Larian Studios
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.

2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.

3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.
I haven't seen anyone present any real arguments in favor of Larian's design, other than one.

"I like it."

That's about it.
"I like the floor effects because it adds more depth to combat.", when in reality, it strains combat and makes it increasingly more difficult artificially. Not through good AI, or interesting combat mechanics, or varied places where combat takes place.
It's more difficult purely because you need to get your party out of the fire, or grease, or ice ASAP because it provides a massive advantage for such little effort put into it.

"But you can do it too, so why do you dislike it?"
Because then it makes the game too easy, while at the same time actually limiting my gameplay because every fight needs to start with "Ignite/freeze/soak/acidify as much of the floor as possible to make it difficult for the AI.".
This prevents me from making meaningful decisions or taking specific risks in combat like you would on tabletop, because there's essentially only one way to win a fight, and that's by making a disgusting mess of the floor.

As for the action/bonus action economy, it's broken, plain and simple.

And last but not least, Advantage for backstabbing is a terrible idea. It does get annoying always running circles around each other for it, and it's not how tabletop is played at all (nor should it be).
Advantage should only come from Advantage rules, and nothing else.
The most obvious thing I can say is that tabletop design is a different entity from video game design. People who adapt books to screenplays don't use the exact same conventions and rules because you literally cannot get everything in there. That's not to say some of the rules mentioned here are good just for breaking out of the 5e design mold, but to say "things have to be this way because they are in 5e" isn't going to solve the issue. A 5e inspired video game is not going to take all the Rules As Written (tm) and turn combat into a slog to please some tabletop elitists. The problems as stated are problems for other reasons.

Cantrips creating surfaces are annoying because cantrips should not be strictly better to use than leveled spells, and yet oftentimes the fact that I can knock someone prone (and also spawn ice to potentially make them go prone again) with a cantrip is kind of annoying. I want to feel incentivized to use spells, not to not use them. And firebolt, lmao, I'm sure everyone's seen the threads on fire in this game. The terrain has always been annoying to me, and Larian loves their terrain, but even though they've toned it down a lot from Divinity 2 to BG3 I still think they need to reconsider what can create those surfaces.

But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.
Originally Posted by xxAres
The most obvious thing I can say is that tabletop design is a different entity from video game design. People who adapt books to screenplays don't use the exact same conventions and rules because you literally cannot get everything in there. That's not to say some of the rules mentioned here are good just for breaking out of the 5e design mold, but to say "things have to be this way because they are in 5e" isn't going to solve the issue. A 5e inspired video game is not going to take all the Rules As Written (tm) and turn combat into a slog to please some tabletop elitists. The problems as stated are problems for other reasons.

Cantrips creating surfaces are annoying because cantrips should not be strictly better to use than leveled spells, and yet oftentimes the fact that I can knock someone prone (and also spawn ice to potentially make them go prone again) with a cantrip is kind of annoying. I want to feel incentivized to use spells, not to not use them. And firebolt, lmao, I'm sure everyone's seen the threads on fire in this game. The terrain has always been annoying to me, and Larian loves their terrain, but even though they've toned it down a lot from Divinity 2 to BG3 I still think they need to reconsider what can create those surfaces.

But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.

The problem with that is that Larian can easily keep the good parts of that while removing the godawful idiocy of breaking the action economy and letting everything jump through melee without penalty.

Put simply, nothing should have jump disengage that has it right now, except goblins and phase spiders. Everything else should have to worry about attacks of opportunity. Shoving should be an action. Surfaces should be nerfed into oblivion, and removed from cantrips (missing should not be doing more damage than a hit). These are simple, obvious fixes.

But in general, the game has implemented some very good points, including ranger tweaks (because PHB ranger is awful, and also unimplementable in a video game) Rogue thief tweaks (similar reasons-it's hard to keep track of what a thief can use fast hands with in a video game and they made most item interactions bonus actions anyway, although the current implementation should disallow two stabs), and other tweaks. But in general, the good tweaks are there to patch over implementation into a video game-not Larian's game engine. Larian's game engine is not perfect for this game, and Larian has not yet managed to work around that-and this is the main problem. There are many, many poor tweaks centered around this fact, and it's painful.
Bg3 iS tUrN bAsEd BeCaUsE dNd Is TuRn BaSeD bUt We OnLy StAy TrUe To DnD wHeNeVeR ...

ok sorry i will stop now thinking of it its probably better i stay away from this forum so cya
I will first say, that the main draw for DnD is hanging out with friends and roleplaying, not so much the combat system. Now with a video game, that can be played single player and has very limited means for roleplay, it makes sense to want to dress up the combat portion of DnD to make it more exciting for a wider audience.

1. I agree with. I think it can be adjusted though. Like have backstab require stealth or flanking. Height giving advantage is simple and works with the current UI where you see your sum of advantages and disadvantages. Isn't good for balance though and I rather see height work like cover. Have it scale +1 to +5 AC and DEX saving throws depending on the height difference and add some range extension in as well.

2. I think you've misworded things? I'll assume you're talking about everyone having rogue's cunning action essentially. In which case, I do agree that should back. Shove, hide, disengage should be regular actions for non-rogues.

3. This is the big one. Now I like surfaces as they add more complexity to the game. It's really easy, in fact too easy to rest and regain your spell slots so you don't have to be conservative with spells versus cantrips. Now if they fix issue #1 and make spells that require a saving throw easier to hit, that will bring things back into balance. For context, enemies have a lowered AC that makes physical attacks and some spells easier to hit with. Larian went with lower AC and higher HP so people would miss less and be less frustrated, which I understand. They just need to tweak things and I think they can get there. I'd be one the people happy with that as it would make the gameplay more about strategy and less about luck by a degree.
Originally Posted by mahe4
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.


