Larian Studios
Posted By: Millisar Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 01:32 AM
What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic. You're aiming to do this to the detriment of D&D 5e. Remember it's a D&D 5e game and was marketed as such, so the dissatisfaction from many tabletop players is comprehensible. See: It would be better if the game used D: OS rules in its entirety, so no one would come looking for D&D 5e.

Firstly, one thing must be clear: D&D 5e can be fun and dynamic without breaking the rules (even as a videogame). What it seems is that you judged D&D 5e boring and started adding random things (many from D: OS) that in the end seemed unfitting and only subtracted from the game. 5e gives room to creativity, and does it within the rules. We are used to think carefully about action economy, but in BG3 it was taken out. We are used to read the spells/features to explore them to the limit of the rules, but in BG3 they were changed and behave differently than the official ones (thus removing our references). We are used to thing what can be exploited in the environment, but in BG3 we don't need to think about it, because all the game BEGS to be thrown/exploded/triggered at the enemies.

It's disappointing, to be honest. With our references taken, it's hard to play BG3 after playing D&D 5e, and the inverse is true. Feels like I'm playing another version of D&D, and many things I learned (monster power; specific spell behavior; builds that work on certain conditions) don't work here because many things were changed. I tried to ignore it at first, but there are so many things changed that you can't run from it. I left the game aside for this reason, even though I found it interesting aside of the mechanics. Please Larian, rethink your take on the rules and make them more faithful to 5e.

Here's a list of "anti-5e" things I remembered with some comparisons and comments:

Annoying:
[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.
[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).
[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).
[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).
[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.

Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).
[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.
[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.
[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.
[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.
[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.
[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.
[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.
[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).
[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.
[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.
[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.
[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.
[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...
[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.
[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).
[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...
[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?
[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.
[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.
*Mind you: I know DMs are free to create their monsters in D&D 5e (and I do it), but 5e gives many sheets and tips as reference for you to change them and still make sense: if you change too much it would lose the likeness to 5e monsters. Change everything and things stop making sense.
[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating.

Before the accusators come, I'm no spokesman of anyone. But from what I've seen, these changes made many other 5e players upset. I myself won't lose hope that this game can be fixed before launch. I know Larian is competent. They only need to want it half as much as some of us do.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 02:06 AM
The game is an ADAPTATION of the rules, not a direct transfer.
Well, Larian doesn't have to follow the rules. All D&D games modified the rules to a greater or lesser extent (in most cases the modifications were large).

I agree with some points, but most of them won't work well in the game. Changes must be approved by the WotC.
1) Hunters needed a change, now even in D&D they are far from perfect, and in the game they would not work.
2) The animations are meant to be readable (Swen mentioned why they look the way they do).
3) There will always be many more magic items in the game. The game has to reward the players somehow.
4) Weapon bonus abilities are a nice addition that does not significantly affect the balance, and at the same time is an additional thing to do for the character.
5) You have help actions, but it works differently. The D&D version would be terribly awkward in a computer game.
6) The potion as an action would be useless. This is a frequently changing rule for a reason.
7) Mage and familiars hand changes make them useful in the game.
8) A popup multiple times per turn is not the best way to design a fight in the game (in solast it's infernally annoying but that's just my opinion).
9) The ready action will not work in the game. I wonder how you would like to implement it.
There are some points I really don't want to even mention (it's too late for me).
Good game> rules.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 02:29 AM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121

9) The ready action will not work in the game. I wonder how you would like to implement it.


Here's how I'd do Ready.

You click the button, and a submenu pops up above it, exactly like the one currently used for the Hex spell. In this box are your basic melee and ranged weapon attacks, and any attack cantrips you have. You click one of these. As soon as a target comes into range of the attack you selected, your readied attack goes off. You can simply say that special moves and higher level spells are too complicated to hold readied. This is not 100% of the functionality of the tabletop rules, but I think it's close enough, and certainly much better than NO Ready action at all.
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 03:03 AM
"What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic."

And why are you the supreme court of what the rest of us find fun and dynamic? And why did you think your opinion was so important that it deserved a new thread as opposed to joining the numerous existing discussions on this subject?


