from now on...you are much better at it.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 03:55 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies


I also quite disagree that the original Baldur's Gate games were a "very strict" adaptation of D&D in their day. Bioware took plenty of liberties, too.


We'll have to disagree on that -- they took the big liberty of making a turn based game into a real time with pause and, otherwise? Pretty much by the books. Which was quite the challenge because 2nd edition was anything but coherent being -- spun across multiple books and being contradictory in places. They even brought in things from the Zhakaria and Ravenloft settings. The house rules they used were largely the ones that most table top groups were already using -- no level caps on demi humans, letting good clerics use evil spells, etc.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 04:04 AM
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


LoL I should just let you speak for me from now on...you are much better at it.


True. You're not very good at it. Or at reading comprehension for that matter.

Perhaps you could by starting by looking up the definition of adaptation? Or reading what I wrote? Yes, I get your *very* complex point "it's all relative man". It's something of a non sequitur.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 04:21 AM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA?


I would argue that is exactly what we've been doing and we point out the flaws in them. Also, Larian doesn't only implement new rules, to make them fit, they change and overwrite old ones.
Now, I'm not a member of the design team so I can only take a guess on the mind mapping evolution during design discussion. And I picture it going something like this:


-Alright team. We've been cleared to do this game. How do we move forward?

-well, we know what people have liked in our other games so we should build on that.

-ok, explain.

-well, in this fight with 5 goblins it would be cool to add an explosive barrel so that players feel smart hitting that taking out all five goblins in one strike.

-I understand you, but now the fight becomes too easy don't you think.

-well, we could add more enemies.

-ok. but now the barrel only takes out 5, what about the other 5?

-Well, there could be other tactical options like surfaces the players can interact with. like oil and grease and water that gets affected by spells.

-oh oh, I have an idea. with all the fire and oil around, wouldn't it be cool if that could help the melee players as well?

-ok. we include a dip mechanic but we are still talking low levels and spells that affect environment is higher up.

-well that can be changed by small changes made to the cantrips

-yeah, but another problem is that we seem to miss a lot, how do we change that?

-easy, we lower the AC.

-doesn't that makes the fight too easy again?

-well, lets raise the hp

-ok, that settled, how do we handle defense. This isn't real time so players won't be able to move away from enemies in an instant.

-Well, I read somewhere there is this disengage option. Wouldn't that work? And also, they can just jump/move away from the npc's during their turn.

-good idea, the problem is that disengage makes you lose the attack during that turn unless you're a rogue. so now we have everyone playing cat and mouse.

-can't we combine jump with disengage so that players still will get to attack each turn?

yeah, alright team I think we have something here!

-well, sir, doesn't this affect spell mechanics and class identity?

-Oh shut up Karen, can you for once stop with your negativity. We're making something cool here!


Now, I ofc am making exaggerations but what I'm getting at is that one change, leads to another change, that leads to two new changes, that quickly spirals out throughout a whole system. When all that extra work making changes to an already working combat system, could have been avoided if the first change wasn't made. A change made just to make one of Larian's darlings fit in.

I'm not saying d&d is perfect. that's why there have been several editions of it. and there is room for improvement without affecting the whole system. What Larian did with Rangers is a perfect example of that. You can bake chocolate chip cookies for people with gluten intolerance. But can you bake them changing the chocolate chips to gummi bears?
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 05:29 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


LoL I should just let you speak for me from now on...you are much better at it.


True. You're not very good at it. Or at reading comprehension for that matter.

Perhaps you could by starting by looking up the definition of adaptation? Or reading what I wrote? Yes, I get your *very* complex point "it's all relative man". It's something of a non sequitur.


Wow devolving from righteous opinions to personal attacks...impressive. Very persuasive too.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 05:37 AM
Good catch. Clearly I engaged in a personal attack while your post saying that people who disagree with you are self righteous blowhards that can't distinguish opinion from objective truth was the epitome of a respectful exchange of ideas. You know, this?

Quote
But many on these forums seem to think their opinion is more right and/or that they speak some cosmic truth that everyone should agree with when in fact... it's just their individual opinion.
Or you know
Quote
from righteous opinions


Kettle-black and all that.
Posted By: Anfindel Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 06:09 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".


The problem with that position is that there is a better adaptation of the rules out there -- Solasta -- and the adaptations have caused problems (some of which you've identified).

So the question is will Larian listen or try to cure this sickness with the hair of dog? Say bolstering the scared flame cantrip? Increasing the damage fireball does? Further bumping up the average number of enemies the spell 'sleep' knocks out? If so then you get even further from the rules and the new problems emerge.

Also, the game is riding on the coattails of a game that had a very strict "adaptation" of the rules and criticisms like this go with the territory. Larian wouldn't have sold X number of copies of DOS3, the extra sales numbers came from the BG name and the D&D ruleset. If you get to direct one of the Star Wars sequels you aren't evaluated on the basis of "is this a good sci-fi film?" but "is this a worthy successor?" "did they get the tone right?" etc.





Solasta is not a "better" adaptation of the rules, it is simply a "different" adaptation applied to a very different game. What works in actual application for one game is not determinant of what works in another. There are vast differences in characterization, builds, story-telling, target audience, and numerous other aspects, between BG3 and Solasta. Each will stand or fall on the particular mix used in THAT game - and should not be construed as determinative of what works best in the other.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 06:29 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".


Not sure anyone complain it's not an exact copy.
There's something between what BG3 is actually and what an exact copy of D&D would be...

Backstab for everyone and higher ground advantage are what I call "adaptations" to suit better the medium.

Dipping, froggy jumps, eating during combats, scrolls for everyone, resting system, surfaces potions and arrows and/or cantrip for everyone, HP bloat, OP creatures etc.....
When the entire game is balanced arround many new things, it becomes closer to a total convertion than a few adaptations...