Oddly enough, I played a lot of DDO, and I do mean a lot. One of my favorite classes was Assassin. I'm going to toot my own horn here, I was pretty good at it. But my question is, why would I want to gimp my damage because you think it's "not fun"?

Quote
2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.


3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.

Nope, I don't find playing a thief as a thief annoying. I am confused as to why every class in the game gets my thief's abilities, but I'm hoping that will be fixed by release.
Originally Posted by robertthebard

Oddly enough, I played a lot of DDO, and I do mean a lot. One of my favorite classes was Assassin. I'm going to toot my own horn here, I was pretty good at it. But my question is, why would I want to gimp my damage because you think it's "not fun"?

walking around enemies is fun for you?
it would be nice if it happens because you hide or get a special ability to get advantage, but just walking around enemies? how is that fun? in 90% of all cases, that is exactly what you do, to get your advantage. you could just give perma advantage and be less annoying. or if you like the special thief aspect of it, then give thief/assassin a special ability, to teleport in the back of an enemie and give them this kind of advantage.
but now, every melee character is just dancing and hopping around.
Originally Posted by robertthebard

Nope, I don't find playing a thief as a thief annoying. I am confused as to why every class in the game gets my thief's abilities, but I'm hoping that will be fixed by release.

i hope so too, that only rogue gets these abilities. what do you mean with "playing thief as thief"?
Because DnD 5e is not a perfect game system. It can actually be really boring and repetitive at lower levels, especially if you're running a martial class, and it has some obvious imbalances inherent in the design that have never really been fixed like DEX just being an all around superior attribute than STR or just.. The entire ranger class.

That isn't to say I want BG3 to radically be different from 5e of course, because it does have its merits and I think it is a fundamentally strong baseline to start from.

But it also doesn't mean I want to religiously adhere to the 5e rules perfectly with no deviation.

And that also isn't to say I agree with all of Larian's changes. I don't think cantrips should be able to cause surfaces as a by-product of attacking and I definitely don't think you should be able to just jump out of someone's attack of opportunity range freely like you do currently. I'd also like them to tone down the number of bombs and acid vials enemies have. Not remove, just tone down to make them more rare.

So I am firmly in the camp of "It is okay to deviate from 5e as written. We just need to work with Larian to find that sweet comfort zone".
Originally Posted by Noraver

Advantage should only come from Advantage rules, and nothing else.



Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.
It's ok that Larian TRY new things.

But in this case I really want them to revert almost all of their changes back or at least closer to 5e.

I would keep toned down versions of surfaces where they would be far less abundant and mostly reserved for higher level spells. I would keep dipping but make it require oils and other consumables that make sense in lighting up a sword. I would send all the barrels right back to Divinity but maybe add some gunpowder kegs that would be very rare and have appropriate weight. I would remove the healing properties from food entirely. I would tone down Shove, Jump and Disengage to how they are in 5e because that's simply much more balanced. I would nerf high ground from "I win" to something more reasonable. I would keep the class restrictions on spell casting and scroll use. I would make equipping items a part of the action economy so you can't always end your turn with a shield.

What sucks is that they're not communicating. Even just hearing "we are trying something new but are fully aware it might not work" would be great. "Don't worry, we just haven't had time to put that in yet" would be even better. Because otherwise I'm assuming "this is how Divinity plays and now it will be how D&D plays".
Answering your questions objectively? I’ve no clue but I have assumptions

They are afraid to hurt Larian feelings
They think that Larian is being benevolent to offer such distinguished service to the humanity
They think that the community is not good enough , after all they aren’t working in gaming industry
They are to lazy to read an argument
They do not know enough of 5e to understand the argument
They’ve heard somewhere that DnD5e is not balanced and they echo chamber it
They think that a game is not under the laws of free market and capitalism
They suck at math?
They loved dos and want the game to be like it?
They are afraid of drastic changes

Well, the list goes on. That’s an objective answer
Hope you like it OP

Bye
Originally Posted by mahe4
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.

2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.

3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.



YES!!!! I would *LOVE* for them to go far more true to DND core rules!!!!!!! <3
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.


Swen Vincke, is that you? Oh wait, you're just some random poster without the position to say Larian has decided.

They have not decided. I say that because that's the reason why Larian put the game out into Early Access. If they have firmly decided and have no interest or intention of changing anything, then there's little point in the hassle having to support and update Early Access. They could just have easily kept the entire game under wraps until the full release and said "this is the game, we're not interested in what you think, deal with it".
1: I assume you mean high ground and the 'standing behind someone gives you advantage' backstab thats in the game. High ground shouldnt give advantage imo but either nothing (you are already negating most types of cover almost completly) or just a flat to hit buff. Granting both advantage and the enemy disadvantageg is way to overboard. Now, the backstab I dont have that many problems with tbh. In dnd enemies that you cant see that attack you gain advantage. Its only an issue when you use facings though because everyone in combat that isent blind is assumed to know where you are but facings have a more nuances approach. That said if they include the facings system, include all of it. If you cant alter your facing with a reaction its more of a downside then an upside. Most of the times (most likely anyway) we will also be outnumbered as a group of adventurers. It would effect the players more. But overall I agree thats its way to easy to get advantage at the moment.

2: You mean that all classes get cunning actions for free? Yea, hate that. Agree.

3: Agree.
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.


Swen Vincke, is that you? Oh wait, you're just some random poster without the position to say Larian has decided.

They have not decided. I say that because that's the reason why Larian put the game out into Early Access. If they have firmly decided and have no interest or intention of changing anything, then there's little point in the hassle having to support and update Early Access. They could just have easily kept the entire game under wraps until the full release and said "this is the game, we're not interested in what you think, deal with it".



I have evidence that a decision was made. It's been programmed into the game. It didn't happen by accident. Someone didn't trip and their face hit a keyboard and tons of code went into the game. First a person had to decide to do a thing, then that thing was done. That's typically the order of operations for human endeavour.