I love this game as is. I think it could definitely be improved and I think that Firesnakearies' list of changes is awesome, but I don't presume to think that everyone will love them or the game will fail if they are not implemented.
Posted By: Tarorn Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 06:40 AM
+1
Posted By: Aurgelmir Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 09:00 AM
Levels on monsters instead of CR is such a minor F'ing issue. It's not "huge" it's irrelevant. Mostly because CR is irrelevant. You could just as easily use levels on monsters in DnD too, it's just syntax.
The only "issue" is that you see that it say's "level" under the monsters tag, instead of "CR".

If there's one thing people need to stop being so obsessed over it's their damn Monster Manual. Honestly guys, most experienced DMs will at times homebrew monsters, to get them to fit their campaign. Hell I ran a whole dungeon with only homebrewed ghosts and skeletons, in order to get variety at the level the players were. Last night my group fought a Massive Mimic, which was a normal mimic bumped up in size and strength.
And "using your knowledge", sure, but that's metagaming, and the game gives you all the meta data on the monster by examining them.

I really don't have an issue with that. But I can agree with the "lower AC, more HP" in general is an issue as it benefits some classes over others.
Posted By: Millisar Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Well, Larian doesn't have to follow the rules. All D&D games modified the rules to a greater or lesser extent (in most cases the modifications were large).

I know. I swear I'm not forcing them to fo anything...
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
1) Hunters needed a change, now even in D&D they are far from perfect, and in the game they would not work.

It's not impossible. I bet Larian is capable enough.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
2) The animations are meant to be readable (Swen mentioned why they look the way they do).

Doesn't mean they need to be excandalous.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
3) There will always be many more magic items in the game. The game has to reward the players somehow.

I agree there should probably be more. But currently the quantity is beyond "many more".
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
4) Weapon bonus abilities are a nice addition that does not significantly affect the balance, and at the same time is an additional thing to do for the character.

This causes significant changes because in 5e you need to get a new trait, feat, or magic item to gain a new ability like this. The problem is that they come from any weapon, not special ones.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
5) You have help actions, but it works differently. The D&D version would be terribly awkward in a computer game.

I don't think it would be awkard, I think it would be cool. I can imagine the animation of a character distracting/provoking an enemy and an ally using this opportunity.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
6) The potion as an action would be useless. This is a frequently changing rule for a reason.

Trust me, it wouldn't. 1st-level cure wounds is very similar to a potion of healing and costs an Action.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
7) Mage and familiars hand changes make them useful in the game.

In my 5e games they are useful. They would me more useful if you could use 5e Help action in BG3, administer potions, etc.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
8) A popup multiple times per turn is not the best way to design a fight in the game (in solast it's infernally annoying but that's just my opinion).

That might be true for some people, but others would prefer to control better with a pop up menu. In this case I suggest an option to activate/deactivate the prompts.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
9) The ready action will not work in the game. I wonder how you would like to implement it.

Like Firesnakearies said. Or differently. It will work in the game.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Good game> rules.

That's correct. But to be a good game there's no need to change the rules. At least not in this case.
Posted By: Millisar Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 01:19 PM
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
And why are you the supreme court of what the rest of us find fun and dynamic? And why did you think your opinion was so important that it deserved a new thread as opposed to joining the numerous existing discussions on this subject?

Sorry, "supreme court of what I can say", but I'm not speaking for you. Look for a spokesperson elsewhere. I wrote the first part of the last paragraph for hateful people.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 01:41 PM
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 02:07 PM
I haven't played the tabletop version of 5e and don't really have such reference. But Larian's changes bother me too. The gameplay focus is way too much on environment and consumable items like scrolls, arrows and food. And limitless resting.

I have never seen such a comical and unrealistic take on Faerun in a CRPG. And it bothers me. I can't take the characters or the story seriously when the gameplay is so comical and tongue in cheek.

And I think the exaggerated Shove distance is actually a big problem mechanically too because it makes shoving enemies, even bosses, to instant death so easy.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 03:48 PM
You led off, the very first thing, with a complaint about the 5e Ranger? Which is notoriously bad, and highly reliant on the DM providing appropriate terrain and foes? That was an unfortunate choice, because I'm sure you have a great many points I agree with you on, but leading off like that gives an impression as a strict, inflexible rules purist who finds any change unacceptable, even though this is an adaptation and flexibility is required.