I'm just a fan of BG, I don't really really care about D&D but I really think the gameplay could become way more deep, tactical and immersive with more D&D and less custom wtf mechanics everywhere.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 09:08 AM
I havent played EA that much yet, but I am confused with arrows. No arrows in the game means that there is no arrow of bitting, +1, +2, detonation, ice/fire, etc...like in baldurs gate 2 ?
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 10:18 AM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.

Just a couple of months ago, I was fully onboard with TEAM LARIAN, and habitually shot down guys like you as premature ejaculators lol. After experimenting a little with BG3 early access though I'm inclined to agree with most of your points. Clearly Swen Vincke succeeded in a Deception skill-check when he asserted they had ported D&D as faithfully as they could. The inverse seems almost more true. A number of homebrew will have the very foreseeable consequence of generating ever more homebrew to fix what their faithless porting unnecessarily broke to begin with. While also breaking balance in all kinds of ways (ie. the excessive use of advantage with higher ground/flanking which is bound to break the Barbarian class while at the same time being a relative nerf to spellcasters). I criticised DOS2 loot over-focus as detracting from that game, and for BG3 this is even more true.

However. Some of the criticisms is downright petty and immature, not made because you take issue with something objectively problematic - but just because you get triggered by the very thought of DOS2 having had a similar aspect. Like the whole of two minutes you spend on a beach in BG3. I also disagree with much of the SAVE SCUM criticisms as this is CLEARLY an artifact of D&D while Larian has just as clearly made a PRAISEWORTHY effort to offset the binary RNG-nature of D&D. That said, I too found myself save scumming more often than I was comfortable with, particularly to adjust for bad RNG in combat. Nobody likes to miss and this is the reason Larian has lowered AC and increased the HP of enemies in general. Clearly an unfair case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not that you bother yourself with pesky nuance though.

In the torrent of negativity I feel almost compelled BG3 shows many hints of GREATNESS too. Especially when it comes to roleplaying/story, writing, voice acting (apart from the mute protagonist who sticks out like a sore thumb).
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I havent played EA that much yet, but I am confused with arrows. No arrows in the game means that there is no arrow of bitting, +1, +2, detonation, ice/fire, etc...like in baldurs gate 2 ?

Part of Larian's "faithful porting" haha. DOS-style exploitative gimmicks of elemental effects has superseded magical arrows. Ie. you have explosive barrels, acid pools, ever-burning candles in your inventory that can be used to set weapons ablaze.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 01:44 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Clearly Swen Vincke succeeded in a Deception skill-check when he asserted they had ported D&D as faithfully as they could.


This.
Posted By: Dominemesis Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.


In actual 5E there isn't back stab, there is sneak attack. Rogues do not have to be behind or even hidden to get it. If they have advantage for any reason, or if another member of the party is within 5' of their target, they get it. This is just one more way the deviation from 5E rules is causing an issue in BG3.

To Seraphael a few posts above, BG3 does show hints of greatness, but not in the area of "faithfully" implementing 5E rules, like at all, which is what this whole thread is complaining about, and for many, thus far the most disappointing aspect of what is otherwise a pretty fine game. If they can fix that, imagine how quiet the forum would get. This is THE biggest problem I am seeing people, myself included, have (not of course the only one, but the biggest).
Posted By: Mathalis Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 08:04 PM
I completely agree with this. Right now this game does feel like DOS3 with a DnD lite mod.
Posted By: Mathalis Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.

Just a couple of months ago, I was fully onboard with TEAM LARIAN, and habitually shot down guys like you as premature ejaculators lol. After experimenting a little with BG3 early access though I'm inclined to agree with most of your points. Clearly Swen Vincke succeeded in a Deception skill-check when he asserted they had ported D&D as faithfully as they could. The inverse seems almost more true. A number of homebrew will have the very foreseeable consequence of generating ever more homebrew to fix what their faithless porting unnecessarily broke to begin with. While also breaking balance in all kinds of ways (ie. the excessive use of advantage with higher ground/flanking which is bound to break the Barbarian class while at the same time being a relative nerf to spellcasters). I criticised DOS2 loot over-focus as detracting from that game, and for BG3 this is even more true.

However. Some of the criticisms is downright petty and immature, not made because you take issue with something objectively problematic - but just because you get triggered by the very thought of DOS2 having had a similar aspect. Like the whole of two minutes you spend on a beach in BG3. I also disagree with much of the SAVE SCUM criticisms as this is CLEARLY an artifact of D&D while Larian has just as clearly made a PRAISEWORTHY effort to offset the binary RNG-nature of D&D. That said, I too found myself save scumming more often than I was comfortable with, particularly to adjust for bad RNG in combat. Nobody likes to miss and this is the reason Larian has lowered AC and increased the HP of enemies in general. Clearly an unfair case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not that you bother yourself with pesky nuance though.

In the torrent of negativity I feel almost compelled BG3 shows many hints of GREATNESS too. Especially when it comes to roleplaying/story, writing, voice acting (apart from the mute protagonist who sticks out like a sore thumb).



Could you head down to the steam forums and let those guys know. Man its dark in that forum.
Posted By: azarhal Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I havent played EA that much yet, but I am confused with arrows. No arrows in the game means that there is no arrow of bitting, +1, +2, detonation, ice/fire, etc...like in baldurs gate 2 ?


There are special magical arrows in the EA, they are not the same as what was at Baldur's Gate 2 (I'm not even sure if those are in 5e anyway).
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 08:31 PM
On the arrows there are acid arrows and fire arrows but they make surfaces and don't just add damage like BG2. I don't actually have a problem with these items, they seem like legitimate homebrews items.

The issue is with the homebrew 'dip' rule. You drop a candle on the ground, dip your sword / arrow into it and you have a fire arrow. So something magical has become something mundane. Now, flaming arrows have been used in real medieval combat but they were just set up differently -- wrapped in cloth and the like.