Now, your argument is that they might change their mind. Of course they might! But at the moment, they have made a certain decision, and put it into the game. They could make another decision later, and then change the game. But the current "ruling on the table", in D&D terms, is that high ground and backstab give advantage. Until the DM changes their mind, that's the governing rule.
I don't really care about accuracy in this regard, but I think that things like highground are a bit silly and also I wish that Cantrips didn't leave puddles but instead just dealt a bit more damage.
I wouldn't say that highground is too easy to accomplish just that I don't think that it should work sorta like Anakin vs Obi.

Just give ranged a range increase and leave it at that.
You seem to be mixing up "a decision" and "a FINAL decision".

A decision to go with team initiative was made months ago for the first gameplay demo. People were lukewarm on it, and Larian made another decision to go for individual initiative, with party members adjacent to each other acting simultaneously. Clearly, their first decision on initiative was not final. Again, this is why Larian says they do Early Access to get feedback from people other than themselves.

Additionally, Larian is composed of many many different people and they aren't a hive mind - not everyone agrees with all the changes, even those whose job it is to implement them.


This post below seems to suggest your position is "if you disagree with how Larian is doing advantage, you should shut up because they decided, and that's the end of the discussion."

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Cool. Done. The advantage rules state, "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

The GM is Larian. They have decided. Rule followed.


Swen Vincke, is that you? Oh wait, you're just some random poster without the position to say Larian has decided.

They have not decided. I say that because that's the reason why Larian put the game out into Early Access. If they have firmly decided and have no interest or intention of changing anything, then there's little point in the hassle having to support and update Early Access. They could just have easily kept the entire game under wraps until the full release and said "this is the game, we're not interested in what you think, deal with it".



I have evidence that a decision was made. It's been programmed into the game. It didn't happen by accident. Someone didn't trip and their face hit a keyboard and tons of code went into the game. First a person had to decide to do a thing, then that thing was done. That's typically the order of operations for human endeavour.

Now, your argument is that they might change their mind. Of course they might! But at the moment, they have made a certain decision, and put it into the game. They could make another decision later, and then change the game. But the current "ruling on the table", in D&D terms, is that high ground and backstab give advantage. Until the DM changes their mind, that's the governing rule.


Oh my. Larian, you’re wasting your time! Hire this guy for marketing and programming now! Clairvoyance spell upcasted using 9th spell slot
Originally Posted by SilverSaint
Originally Posted by xxAres
The most obvious thing I can say is that tabletop design is a different entity from video game design. People who adapt books to screenplays don't use the exact same conventions and rules because you literally cannot get everything in there. That's not to say some of the rules mentioned here are good just for breaking out of the 5e design mold, but to say "things have to be this way because they are in 5e" isn't going to solve the issue. A 5e inspired video game is not going to take all the Rules As Written (tm) and turn combat into a slog to please some tabletop elitists. The problems as stated are problems for other reasons.

Cantrips creating surfaces are annoying because cantrips should not be strictly better to use than leveled spells, and yet oftentimes the fact that I can knock someone prone (and also spawn ice to potentially make them go prone again) with a cantrip is kind of annoying. I want to feel incentivized to use spells, not to not use them. And firebolt, lmao, I'm sure everyone's seen the threads on fire in this game. The terrain has always been annoying to me, and Larian loves their terrain, but even though they've toned it down a lot from Divinity 2 to BG3 I still think they need to reconsider what can create those surfaces.

But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.

The problem with that is that Larian can easily keep the good parts of that while removing the godawful idiocy of breaking the action economy and letting everything jump through melee without penalty.

Put simply, nothing should have jump disengage that has it right now, except goblins and phase spiders. Everything else should have to worry about attacks of opportunity. Shoving should be an action. Surfaces should be nerfed into oblivion, and removed from cantrips (missing should not be doing more damage than a hit). These are simple, obvious fixes.

But in general, the game has implemented some very good points, including ranger tweaks (because PHB ranger is awful, and also unimplementable in a video game) Rogue thief tweaks (similar reasons-it's hard to keep track of what a thief can use fast hands with in a video game and they made most item interactions bonus actions anyway, although the current implementation should disallow two stabs), and other tweaks. But in general, the good tweaks are there to patch over implementation into a video game-not Larian's game engine. Larian's game engine is not perfect for this game, and Larian has not yet managed to work around that-and this is the main problem. There are many, many poor tweaks centered around this fact, and it's painful.



I want disengage on jump gone myself, but only characters with tadpoles can disengage with the jump, as for other enemies they cannot disengage as a bonus action (except for goblins, who are supposed to be able to do it)

Getting out of attack of opportunity is only easy for the players and the absolutes chosen disciples.

And when it comes to cantrips leaving surfaces, I personally think that they should leave surfaces on the floor ONLY if they are targeted on the floor specifically, and of course I want surfaces balanced better than they are now.
No, I never even meant to imply it was a final decision. My post was in direct response ONLY to the specific phrase I quoted, which was "Advantage should only come from Advantage rules, and nothing else." That poster was essentially saying that Larian was breaking the rules of 5e D&D. My post was saying that they weren't, because they have DM prerogative to assign advantage or disadvantage to literally anything they want, PER the rules.