Skimming through this more... you think potions should be a full action. Bonus action potions is a common house rule because the damage you take from giving up your action to drink a potion will hurt you more than the potion heals. It ends up being a waste of a turn. Complaining about this is ridiculous, and you have lost credibility.

I agree with a lot of your opinions on the rules, but you are insistent on rules purism to a fault. This is not the tabletop, and it cannot play identically to the tabletop.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 04:43 PM
I like the potions as a bonus action house rule. They can't do their job if you have to give up your attacks or spells. At low levels anyway where they heal for less than attacks do damage. I imagine them as very small quantities of liquid you can quickly sip down.

If you have 100HP and a Potion of Heal for +70 I could see that kind of power swing in combat requiring an action.



Posted By: Nezix Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 05:29 PM
+1
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 05:50 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
If you have 100HP and a Potion of Heal for +70 I could see that kind of power swing in combat requiring an action.


I think the biggest ones are Superior, which heal for 8d4 + 8 = 16-40, and those are rare and expensive.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 05:52 PM
I'm not a P&P player but I have to say that I agree with you for many things... But I also have to say that this is a video game and some adaptations are fine.

This is the answers from someone that only care abouté this new BG game.


Annoying:
[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.

The P&P ranger doesn't suit video games according to me.
Natural explorer would be useless.
Favored ennemies would be usefull during a few very specific combats, which is not fair in the balance.
I'm not a P&P player so feel free to explain that one, I'm interrested but according to me what they did with the ranger is fine.
One suggestion I could have is to implement the beastmaster's companion another way. Actually it's like all other common summoned companion. This doesn't suit the relation a ranger have with it's "pet".
Maybe ranger's should have to choose ONE specific companions for the entire game. Of course this companions could be a little bit powerfuller, have special abilities or skills that are specific to the ranger's companions.


[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).

Not sure about D&D but I agree that jumps are really unreal.
I don't like how they implement jumps, but n'y especially because of the height Characters can reach.


[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).

Agree.
I think it's necessary a way or another in MP but I really hate those visual effects. I'd love something else.


[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).

I also strongly agree. I hate dipping because it's immersion breaking and because it's another WTF mechanics.
I think they could find ways for it to become part of real gameplay choices rather than another cheesy mechanic (i.e , dipping only oustide combat if you provide with "rare" component)


[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.

I wouldn't say that there are too many items but the items are totally WTF. "If the character wearing that gloves use heal, the target's weapons deal poison damage for 2 turns"... WTF ?
"If you're standing on fire, you fire damages are increased" WTF ?
" If you wear this ring, you can use a spell using your spells slots"... WTF is that artifact able to change what I learned ?

I think items could become way more usefull, way more on purpose and way more D&D/FR.


Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).

I like that.

[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.

I agree, even if it's not my single concern about "jump".

[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.

Agree, they should follow the rules according to me.


[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.

Not sure about this one. I don't really think that shove as a bonus action is something Bad.


[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.

Agree, it shouldn't be a bonus action according to me. As you said, it should only be for the rogue at level 2+.

[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.

The more action possibilities is better for the tactical aspect of the game. Not sure that "dodge" HAS to be in the game, but I agree there's a lack of tactical options while playing a melee character.

[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.

Cool but probably complicated in a video game.
Why not, but not that much important to me.


[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.

I agree and I guess (hope) this is something Larian is working on.

[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).

Prone should be an action or bonus action but in a tactical purpose for melee character. As they shove, they could push to prone their target.
Not sure "prone on purpose" would be usefull.


[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.

Yes, but it's not a dealbreaker to me.

[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.

Agree

[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.

Not really a problem to me.

[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.

That's a problem that leads sometimes to a boring inconscious/conscious/inconscious/conscious loop.

[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...

A very bad mechanics, but especially during combats.
Food should eventually give little advantages, but not work as healing potion.s.


[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.

I like it's a bonus action.

[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).

Abiities are not all working and there aren't well balanced, but I like them.

[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...

Mage hands definitely need some work.

[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?

I don't really like that grease is flammable but because it's going to turn into fire after 1 turn... I use grease so my ennemies can slip on that surface... Not because it's a combo that can deal more damages

[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.