Similarly with 'mundane' flaming swords. If you watch the 'making of' documentary you will find out that HBO's game of thrones went through multiple flaming swords in their filming because once you light a sword on fire with sterno or the like it ruins the sword. They eventually developed one that could remain lit for two minutes and could be reused.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
On the arrows there are acid arrows and fire arrows but they make surfaces and don't just add damage like BG2. I don't actually have a problem with these items, they seem like legitimate homebrews items.

The issue is with the homebrew 'dip' rule. You drop a candle on the ground, dip your sword / arrow into it and you have a fire arrow. So something magical has become something mundane. Now, flaming arrows have been used in real medieval combat but they were just set up differently -- wrapped in cloth and the like.

Similarly with 'mundane' flaming swords. If you watch the 'making of' documentary you will find out that HBO's game of thrones went through multiple flaming swords in their filming because once you light a sword on fire with sterno or the like it ruins the sword. They eventually developed one that could remain lit for two minutes and could be reused.


I wouldn't be opposed to "crafting" fire arrows with normal arrows, cloth and oil. And then you'd need to ignite them and they'd be on fire for some time and then burn up and be no more if unused. Also nerf them a bit. So they add a bit of fire damage and ignite things. FLAMMABLE things. Things that would normally catch fire. Not stone.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 10:27 PM
Nor would I smile But the resources would need to limited enough to avoid making the arcane archer class irrelevant. Or perhaps have arrow making as an optional feat?
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 06/11/20 11:39 PM
Just going to post the same thing I posted on that other thread which is about the same thing...


People are very confused about what things are actually rules changes, and which things are already optional rules in 5e, or standard DM prerogative as granted in the 5e books.

Changing Fire Bolt is a rules change. Changing Hide, Shove, and Disengage to bonus actions is a rules change. Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change. And there are several rules changes in the game, and I think it's valid for people to criticize those if they want the game to adhere more closely to RAW 5e.

But many of the complaints are NOT rules changes. They fall within the realm of normal, intended DM prerogative. Facing is already an optional rule in the DMG (pg. 252), and it awards advantage to attackers from behind. (And before you complain about an optional rule, stop and remember that FEATS are also an optional rule in 5e, and nobody is complaining about those.) Granting advantage and disadvantage for any circumstances that the DM thinks are appropriate is already a power given to DMs. "Characters often gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, spells, or other features of their classes or backgrounds. In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. Consider granting advantage when circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge, or some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success." (pg. 239 DMG) Higher ground advantage isn't a rules change. It's the DM doing exactly what the DMG says they should.

Changes to monster stats? Not a rules change. Stat blocks are not rules. Every experienced DM I know changes monster stats, makes up new monsters, adds NPC levels to monsters, or adds abilities to monsters, frequently. For at least the last three editions of D&D, including 5e, signficant space in the DMG has been devoted to just this topic. "Part of the D&D experience is the simple joy of creating new monsters and customizing existing ones, if for no other reason than to surprise and delight your players with something they've never faced before." "A stat block in the Monster Manual might make a good starting point for your monster." (pg. 273 DMG) Monster stat blocks are a quick, ready-to-play convenience feature for DMs. They're good for when you're short on time, or lazy, or uncreative, or as a starting point for creating your own unique content. Even in official published adventures, it is very common to see modified versions of creatures, especially changes to a monster's AC or HP.

Also, monsters have a RANGE of hit points. The exact number listed is just the numerical average, again to save time. Complaining about goblins with 13 HP instead of 7 is ridiculous, as even the standard goblin has 2d6 HP base, and full rules exist for making custom NPCs with the race "goblin" and for adding class levels to an existing goblin. As a DM of 30+ years, I virtually always modify creatures in my games from their stock Monster Manual "starting point" stat block. So does Chris Perkins, so does Jerry Holkins, so does Matt Mercer, and on and on. It's not a rules change, it's DM prerogative.

Numerous other things fall into this category, I don't feel like going through the full list of "this is not D&D!" complaints right now. But probably at least half of those issues are not actual rules changes, they're just DM prerogative. Which means that you could dislike how Larian is as a DM, but you have much less ground to stand on when it comes to claiming that the game is some wild divergence from 5e rules. Yes, there are clear rules changes, but honestly not very many of them.
Posted By: st33d Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 12:41 AM
Optional means just that - it means you don't normally use those rules unless you've got a certain kind of group. Not thousands upon thousands who are used to the vanilla system.

When you grant advantage all the time it makes a game of D&D5 worse to play. The "optional" rules in the DMG are dodgy homebrew at best and cause more problems than they solve. Some of them killed a few campaigns I was running because everyone was suddenly overpowered, whereas before it was an interesting challenge.

It's why most of the games I've played have stuck to the rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual. The DMG was carried by almost no one in all of the D&D groups I attended. It was considered a poor book.
Posted By: Mathalis Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Just going to post the same thing I posted on that other thread which is about the same thing...


People are very confused about what things are actually rules changes, and which things are already optional rules in 5e, or standard DM prerogative as granted in the 5e books.

Changing Fire Bolt is a rules change. Changing Hide, Shove, and Disengage to bonus actions is a rules change. Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change. And there are several rules changes in the game, and I think it's valid for people to criticize those if they want the game to adhere more closely to RAW 5e.

But many of the complaints are NOT rules changes. They fall within the realm of normal, intended DM prerogative. Facing is already an optional rule in the DMG (pg. 252), and it awards advantage to attackers from behind. (And before you complain about an optional rule, stop and remember that FEATS are also an optional rule in 5e, and nobody is complaining about those.) Granting advantage and disadvantage for any circumstances that the DM thinks are appropriate is already a power given to DMs. "Characters often gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, spells, or other features of their classes or backgrounds. In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. Consider granting advantage when circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge, or some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success." (pg. 239 DMG) Higher ground advantage isn't a rules change. It's the DM doing exactly what the DMG says they should.