I almost never disagree with any actual points of criticism. This is Early Access, we should all be offering criticism. I only disagree with the particular rhetoric that people use, when it's inaccurate.
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by robertthebard

Oddly enough, I played a lot of DDO, and I do mean a lot. One of my favorite classes was Assassin. I'm going to toot my own horn here, I was pretty good at it. But my question is, why would I want to gimp my damage because you think it's "not fun"?

walking around enemies is fun for you?
it would be nice if it happens because you hide or get a special ability to get advantage, but just walking around enemies? how is that fun? in 90% of all cases, that is exactly what you do, to get your advantage. you could just give perma advantage and be less annoying. or if you like the special thief aspect of it, then give thief/assassin a special ability, to teleport in the back of an enemie and give them this kind of advantage.
but now, every melee character is just dancing and hopping around.
Originally Posted by robertthebard

Nope, I don't find playing a thief as a thief annoying. I am confused as to why every class in the game gets my thief's abilities, but I'm hoping that will be fixed by release.

i hope so too, that only rogue gets these abilities. what do you mean with "playing thief as thief"?

Flanking for Back Stab bonus damage, as far as combat goes, I'm not a "tank", taking hits isn't my job, it's the job of that character in the heavy armor, or that Artificer's pet's job. My job, where it's a thing, is to go into stealth, sneak up behind trash mobs, and one shot them with Assassinate, as in the example of my Assassin. On non-Assassins, it's to maximize my damage potential, and output. This is accomplished through positioning. So no, I don't find it annoying, or not fun, but a challenge, in some circumstances. An example from DDO, managing to sneak up behind a Beholder on EH difficulty, and one shot it on my Assassin. Of course, my guild mates were rather offended that I used them as bait, but it was pretty funny when they figured it out.
I've played every incarnation of D&D since 1977, DMing most of the time. I knew Gygax slightly, and introduced him to Bioware's Neverwinter Nights game, which, I think is the best D&D game brought to computer to date. I'm a computer gaming conceptual artist and writer, as well as a comic artist with Disney with some 30 years of experience.

I'll add my two coppers to the mix on what Larian seems to bring to the world of D&D.

Pen and paper campaigns largely happen in one's imagination. While there are rules governing the chances of doing this or that, quite a lot is very much an abstraction of the real world's rules about gravity, time, and space. It's physics with a fantasy/medieval theme. You listen at doors. You sneak about or run like hell. you fall to your doom or cheat gravity with a Featherfall. But, it's based on what we know about the real world. When one tries to bring a pen and paper game to a computer, what you are really doing is taking our real world physics and showing them on the screen, instead of abstracting what is happening inside your head. So, there is a real challenge in portraying cover, height advantages, slippery surfaces- all the stuff we know in the world.

My point here is that the fantasy stuff comes from the rulebooks- the monsters, player classes, etc. The world itself is really based on our own world.

As computers have progressed, we've gotten to the point where it's easier and easier to portray the world we live in more accurately. Back in Baldur's Gate I and Ii, there were a lot more limitations, obviously, as to what you could try and show or simulate.

The biggest differences between now and then are how it is possible to allow players to use ground, cover, facing, and stuff lying around to your advantage, (or detriment in the hands of the enemy). This in turn allows for greater tactical thinking, deeper strategy and more involving and realistic combat.

I personally think Larian is quite wonderful in the way they tackle encounter design. Smarter players who are willing to stop and think before acting are usually rewarded by using cover/high ground and whatever is laying around handy. Warrior characters have to be very mindful of their feet, while magic uses generally are rewarded if they carry teleporting type spells that allow them to avoid trouble and control the ground they find themselves on. It seems to me Larian has slightly "helped" the warrior classes because of the nature of their need to traverse hostile ground more than the ranged classes need to. Which, is just smart. This sort of problem doesn't happen often in the more abstract pen and paper world.

These tactical needs dictate play design in a lot of ways. BG III's environments are a lot more complex and unpredictable in ways that a pen and paper game under a DM are not. The players and monsters can cause all sorts of cascading events by tossing, jumping, climbing, teleporting, pushing, poisoning, burning, shocking, wetting, and Lolth knows what.

When a player does this in a pen and paper campaign, you don't get the same rippling effects in an area with the same depth of detail, no matter how good your DM is, or how imaginative the players are, on a regular basis. In BG III, in a big battle, all manner of shit is going down at once, (well, in turns that represent at once, anyways).

So, I think, that the crux of the matter of "how close" BG III's "rules" are to 5th edition really is a lot more problematic than the mere numbers involved in AC and hit points, or the nature of thieves jumping behind some monster who has 3 backs. Larian needs to do what works in order to provide the most immersive, deep, real world feeling experience that also "feels like" a night of D&D using the latest ruleset.

It's gotta be a daunting task.

I personally find myself being drawn back again and again to try different classes and experiment with different approaches. I find myself quite excited to try a Bard. I REALLY want to see as many classes and races as possible, and dabble in extremely useless and probably doomed multiclassing.

In short, this is as much fun as I've had with a computer D&D attempt since Neverwinter Nights, and this is just early days.

This one is going to keep me up nights for a long, long time to come. I dig it. These guys know what they are doing, in my spellbook, anyways.
Originally Posted by Balls
I've played every incarnation of D&D since 1977, DMing most of the time. I knew Gygax slightly, and introduced him to Bioware's Neverwinter Nights game, which, I think is the best D&D game brought to computer to date. I'm a computer gaming conceptual artist and writer, as well as a comic artist with Disney with some 30 years of experience.

I'll add my two coppers to the mix on what Larian seems to bring to the world of D&D.

Pen and paper campaigns largely happen in one's imagination. While there are rules governing the chances of doing this or that, quite a lot is very much an abstraction of the real world's rules about gravity, time, and space. It's physics with a fantasy/medieval theme. You listen at doors. You sneak about or run like hell. you fall to your doom or cheat gravity with a Featherfall. But, it's based on what we know about the real world. When one tries to bring a pen and paper game to a computer, what you are really doing is taking our real world physics and showing them on the screen, instead of abstracting what is happening inside your head. So, there is a real challenge in portraying cover, height advantages, slippery surfaces- all the stuff we know in the world.

My point here is that the fantasy stuff comes from the rulebooks- the monsters, player classes, etc. The world itself is really based on our own world.

As computers have progressed, we've gotten to the point where it's easier and easier to portray the world we live in more accurately. Back in Baldur's Gate I and Ii, there were a lot more limitations, obviously, as to what you could try and show or simulate.

The biggest differences between now and then are how it is possible to allow players to use ground, cover, facing, and stuff lying around to your advantage, (or detriment in the hands of the enemy). This in turn allows for greater tactical thinking, deeper strategy and more involving and realistic combat.

I personally think Larian is quite wonderful in the way they tackle encounter design. Smarter players who are willing to stop and think before acting are usually rewarded by using cover/high ground and whatever is laying around handy. Warrior characters have to be very mindful of their feet, while magic uses generally are rewarded if they carry teleporting type spells that allow them to avoid trouble and control the ground they find themselves on. It seems to me Larian has slightly "helped" the warrior classes because of the nature of their need to traverse hostile ground more than the ranged classes need to. Which, is just smart. This sort of problem doesn't happen often in the more abstract pen and paper world.

These tactical needs dictate play design in a lot of ways. BG III's environments are a lot more complex and unpredictable in ways that a pen and paper game under a DM are not. The players and monsters can cause all sorts of cascading events by tossing, jumping, climbing, teleporting, pushing, poisoning, burning, shocking, wetting, and Lolth knows what.

When a player does this in a pen and paper campaign, you don't get the same rippling effects in an area with the same depth of detail, no matter how good your DM is, or how imaginative the players are, on a regular basis. In BG III, in a big battle, all manner of shit is going down at once, (well, in turns that represent at once, anyways).

So, I think, that the crux of the matter of "how close" BG III's "rules" are to 5th edition really is a lot more problematic than the mere numbers involved in AC and hit points, or the nature of thieves jumping behind some monster who has 3 backs. Larian needs to do what works in order to provide the most immersive, deep, real world feeling experience that also "feels like" a night of D&D using the latest ruleset.

It's gotta be a daunting task.

I personally find myself being drawn back again and again to try different classes and experiment with different approaches. I find myself quite excited to try a Bard. I REALLY want to see as many classes and races as possible, and dabble in extremely useless and probably doomed multiclassing.

In short, this is as much fun as I've had with a computer D&D attempt since Neverwinter Nights, and this is just early days.

This one is going to keep me up nights for a long, long time to come. I dig it. These guys know what they are doing, in my spellbook, anyways.



Upvote! I agree with all of this. Although I don't know Gygax, and I only started playing D&D in 1985. This is very rational and well-stated.
Originally Posted by xxAres
But stuff like backstab giving advantage... I don't know if I mind? I know Jump is a little awkward right now because everyone's just bunnyhopping around the map, but I find the combat more fun than just running at an enemy and clicking on them. It's fun to have 2 bonus actions on a thief rogue. I love that fighters can throw people off cliffs and shit. The game is clearly balanced to make everything broken--casters get surface abuse, fighters get to backstab, rogues get to do whatever the hell they want. I think fighters probably got the worst of it which is where the complaints come from, but you toss in a totem barbarian that doesn't get affected by terrain effects or something and you've got yourself a crazy good time.


In my opinion, everything being broken is not D&D and is not really good game design.
My reason "against" 5e. It will never be exactly how every individual person likes and they will continue to find complaints because of interpretation of the rules or variations available based on challenge rating or homebrew application of a specific scenario.

I am actually for more consistent application, but I don't mind changes. On the other hand, the 5e only crowd is trying really hard to dictate everyone else's enjoyment and basically thumping a bible and saying it has to be their way or they illegitimatize this is even a game and it's horrible and it's the end of the world and anyone that likes it is dumb.

Because, like mentioned earlier, there are things that you simply can not translate into a video game and some extrapolation has to be made, things will never be "perfect". There are things Larian made up like cantrip ground effects, but that is their "spin" or "flavor". Which people keep saying they want BG and are ok with a Larian twist, but they can only add a twist if it is the twist approved by the 5e crowd. So that isn't Larian's twist at that point, so basically they don't like anything Larian does.

There is a campaign of hate going on which I disagree with.

There are also plenty of enthusiast that don't like the 5e deviations and try really hard to explain how some of the homebrew changes have caused more balance issues, which I actually find really informative and valuable as feedback.

The problem is the two get mingled together and it creates a sort of mob mentality and hard to hear the constructive feedback between the hate.

Ultimately if I am having fun with the game...I'm happy....and I'm having fun....so I would like things to continue the path it is currently on and continue to be fun.

On the other hand, the opposition is not having fun, so they would like change. So they would like to advocate change so that they can have fun.

The balance is pleasing both crowds and maybe some 5e rules will become less fun and boring to the crowd that I am in. I know I played Solasta and I didn't like it...felt really static. Yet the 5e crowd heralds it as damn near perfect.
To me the advantage rules are the smallest issue with BG3 and DnD 5e rules. Mostly because as people have pointed out many times: It's up to the GM to decide. Many many tables house rule some form of advantage rule.

I think if that was the only "issue" with the 5e rules, then we'd not take it too hard.

But the problem is all the other rules that's stacked on. Many people dislike the "home brew Goblins", again something I don't mind, but when you make Advantage easy to get AND you make the Goblins easy to hit, you made fixed the same problem twice.

The problem is that right now in EA Larian has made too many changes to 5e, to the point where it's more like a playtest version of 6e. Each change by it self isn't a huge deal, it's just too many of them.

"Cantrips shouldn't make surfaces" - um of course they should, why this hatred for Create Bonfire? This is a cantrip that Larian really should look at. I have no idea why they didn't include this spell in the game, but made "super create bonfire" to firebolt. Create Bonfire is everything Larian wants, it creates a surface, and ignites burning material.

Quote
You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.

The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried.

The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).