Changes to monster stats? Not a rules change. Stat blocks are not rules. Every experienced DM I know changes monster stats, makes up new monsters, adds NPC levels to monsters, or adds abilities to monsters, frequently. For at least the last three editions of D&D, including 5e, signficant space in the DMG has been devoted to just this topic. "Part of the D&D experience is the simple joy of creating new monsters and customizing existing ones, if for no other reason than to surprise and delight your players with something they've never faced before." "A stat block in the Monster Manual might make a good starting point for your monster." (pg. 273 DMG) Monster stat blocks are a quick, ready-to-play convenience feature for DMs. They're good for when you're short on time, or lazy, or uncreative, or as a starting point for creating your own unique content. Even in official published adventures, it is very common to see modified versions of creatures, especially changes to a monster's AC or HP.

Also, monsters have a RANGE of hit points. The exact number listed is just the numerical average, again to save time. Complaining about goblins with 13 HP instead of 7 is ridiculous, as even the standard goblin has 2d6 HP base, and full rules exist for making custom NPCs with the race "goblin" and for adding class levels to an existing goblin. As a DM of 30+ years, I virtually always modify creatures in my games from their stock Monster Manual "starting point" stat block. So does Chris Perkins, so does Jerry Holkins, so does Matt Mercer, and on and on. It's not a rules change, it's DM prerogative.

Numerous other things fall into this category, I don't feel like going through the full list of "this is not D&D!" complaints right now. But probably at least half of those issues are not actual rules changes, they're just DM prerogative. Which means that you could dislike how Larian is as a DM, but you have much less ground to stand on when it comes to claiming that the game is some wild divergence from 5e rules. Yes, there are clear rules changes, but honestly not very many of them.


The optional part seems to have become mandatory. The bottom line is the current iteration does not feel very good to play. Combat is tedious and boring. The dialogue is a chore to slog through. Too many things pull me away from the game and all the companions are a joke. They are all assholes. There is very little attachment to your character as you are just slung into a massive fight which makes no sense because you are not continuing a person you know about, this is a totally new PC. Meaning they should have done some time before being captured to give some attachment. Combat is more about all the junk added than the class skills. It all just feels bad.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 02:21 AM
Originally Posted by Mathalis

The optional part seems to have become mandatory. The bottom line is the current iteration does not feel very good to play. Combat is tedious and boring. The dialogue is a chore to slog through. Too many things pull me away from the game and all the companions are a joke. They are all assholes. There is very little attachment to your character as you are just slung into a massive fight which makes no sense because you are not continuing a person you know about, this is a totally new PC. Meaning they should have done some time before being captured to give some attachment. Combat is more about all the junk added than the class skills. It all just feels bad.



My experience with BG3 is the opposite of yours on every point. I think it feels great to play, I find the combat to be incredibly fun, I love the dialogue, I love the companions.
Posted By: bringemichum Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 05:50 AM
if there is no height rules, there is no need to design a map that involved complex topography. Everything happens in a flat surface. And the high ground has nothing but block the camera.
although it does seems strange that gravity can influence magic. But i think arrow has no problem to benifit from high ground.
i am totally new to DND. And if fire bolt can't create a flammable surface, but merely deal with 1d6 damage, while ray of frost can deal with 1d8, which means fire bolt became a useless cantrip.

Also people complain about exchange stuff during combat. But in board game you only control 1 character, and in BG3 is 4, which means you need to think really carefully to distribution resource to each character and waste a lot of time to split and drag item. it sounds very painful.

Interaction with environment seems became a defect in BG3, where it supposed to add fun. Obviously you can't count every envirnmental factor in board game, nor a pc 20 years ago can. But now, i'm sure my i5 9400 can handle it. So if pc can count the different hitpoint on different body part as a vital factor in the future. I'sure it's a advance not regress. We can't say "oh it's wrong because we can't do that in 20 years ago". The environmental factor still needs to polisch but not just remove it.

And for backstab. Someones says it cause player just jump around to get a backstab, which makes game no strategy at all. But bg3 is pve game not pvp. The enemys are various. They have very different abilities. You can backstab a goblin but it's hard to backstab auntie ethel. Backstab do not make the combat dull but add more possibility. Enemys will not just jump around like player. For example sekiro is much fun with pve. But the pvp mod is a disaster. Everyone just do the same run attack makes it very boring. Board game is just not a video game. They can design phase spider become a unlimited backstab machine but you know that not gonna happen. Player can abuse game rule in EA, while AI can't.

And EA game certainly has issues with balance. You can't require too much. Even in DOS2DE some skills are way too powerful. Suggestions should make the game have a better balance, not just remove everything unbalanced
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 06:12 AM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
On the arrows there are acid arrows and fire arrows but they make surfaces and don't just add damage like BG2. I don't actually have a problem with these items, they seem like legitimate homebrews items.

The issue is with the homebrew 'dip' rule. You drop a candle on the ground, dip your sword / arrow into it and you have a fire arrow. So something magical has become something mundane. Now, flaming arrows have been used in real medieval combat but they were just set up differently -- wrapped in cloth and the like.

Similarly with 'mundane' flaming swords. If you watch the 'making of' documentary you will find out that HBO's game of thrones went through multiple flaming swords in their filming because once you light a sword on fire with sterno or the like it ruins the sword. They eventually developed one that could remain lit for two minutes and could be reused.

Yeah, dipping a mundane sword into candle light to turn it into a flaming weapon is pretty silly. Especially so when you consider that the plot of the first game revolves around weapons breaking from being poorly made/poor materials.

If the sword is coated in oil, THEN lit on fire, that would work. But it should give the weapon afterward a permanent, cumulative -1 penalty each time it's done, and give the weapon a chance to break when it's used. That would feel very Baldur's Gate.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 06:47 AM
Originally Posted by Mathalis
The optional part seems to have become mandatory. The bottom line is the current iteration does not feel very good to play. Combat is tedious and boring. The dialogue is a chore to slog through. Too many things pull me away from the game and all the companions are a joke. They are all assholes. There is very little attachment to your character as you are just slung into a massive fight which makes no sense because you are not continuing a person you know about, this is a totally new PC. Meaning they should have done some time before being captured to give some attachment. Combat is more about all the junk added than the class skills. It all just feels bad.