But it has limitations:
1. It's a concentration spell.
2. It cannot ignite materials that is worn or carried.

But instead we get Trogdor the cantrip in Flamebolt, which ignites the person, ignites the surface AND does direct damage.
Originally Posted by Balls

The biggest differences between now and then are how it is possible to allow players to use ground, cover, facing, and stuff lying around to your advantage, (or detriment in the hands of the enemy). This in turn allows for greater tactical thinking, deeper strategy and more involving and realistic combat.

I personally think Larian is quite wonderful in the way they tackle encounter design. Smarter players who are willing to stop and think before acting are usually rewarded by using cover/high ground and whatever is laying around handy. Warrior characters have to be very mindful of their feet, while magic uses generally are rewarded if they carry teleporting type spells that allow them to avoid trouble and control the ground they find themselves on. It seems to me Larian has slightly "helped" the warrior classes because of the nature of their need to traverse hostile ground more than the ranged classes need to. Which, is just smart. This sort of problem doesn't happen often in the more abstract pen and paper world.

You are right in theory but your description doesn't match with what happens in game actually.
  • There is no cover mechanic implemented. People who critizies high-ground often suggest implementing proper cover mechanic as a solution.
  • Facing mechanic is a stub. In turn-based game you need to allow change facing as a reaction. That would open an actual tactical challange and people critizing currect backstab rule are suggesting it as a solution
  • Surface effects are more or less accepted here, the consensus is only tone them down a little bit, especially with cantrips and review the interaction of surface damage with concentration on spells
  • Repetedly using high ground/back stab with every class I really don't feel smarter. I feel stupid.

Poeple are generally OK with added verticality, facing and other stuff but the current implementation is just bad and it's done very insensitively. That's what people are actually critizing here. To make it better and more in tune with 5e rules.
Too many not D&D mecanics completely broke the game and the world.

I.E Jumping at each turn to move further and to disengage / avoid AOO is just stupid... visually and tacticaly.
We shouldn't be able to jump when we're engaged and we shouldn't be able to disengage that easy if not allowed by 5e.

And if they want convenience, backstab and more tactical options... They can add a few bonus actions related to combats and beleivable in the reality of the FR/D&D.

I.E "flip side with opponent"
=> use your bonus action to move behind your opponenent.
=> Dexterity check VS ennemy AC
=> Success : beautifull and immersive combat animation that leads you behind the opponent (increase the TB system that is actually so static)
=> Fail : Disavantage to your next action.

THIS is tactical options, this is a "custom" D&D (and FR) mechanic that suit a video game and it didn't break any D&D mechanics.

I'd really like Larian to get back to a real D&D setting before trying to overhaul the experience.
Actually it looks more like a Larian game with D&D mechanics than a D&D game with Larian's mechanics to me, especially in combats but not only.

It's the same about surfaces. This mechanic is awesome but not really a usual D&D/FR setting.
I'll find it way better if that was a tactical choice instead of an OP mechanics.

I.E while throwing "fire bolt" 2 possibilities...
=> Hit the target to do the usual D&D damages.
=> Hit de ground to create a fire surface

Fire surface :
===> Dexterity Saving Throw to avoid surface damage
===> - 2 AC because it's trying to avoid fire instead of being totally focus on combats

THIS is also tactical options and this could increase the synergy between companions. This could leads to many tactical usefull choices if every surfaces has it's own effects.
Actually surfaces are way too powerfull and unbalance cantrip/spells. They could become a real part of our tactical choices.

There again, with more accurate D&D mecanics, it could be easier to add special custom Larian's surfaces mechanics inside the game without completely breaking D&D.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I.E "flip side with opponent"
=> use your bonus action to move behind your opponenent.
=> Dexterity check VS ennemy AC
=> Success : beautifull and immersive combat animation that leads you behind the opponent (increase the TB system that is actually so static)
=> Fail : Disavantage to your next action.

THIS is tactical options, this is a "custom" D&D (and FR) mechanic that suit a video game and it didn't break any D&D mechanics.


I like this suggestion. Even better use Acrobatics check, which is useless skill now. Also using Athletic checks on climbing to get some kind of high ground advantage (for example in form of ignoring half-covers). There is lots of creative ways how implement advanced stuff while not break the whole DnD mechanic.
There are three arguments that I can think of, but I wouldn't say that they are against being closer, but rather as arguments for expanding 5e.

First - 5e simplified previous edition rules (at least compared to 4e) to make the game easy to get into, play and run. One of these was Ongoing Damage, which in my opinion was thematic, but a pain to keep track of, and I am glad 5e got rid of it. That said, in a video game this is not that much of an issue.

Second - kind of the same reasoning as the first one, but this time it is to do with 5e being a tabletop. I don't know about you, but most maps I play/make tend to have very limited verticality, because it is rather confusing for all parties involved. Sure, a few flying creatures are ok, but it often confusing for players. So adding some sort of mechanical advantage to verticality beyond what distance gives you would be hard to keep track. Again, in BG3 you are not limited in this so you can take full advantage of 3d environments.

Third - the game being mostly about combat. Sure, exploration/social exist to a degree, but BG3 can never rival 5e. This means that certain class features/spells need to be adjusted. For example PHB Ranger features are mostly pointless in BG3 (they are bad in 5e as well, but you could make them work). Utility spells like mending, shape water, etc will be dumbed down even if they make it into the game. And the problem with these is that most people will have a different idea of how they should be dumbed down.