We do not have all the companions yet. There will most likely be some nicer ones but if you take the time to understand the ones we have, then you will know why they act as they do. I would say there is more attachment to your character this way, it allows you to create almost any backstory you want rather than being forced into one. There are too many ways to make environmental effects, hopefully this can be toned down a bit, like less barrels and more realistic movement of them (can only be carried in the arms not in the backpack, and npcs will not ignore the rearranging of their furniture.)

Originally Posted by bringemichum

i am totally new to DND. And if fire bolt can't create a flammable surface, but merely deal with 1d6 damage, while ray of frost can deal with 1d8, which means fire bolt became a useless cantrip.

There will be resistances and vulnerabilities to certain types of damage. Fire bolt will do more damage than ray of frost on enemies vulnerable to fire. My issues with the cantrips is that they should be able to target an enemy or an item (like a flammable object or a blood pool) that creates the ground effect, not both. Perhaps have a small chance at hitting the item if it misses the enemy only if they are standing close enough (like in a pool of blood.)


Originally Posted by Traycor

Yeah, dipping a mundane sword into candle light to turn it into a flaming weapon is pretty silly. Especially so when you consider that the plot of the first game revolves around weapons breaking from being poorly made/poor materials.

If the sword is coated in oil, THEN lit on fire, that would work. But it should give the weapon afterward a permanent, cumulative -1 penalty each time it's done, and give the weapon a chance to break when it's used. That would feel very Baldur's Gate.

I would like this idea but doubt most others would. The candle thing is stupid anyway. Having that light near you should at least give the enemy a bonus on their attacks. smile
Posted By: Millisar Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 07/11/20 02:55 PM
+1
Posted By: IAmPageicus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 09:07 AM
Plus 1 to my own post.

Why?The more I play the more I feel this way. I must not be alone look at the response?! Crazy...

In a year this game will either be a fun little rpg... or it will be game of the fucking decaded to rival even cyberpunk. That all hangs on how much they improve the Combat, Social, Exploration and 5e implementation. Also having even a basic implementation of what made BG1-2 great would be nice I mean why not lol?

Reading the counters has been insightful. The opposite point of view is from kneckbearded egochildren who enjoy the game exactly as is. Ignoring the obvious fact Larian want and need (begged) for help for this paytest. Just like they did for Dos 1 and 2 remember those guys? Oh wait a lot of you where not even here lol.

I have been here is DOS1 and I have never seen this much boot licking from this community. (Larian cannot stand that either.) Clearly a lot of you are new and from reddit. Larian will not put you in the credits no matter how much baby juice you lap up or how much poo you devour from the plate of escrement. Get over yourself... This is not half the game it could be without your lack of actual feedback.

The game needs work period.

FOR gods sakes the games it is based off of are still played 20 years later. DOS one was gutten in player base the moment DOS 2 came around. This is shaping up to be ruined by DOS only fans. Then to have them take quotes out of context and try to show us how this is dnd is the funniest shit I have ever seen.. Do you guys believe this? IS this why anytime their is any kind of voting system the current action economy is gutted by feedback?

These guys would have ruined the 5e playtest and the Pathfinder 2 playtest. You have to have an understanding of the mechanics to change them. This is on a mathematical level as well!

Giving an amount in years of your game master experience is shit if you do it wrong. Reading that monster stats can just be random instead of appropriate for a CR is the funniest shit I have read all week. I have posted these comments on Pathfinder 2e boards and the guys who helped me playtest that are having a fit. Thanks for the laugh amatures.HAHA

Basically claiming it is ok to do a 100 AC encounter cause some famous podcast will do it. Umm.... those guys didn't playtest the system. They are also constantly laughed at from a mechanical standpoint. To watch character death from their bad calls is the greatest joy I can recieve from these "Top Tier" game masters. Youtube is not DnD and should never be the base for playtesting. That is for action and views... this is why most of them cannot handle Pathfinder and had to convert to 5e even then they cannot follow simple mechanics of light and darkness. How many times have we heard Matt Mercer completely change the dynamic of the action economy. In like episode 3 he claims the axe gets stuck on a hit, and has to use a bonus action and or a move action to get it unstuck. The dude changes this 3 episodes laters. The action to make a check is completely "GAME MASTER May I?" In podcasts and the only reason it is let go is cause its all about character monologues and voice acting. THIS IS NOT DND THAT IS A FUCKING TEA PARTY FOR ADULTS.

The mechanics are pushed to the back for presentation and makeup. Lighting and scripted conversations. Please stop mentioning Matt Mercer when it comes to PLAYTESTING the dude is a voice actor trying to play a tea party with friends! The dude changes editions based on the money being given for sponsorship. He refused Pathfinder 2e when it came out... he said it was an amazing system but WOTC gave him more money. The dude could not tell you the major differenced between pathfinder and 5e and make a compelling argument. This is constantly talked about on any forums involving critical role. Especially when people mention them during playtesting. HOW MATT MERCER WOULD DO IT was a joke on the paizo forums and still is to this day! The dude is an actor who is paid to play that way... No dnd game looks anything like that.

This is a videogame that needs rules and mathematics. Programming with 1s and 0s will do that! So it needs playtesters who like to playtest systems and make sure the CR and DC are exact with the math based on expected output on character level. Especially within a spectrum of probobility. You can change and adjust yes um DUH... but you cannot add 200 to ac cause it is the game master LOL.

There is a world wide Playtest and Game in both 5e and Pathfinder 2e a world game that each of them plays. You can bring your characters to these conventions and use the. But they all have to follow basic concepts and expected ranges. LARIAN would not make the cut at these events... their calls are so outrageas to the point of being laughable. You would think you where being Punked by the game master if he told you I push as a bonus action and sneak away from AC killing acid puddles left by a cantrip HAHA.

WHO GIVES a fuck what a tea party game master thinks in regards to a $60 playtest based on hardcoded mechanics. Leveling creatures makes sense however :The lowered ac and the higher HP is comically dreadful and mentioned so much that is needs no further explanation. To claim that it is anything other than bad game mastering by a game master completely unfamiliar with the rules as a whole is laughable.

To imagine wizards of the coast releasing an extra book entitiled Larian and you. Involving area of effect and push and jump mechanics like mario bros is a joke. The game was not only playtested a year and a half but has errata to this day. Push/Shove as a bonus action, Puddles of acid reducing AC (LOL) hide as a bonus action (why not at this point right?) dipping swords in fire, Throwing magical flasks that make the ground change like divinity and giving the enemies infinite supply, The masterwork AI attacking low AC at the cost of anything else including going into 3 seperate rooms to find the Mage that didnt even start the fight, Items that litterally break the entire game from the start by allowing low damage spells do incredible top tier damage. Conversations that completely make you feel like you are a single player. The player 3 and 4 get accused of whatever you did and are assumed to have said exactly what you said at the exact same time. The entire game rewarding you for genocide but not givng you xp when you prevent it.

The game needs so much work it is clear they needed the help they requested. The problem is not us that are the minority. The problem is those of you who have joined within the month with 400 posts on your account claiming you are the majority. Why invest so much in an argument you dont even have the basics to understand. I mean just look at this page... these game masters with 30 plus years experience with a system that has only released 5 years ago lol. They always come in here kneckbeard and all name dropping and claiming divine insight without ever going into detail of said mechanics. They cannot even fathom why pushing not being an action is a problem and this is why THEY WILL NEVER BE KNOWN in the tabletop world. They will never ever be given the credit they feel entitled to. Why? Cause they boot lick and beg and plead and brag and brown nose till they are dead and gone. The real guys behind the games are the ones who are never satisfied cracking the numbers and checking the math and making sure IRON HAS SHARPENED IRON.

I am a playtester I playtest and this shit needs work. Just like it did when it had group initiative and these dudes said that made sense ?!! Just like when they said (past tense diologue is great guys haha) these clowns get burried when the books arrive and the devs's are smart enough to listen to the legitaminte playtesters.

I appreciate the fact some of you have game mastered 200 years and what not. But I never seen any of you on the last two tabtletop Playtests... I honestly think you just copy and paste your arguments from your books and hope the game will stay as it is exactly. IT WILL NOT there is a lof of us who are going to change it. I am glad you like it as is... but you are wrong objectively and we are going to push you aside like we do every playtest and get the game back on track.

Keep brown nosing and keep boot licking and NOTHING will happen with your future... you are not getting a job at larian for being a twat. INSTEAD try to actually playtest the game and compare that to what was advertised and meet us in the middle so we can have the best God Damn game that has ever been released.

You are nothing special. WE as a collective determine the outcome of this game. So get over yourself as an individual and lets playtest this thing and help larian in their comically bad shortcomings.... FOR GOD SAKES TEAM BASED INITATIVE ANYONE?!

(Being drunk after election week is not the most productive way to respond to your own post but damnit here it is)
Posted By: biomag Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 09:36 AM
The combat is among the worst I've played, same issues as DOS2 making it utterly boring. With shoving, disengage being bonus actions and surfaces effects doing too much damage, barrel&hordmancy those become the most important parts of combat. I spend more time planning my bonus actions than actions since those give more bang for bucks then the main actions.


It's been said several times not advantage should be given for height just bonus modifiers. You can do the same for flanking or backstabing. Advantage is just too powerful.


Overall all changes except for the Ranger made by Larian have been disruptive for the balance and not just a litte. I was looking forward to play EA, but because of the combat I barely managed to finish one playthrough being completely annoyed and bored. If they don't roll back to D&D 5e I most likey won't play the full game until there is a mod fixing all these broken and badly implemented changes.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 10:24 AM
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Plus 1 to my own post.

*INSERT RANDOM WALL OF NONSENSE*



Sir, this is an Arby's.


No but seriously, this is the most appropriate response:




No, but seriously seriously now. If you stoop to using personal insults against anyone who disagrees with you, people will stop listening to what you have to say. It's possible to disagree with people without insulting them. You should cultivate this skill.
Posted By: Gaidax Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 10:33 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change.


This one is a bug, really. Scrolls currently are unrestricted in both scribing and use, it will be changed.

I think it's important to recognize that quite a lot of what we have now is an unfinished, bugged or placeholder.


I think many of the changes Larian did are good, they clearly want players to have more action paths when their turn finally comes and I'm behind it. I think they should reconsider things like "Hide" maybe there, because that one is super abusive now.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 10:48 AM
Ah, if it's a bug, then that's good. I wasn't sure if it was by design or not.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by biomag
The combat is among the worst I've played, same issues as DOS2 making it utterly boring. With shoving, disengage being bonus actions and surfaces effects doing too much damage, barrel&hordmancy those become the most important parts of combat. I spend more time planning my bonus actions than actions since those give more bang for bucks then the main actions.


It's been said several times not advantage should be given for height just bonus modifiers. You can do the same for flanking or backstabing. Advantage is just too powerful.


Overall all changes except for the Ranger made by Larian have been disruptive for the balance and not just a litte. I was looking forward to play EA, but because of the combat I barely managed to finish one playthrough being completely annoyed and bored. If they don't roll back to D&D 5e I most likey won't play the full game until there is a mod fixing all these broken and badly implemented changes.


Did you know that using barrels is completely optional? Fighting in no way requires you to use a single one throughout the EA.
If someone can't resist using mechanics he doesn't like, he breaks the game himself, it's only his fault.

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Ah, if it's a bug, then that's good. I wasn't sure if it was by design or not.


I don't know if using scrolls is a bug, but being able to learn any spell is an obvious bug.
Posted By: biomag Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
[quote=biomag]

Did you know that using barrels is completely optional? Fighting in no way requires you to use a single one throughout the EA.
If someone can't resist using mechanics he doesn't like, he breaks the game himself, it's only his fault.