EDIT: incorrect 4e reference
Thanks to all, that adress the issues i listed, instead of answering in a generalized manner.
i especially asked for a discussion about the specific issues, instead of big opinion pieces, that say things like "you can't convert everything to a video game"
such statements aren't helpful, because they are true in principle, but avoid actually answering the specific issues.
it looks like you make a true statement, but in really it just dodges the question.
thats why i especially stated, that i don't care, if larian deviates from 5e rulest. but there are still issues that exist. and these general statements are "used" as arguments, when in reality, they just dodge the question.

so far, everyone that adressed the actual issues, made really nice suggestions to solve the issues. thanks to them.
Most importantly, the game is intended for a wide audience. It is certainly not a Solasta where it is enough that they sell 100k (even a million) copies and that's enough.
Comparing the game with Solasta also does not make much sense, both games target a different audience.
There was no chance that the D&D balance would hold up against the game, especially if there were concerns that most players would bounce off the system.
The first change was the rest system, in this case from the very beginning there was no chance that it would be as restrictive as on the table.
In a game, it just wouldn't work.
Surprisingly, the earlier system interaction seemed much more sensible to me with automatic short rests but for some reason they changed it (probably WoTC).
When the rest balance disappeared, so did the other systems.
In that case, the fights had to be designed to be more difficult and longer (at this point the changes are too small anyway)
Another change was that Larian thinks too many misses don't work in a video game (Obsidian thought the same thing with PoE so it's not unreasonable).
We can argue whether or not it really would, it doesn't really matter as long as Larian (and WotC) think it won't work.

While the changes in the combat system, such as backstab, advantage or surfaces will probably change, the basic problems will remain, which will make the balance quite different.
To those making the basic and tired argument: Its a video game, in translation stuff has to be changed from the table top.

This is a lazy argument, because A) its very non-specific, and a free pass to not even try. B) Solasta exists, which is a MUCH more faithful version of 5E in a video game, showing it is in fact POSSIBLE to implement the rules much more faithfully and to good effect than has been done here so far. So please retire the argument.


For backstab and advantage: Per the 5E rules a rogue gets backstab if a friendly is within 5' of the target, no need to get behind the creature being attacked. Second, flanking is an optional rule, so its valid, but its also one of the more contentious and less used rules from community feedback because it frankly makes getting advantage way too easy.

Surfaces: They do exist in 5E, but never so easy, so long, or to such massive effect (at least at these levels). Many higher level spells can create a surface, but often they don't last long, or they require concentration which means they can be interrupted, and the opportunity cost of being what a spellcaster is concentrating on.

Rests: As currently implemented, short rest and long rest are effectively backwards from 5E. Maybe that's for playtesting (benefit of the doubt here) but as is, its strange and would be better if it were more like 5E.

Rogue ability farmed out to everyone: Cunning action is a big deal for Rogues, and contributes much to that class's uniqueness of playstyle and it really shouldn't be handed out to everyone.


Action economy: Currently, disengage, and several bonus actions are just way off from 5E, and there is no reason for it. This is a problem that potentially may make things worse, balance wise, at later levels as classes get even more abilities.


5E isn't a perfect system, but it has had the benefit of years of playtesting, discussion, errata, and balance changes. There is no reason, other than to make more work for themselves, for Larian to change things overly much, and with worse outcomes (see the issues presented in this thread and others).


There is alot that is very good in BG3, and it is my strong opinion that it will only get better. I think a big part of how it will do that, mechanically, is by sticking close rather than straying and taking liberties with the 5E system. If they didn't want to try to make it as faithfully as possible, why go through the hassle of securing the license and ruleset in the first place.
These threads are hysterically funny when you look at Larian's track record for incorporating community feedback.
Prior to actually experiencing early access I was on team Larian, shooting down criticism as premature. Now however, I'm disappointed Larian seemingly defaulted to their DOS game design - which is a pretty radical departure from D&D 5e. What worked well in DOS, is like a flamethrower to all kinds of balance in 5e. For instance, the easy advantage means martial classes (apart from Barbarians who are nerfed to oblivion by it) and certain spells are buffed relative to others. Some of the already strongest feats in the game (like Great Weapon Mastery and Sharpshooter) is/will be made even more overpowered and yet other feats nerfed. On the other hand, the strongest class - Wizards, are given some ludicrous buffs.


1. High Ground/Flanking: I like incentivizing tactical game play, but easy advantage is too much of a bonus. Flat +1/+2 modifier to attack would cause less imbalances and still incentivize fun tactical movement using increased "tadpole mobility".

2. Mobility: Remove disengage changes and restore this ability as a bonus action only for Rogues (standard action for other classes which still allows for shove/bonus actions). Allow slightly larger falls w/o damage. Consider increasing base movement speed with 25%. This will provide the mobility without easy exploits/imbalance.

3. Cantrips: Larian's elemental shenanigans/barrelmancy is out of control and the changes to "Wizard" cantrips are part of that. The ease of using overpowered elemental effects is a relative nerf to AoE dmg spellcasters. Staff of Arcane Blessing provides on average +5 attack on spell attack rolls (not only cantrips), brokenly powerful and should be removed from game.
I hate the way Disengage and Hide are implemented in 5E anyway. Larian is doing us a favor. In 3.5 and 4e, you could just do a 5-foot-step, or shift, to "disengage", and it didn't even take an action. It just used your normal movement. In 3.5 and 4e, hiding wasn't an "action" either, you could just make a check to hide whenever you had sufficient cover/concealment, after you moved. In 5e, they made poor decisions regarding these things that were already working perfectly well.

Disengage in 5e is a bad rule. It's a bad action. It wastes your turn, and you can't even GET AWAY. So, I'm a caster, right? Oh noes, a scary melee mob is up in my face! I guess I'll spend my WHOLE ACTION, doing nothing useful to help the battle, just to move away from this creature. But wait, I can't also Dash, so I'm just moving base movement speed away. On the creature's turn, it can just casually walk right back up to me AND ATTACK. By playing the "Disengage" game, I will never actually be able to attack, and the enemy will still be able to attack me every round. FUN! GOOD DESIGN THERE.