Thanks for your comment. By the way I have not used them.

Its obviously something you thought through as well before posting, since players not using those it also prevents the AI from using it. I've yet to see AI constantly rushing to shove you into the abyss... never happens because I never would use it against the AI. It also shows that the development team is spending exectly no thoughts how to implement these things into combat and balance accordingly.


So thanks again for your opionion. It taught me something that some might say it was slightly obvious to everyone.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change.


This one is a bug, really. Scrolls currently are unrestricted in both scribing and use, it will be changed.

I think it's important to recognize that quite a lot of what we have now is an unfinished, bugged or placeholder.


I think many of the changes Larian did are good, they clearly want players to have more action paths when their turn finally comes and I'm behind it. I think they should reconsider things like "Hide" maybe there, because that one is super abusive now.



Oh damn. Another clairvoyant guy

If the homebrew feels too dumb = bug
If the homebrew feels nice = Larian rocks

Where the heck have you read in Larian official post that this is a bug?

Oh, that high ground advantage is not a bug because you like it. Clearly not a bug.

World is crowded of this kind of ocasional selfish ppl.
Posted By: dunehunter Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 04:57 PM
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Gaidax
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change.


This one is a bug, really. Scrolls currently are unrestricted in both scribing and use, it will be changed.

I think it's important to recognize that quite a lot of what we have now is an unfinished, bugged or placeholder.


I think many of the changes Larian did are good, they clearly want players to have more action paths when their turn finally comes and I'm behind it. I think they should reconsider things like "Hide" maybe there, because that one is super abusive now.



Oh damn. Another clairvoyant guy

If the homebrew feels too dumb = bug
If the homebrew feels nice = Larian rocks

Where the heck have you read in Larian official post that this is a bug?

Oh, that high ground advantage is not a bug because you like it. Clearly not a bug.

World is crowded of this kind of ocasional selfish ppl.


+1
Posted By: tsundokugames Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 08/11/20 06:17 PM
BG3 doesn't feel like either BG or D&D.

That's the problem. Until Larian addresses this, BG3 will be forever known as DOS3: Forgotten Realms.
Posted By: millenialboomer Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 04:12 AM
I just wish they would stop thinking they know better than the 5E designers when it comes to what is fun.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 04:14 AM
@millenialboomer +1 That's where the mistake started. 5th ed had been playtested and didn't need modification.
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 08:41 AM
They clearly believed some changes were necessary for the benefit of the computer game version. They are the game developers here - we are not.
It’s their game & their vision of how this d&d world is best played in pc version.
You don’t have to like it - but it is what it is.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 09:06 AM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
They clearly believed some changes were necessary for the benefit of the computer game version. They are the game developers here - we are not.
It’s their game & their vision of how this d&d world is best played in pc version.
You don’t have to like it - but it is what it is.


What we know is that they don't like the "miss" too often thing.
And I'm really fine with custom mechanics (such as surfaces or backstab) that give players more tactical options to increase our % to hit.

But actually the game doesn't feel D&D at all in combats because "their vision" completely altered what D&D is.

Of course no one knows if their will is to create a D&D game in a Larian setting or a Larian game in a D&D setting.
Posted By: tsundokugames Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 07:48 PM
All they did was graft whatever 5e rules would fit on the DOS2 engine, adapted a few rules to jury-rig DOS2 features in to the game, and then threw the rest out in favour of DOS2 mechanics.

BG3 is just a heavily modded DOS2.

BG3 feels like neither BG nor D&D, but it sure feels a hell of a lot like DOS2.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
All they did was graft whatever 5e rules would fit on the DOS2 engine, adapted a few rules to jury-rig DOS2 features in to the game, and then threw the rest out in favour of DOS2 mechanics.

BG3 is just a heavily modded DOS2.

BG3 feels like neither BG nor D&D, but it sure feels a hell of a lot like DOS2.

You've obviously not played much in DoS.
Posted By: tsundokugames Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
All they did was graft whatever 5e rules would fit on the DOS2 engine, adapted a few rules to jury-rig DOS2 features in to the game, and then threw the rest out in favour of DOS2 mechanics.

BG3 is just a heavily modded DOS2.

BG3 feels like neither BG nor D&D, but it sure feels a hell of a lot like DOS2.

You've obviously not played much in DoS.

Because I didn't like it?

You can lie to yourself all you want, but the similarities between BG3 and DOS2 are glaring, and far more apparent than any connection to the previous BG games.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
All they did was graft whatever 5e rules would fit on the DOS2 engine, adapted a few rules to jury-rig DOS2 features in to the game, and then threw the rest out in favour of DOS2 mechanics.

BG3 is just a heavily modded DOS2.

BG3 feels like neither BG nor D&D, but it sure feels a hell of a lot like DOS2.



I agree that, so far, it doesn't feel a whole lot like the previous Baldur's Gate games. But it definitely feels like D&D. It feels more like D&D to me than most of the D&D games ever made.

If this wasn't called Baldur's Gate 3, and wasn't officially called a D&D game, and people played it, they would be saying, "This is a D&D game!" In fact, Larian would be getting sued by Wizards of the Coast for how much of the D&D brand suffuses every bit of this game.
Posted By: DistantStranger Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 09:15 PM
I think the game works incredibly well as it is. My only real objection is I would like greater reactivity of choices and their consequences, a lot tighter writing, more nuance in the storytelling, and appreciate more convincing characters. For me, everything more or less works well enough that all anything needs is a little fine tuning, but the writing is just so. . .mediocre. However, I have been fascinated with history and the humanities all my life and I imagine my standards for excellence are somewhat higher than the typical consumer for this type of project.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
All they did was graft whatever 5e rules would fit on the DOS2 engine, adapted a few rules to jury-rig DOS2 features in to the game, and then threw the rest out in favour of DOS2 mechanics.

BG3 is just a heavily modded DOS2.

BG3 feels like neither BG nor D&D, but it sure feels a hell of a lot like DOS2.

You've obviously not played much in DoS.

Because I didn't like it?

You can lie to yourself all you want, but the similarities between BG3 and DOS2 are glaring, and far more apparent than any connection to the previous BG games.


I was supposed to write a post comparing BG3 and DoS2 but from what I see it won't make much sense.
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by Tarorn
They clearly believed some changes were necessary for the benefit of the computer game version. They are the game developers here - we are not.
It’s their game & their vision of how this d&d world is best played in pc version.
You don’t have to like it - but it is what it is.

Larian is soliciting our feedback. People are giving it.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
I think the game works incredibly well as it is. My only real objection is I would like greater reactivity of choices and their consequences, a lot tighter writing, more nuance in the storytelling, and appreciate more convincing characters. For me, everything more or less works well enough that all anything needs is a little fine tuning, but the writing is just so. . .mediocre. However, I have been fascinated with history and the humanities all my life and I imagine my standards for excellence are somewhat higher than the typical consumer for this type of project.



Not gonna lie, I don't even know what the phrase "tighter writing" means.
Posted By: DistantStranger Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
I think the game works incredibly well as it is. My only real objection is I would like greater reactivity of choices and their consequences, a lot tighter writing, more nuance in the storytelling, and appreciate more convincing characters. For me, everything more or less works well enough that all anything needs is a little fine tuning, but the writing is just so. . .mediocre. However, I have been fascinated with history and the humanities all my life and I imagine my standards for excellence are somewhat higher than the typical consumer for this type of project.



Not gonna lie, I don't even know what the phrase "tighter writing" means.


Think Hemingway. Choosing efficacy over the extraneous. Poetry and prose have their place, but when they become distracting or directionless they can fatigue the reader. At that point, one needs to pare back on their composition. Its shedding the fat, because lean writing can do more work with greater efficiency.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
I think the game works incredibly well as it is. My only real objection is I would like greater reactivity of choices and their consequences, a lot tighter writing, more nuance in the storytelling, and appreciate more convincing characters. For me, everything more or less works well enough that all anything needs is a little fine tuning, but the writing is just so. . .mediocre. However, I have been fascinated with history and the humanities all my life and I imagine my standards for excellence are somewhat higher than the typical consumer for this type of project.



Not gonna lie, I don't even know what the phrase "tighter writing" means.


Think Hemingway. Choosing efficacy over the extraneous. Poetry and prose have their place, but when they become distracting or directionless they can fatigue the reader. At that point, one needs to pare back on their composition. Its shedding the fat, because lean writing can do more work with greater efficiency.


I personally think the writing is fine as it is for a game of this size. There are many good novels out there that you would find not so compelling if you had only a third of the whole story in hand. And it's exactly what we got in EA. So stating the writing is bad without having the full arc of certain characters is kind of premature, don't you think?
Posted By: DistantStranger Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko


I personally think the writing is fine as it is for a game of this size. There are many good novels out there that you would find not so compelling if you had only a third of the whole story in hand. And it's exactly what we got in EA. So stating the writing is bad without having the full arc of certain characters is kind of premature.


I hate to break it to you, but beta readers and editors do precisely this a great deal of the time. Creatives rarely produce good copy initially. The process usually involves distilling things toward their most primal elements (chapters, scenes, and arcs) going over the chemistry then pooling it back together to see how it all looks. Sausages and novels are made in much the same way ;P

EDIT: Also, sticking the landing doesn't excuse a poor launch. In bits or as a whole everything needs to work.
Posted By: tsundokugames Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 11:04 PM
lol, you want Hemmingway minimalism in a fantasy RPG?
Posted By: DistantStranger Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 11:26 PM
Not at all. It was an example, nothing more. I am also reading The Sun Also Rises again which is probably his best work and so he is simply on my mind. Don't make too much of it
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 09/11/20 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
I think the game works incredibly well as it is. My only real objection is I would like greater reactivity of choices and their consequences, a lot tighter writing, more nuance in the storytelling, and appreciate more convincing characters. For me, everything more or less works well enough that all anything needs is a little fine tuning, but the writing is just so. . .mediocre. However, I have been fascinated with history and the humanities all my life and I imagine my standards for excellence are somewhat higher than the typical consumer for this type of project.



Not gonna lie, I don't even know what the phrase "tighter writing" means.


Think Hemingway. Choosing efficacy over the extraneous. Poetry and prose have their place, but when they become distracting or directionless they can fatigue the reader. At that point, one needs to pare back on their composition. Its shedding the fat, because lean writing can do more work with greater efficiency.



Ah, now I see why I didn't know what it meant. I'm incapable of writing like that. I can't even make a shopping list without it becoming a 10,000-word novella. To me, more words is always better.
Posted By: DistantStranger Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 10/11/20 12:07 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies



Ah, now I see why I didn't know what it meant. I'm incapable of writing like that. I can't even make a shopping list without it becoming a 10,000-word novella. To me, more words is always better.


+1

I know. It is a struggle
Posted By: Traycor Re: Why the aggressive 5e Feedback? - 10/11/20 12:56 AM
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
Originally Posted by Nyanko


I personally think the writing is fine as it is for a game of this size. There are many good novels out there that you would find not so compelling if you had only a third of the whole story in hand. And it's exactly what we got in EA. So stating the writing is bad without having the full arc of certain characters is kind of premature.


I hate to break it to you, but beta readers and editors do precisely this a great deal of the time. Creatives rarely produce good copy initially. The process usually involves distilling things toward their most primal elements (chapters, scenes, and arcs) going over the chemistry then pooling it back together to see how it all looks. Sausages and novels are made in much the same way ;P

EDIT: Also, sticking the landing doesn't excuse a poor launch. In bits or as a whole everything needs to work.

+1

Revise, revise, revise.

Then get feedback and revise, revise, revise.

Then once you have it almost perfect... revise again.
© Larian Studios forums