Hide as an action is basically the same problem. If I wanna be a sneaky sneak and attack from hiding, well, I guess I have to waste one out of every two rounds doing nothing useful, just Hiding. I mean it's cool that they gave Cunning Action to Rogues to offset this, but they shouldn't have had to, because it shouldn't even be an action.

People also act like Disengage and Hide as bonus actions are now "free". They're not. There are plenty of useful things you can do with a bonus action, so you are still giving something up to Disengage or Hide. If I Disengage in BG3, that means I'm not moving the Dancing Lights to where it needs to be, I'm not casting Healing Word to get an ally up, I'm not drinking a potion, I'm not making an offhand attack, etc. etc. It has a cost.

The majority of the people I've seen play this game on Twitch and YouTube (and I've watched a lot), know nothing or next to nothing about D&D. They're just video gamers. Most of the audience for this game will be just video gamers, not D&D players. Making it more faithful to 5e doesn't make it any more fun for those people. In fact, it makes it less fun for them. The 20% of us (or whatever) who actually play D&D might like the increased tabletop faithfulness, but will we like it ENOUGH to justify them making a less enjoyable game for the 80%? (I made those percentages up, obviously.)

Now, should Disengage and Jump be the same action? No. That's silly. Jump, also, SHOULD NOT EVEN BE AN ACTION. You should just be able to jump as part of your normal movement. Whenever you want. Just using movement.

Shove, I can see being problematic. It's powerful, and even more powerful as a bonus action. Ordinarily I'd say that yeah, it needs to be changed to a regular action. However, I find myself ambivalent about this after playing and watching a lot of the game. Why? Because people LOVE Shove as it is now. They DELIGHT in it. And so do I. And if you make it take your standard action, people will use it less, because the chance of failure on it can often be high, and they won't want to waste their action. And in this way, people will miss out on a lot of the great fun they are currently having with Shove. Again, non-D&Der majority versus D&Der minority comes into play here.

If Larian is making house rules and changing bits of the 5e rules to make a more universally enjoyable video game, guess what? They're doing it with Wizards of the Coast's blessing. If anything they changed was unacceptable, WotC wouldn't let them do it.

I do think they need to give something else to Rogues, though, to compensate them for losing 2/3rds of one of their defining class features. I recommend Cunning Action: Throw.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Disengage in 5e is a bad rule. It's a bad action. It wastes your turn, and you can't even GET AWAY. So, I'm a caster, right? Oh noes, a scary melee mob is up in my face! I guess I'll spend my WHOLE ACTION, doing nothing useful to help the battle, just to move away from this creature. But wait, I can't also Dash, so I'm just moving base movement speed away. On the creature's turn, it can just casually walk right back up to me AND ATTACK. By playing the "Disengage" game, I will never actually be able to attack, and the enemy will still be able to attack me every round. FUN! GOOD DESIGN THERE.

yeah that is on purpose. casters aren't frontline fighters. they are supposed to be squishy. that is their weakness. instead they have to use a spellslot to cast misty step. that is basically a combined dash+disengage all together in one bonus action.
after that they can even cast a cantrip. that is more than fair for casters.
frontline melee characters have high AC, so they don't necessarily need to disengage.
and rogues and monks can disengage as bonus action.
that covers about everything.

Hide is a tricky one, as it isn't really well defined in RAW 5e, when you actually can hide. so i'm all for changes on that, since it isn't possible to implement such a vague description into a video game.

I totally agree on jump+disengage, that they should be seperate, and that jump should just cost movement and no action/bonus action.

On Shove:
I think it should be an action, at least when the other possibility for shove is also implemented.
In 5e you can also shove to get the enemy prone. and that shouldn't take a bonus action. that would be too powerful.
Also, you can considerably increase your shove chances, when they implement expertise, and spells or features to get advantage on that athletics check. A 1lvl rogue/x barbarian is pretty much guaranteed to succeed on such a check.
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Disengage in 5e is a bad rule. It's a bad action. It wastes your turn, and you can't even GET AWAY. So, I'm a caster, right? Oh noes, a scary melee mob is up in my face! I guess I'll spend my WHOLE ACTION, doing nothing useful to help the battle, just to move away from this creature. But wait, I can't also Dash, so I'm just moving base movement speed away. On the creature's turn, it can just casually walk right back up to me AND ATTACK. By playing the "Disengage" game, I will never actually be able to attack, and the enemy will still be able to attack me every round. FUN! GOOD DESIGN THERE.

yeah that is on purpose. casters aren't frontline fighters. they are supposed to be squishy. that is their weakness. instead they have to use a spellslot to cast misty step. that is basically a combined dash+disengage all together in one bonus action.
after that they can even cast a cantrip. that is more than fair for casters.
frontline melee characters have high AC, so they don't necessarily need to disengage.
and rogues and monks can disengage as bonus action.
that covers about everything.

Hide is a tricky one, as it isn't really well defined in RAW 5e, when you actually can hide. so i'm all for changes on that, since it isn't possible to implement such a vague description into a video game.

I totally agree on jump+disengage, that they should be seperate, and that jump should just cost movement and no action/bonus action.

On Shove:
I think it should be an action, at least when the other possibility for shove is also implemented.
In 5e you can also shove to get the enemy prone. and that shouldn't take a bonus action. that would be too powerful.
Also, you can considerably increase your shove chances, when they implement expertise, and spells or features to get advantage on that athletics check. A 1lvl rogue/x barbarian is pretty much guaranteed to succeed on such a check.


+1 this

MacGyver mages aren’t supposed to be in the frontlines to begin with.
Another post saying that action economy of DnD5e is bad to justify the Larian implementation. Oh, my...

I guess people got too puppeted by DOS2 classless system that they can’t even think straight anymore. Classes doing specific things that other classes can’t do? Oh that’s so 90’s. Let the wizards heal!!
© Larian Studios forums