I agree.

[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.

There are many problems according to me with the creatures and their balance... But I don't really care they have a level.

*Mind you: I know DMs are free to create their monsters in D&D 5e (and I do it), but 5e gives many sheets and tips as reference for you to change them and still make sense: if you change too much it would lose the likeness to 5e monsters. Change everything and things stop making sense.

Is that the same problem than the previous one ?
Not sure. As I said I agree that creatures abilities /HP/AC is not good for many reasons you don't talk about.


[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating

I agree. It's too many. I fear level 3+ spells for us... And our ennemies.
Not sure the battlefield will still have any cm2 without surface effects...
Posted By: Dominemesis Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 07:06 PM
+1 to the OP, fully agree.


To address the contention in the thread, namely the Ranger. It has received a lot of love in supplements, and is quite powerful in some subclasses now. In general the subclass and subrace options being limited in BG3 makes for a limited showing of what can be done in 5E. However, the Horizon Walker and the Gloomstalker Ranger subclasses are quite powerful in 5E, and would represent well in BG3. Similarly with some other classes, like the Warlock, whose best subclass is overwhelmingly Hexblade. None of these are in BG3 yet (hopefully coming though). Larian would do very well to include content from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (its super relevant thematically even) and Xanathar's Guide to Everything, both of which added a great deal of content that help improve, balance, and expand the PHB offerings a great deal.
Posted By: Tulkash01 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 07:20 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).


This is basically the argument people who want to buff spellcasters and drag down everyone else use. They conveniently forget that currently spellcasters can go nova every encounter (because in BG3 EA you can always take a long rest after any encounter), wizards have access to EVERY SPELL in the game, and the damage/utility of spells eclipses what single martial attacks can do (bugged abilities aside). These facts alone makes spellcasters much more powerful than martials. But this is exactly their point, to them "D&D feels like D&D" when casters dominate the game and can do everything other classes can, but better. That's what "being faithful to D&D" means for these people, but it's not so, it's just how they interpret things according to their convenience.

Case in point, go check youtube BG3 videos and see how many people are soloing the EA using wizards compared to other classes. Strangely enough, these "devalued spellcasters" can destroy the game without needing any help from the rest of the party.
Posted By: Vlkohor Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 07:23 PM
I[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.

RE: They could provide a terrain and monster tag, that are used in the game for the the favoured enemy and terain. But this Ranger class is not a problem for me.

[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).

RE: Agree, not everybody is a ninja from Wuxia.. I´t would be better, if the animation was something like a pull up then a jump up.

[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).
RE: I also hate the DASH, because I select it, then must acknowlodge it again... Hate it.


[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).

RE: Agree, It should be only for arrows. And poison coating the blade and arrow.

[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.
RE: There are not so many in my opinion.

Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).
RE: I actually like this one, I gives the weapon some personality.

[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.
RE: It could be a part of the movement, it makes more sense.

[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.
RE: In what sense hase it a relation to jump? Like in that it is bonus action? Same as drinking potion? Or in that like you can Jump away from your enemies (which should trigger opportunity attack but doesn´t)?

[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.
RE: I think its an animation problem, the flying effect isn´t realistic. But you can shove people pretty far in real life too. Don´t have problem with the mechanics of it being bonus action thou. It does´nt need much concentration in my opinion.

[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.
RE: Yeah, the rogue should have an advatage in this, he should be the only one, who can do it in combat. Others need to have a spell or simillar ability.


[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.
RE: I think in Neverwinter Nights rogues and other with dodge feats had a bonus to dodge, AC or something which was applied against every attack and were harder to hit. They could use somethink similar here.

[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.
RE: Maybe something like in XCOM series? Depending on a weapon you have in your hands... I really like the Feat Polearm master and I think the Shield Master and Sentinel have some similar reactions.

[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.
RE: I think it could be implemented the way Riposte works here on/off option.

[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).
RE: Don´t have problem with that. It would be some sort of reaction.

[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.
RE: I would like to see it implemented too.

[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.
RE: I think its half your movement too, but I could be wrong, maybe I have seen it in Solasta.

[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.
RE: I would like to see an option where your companions help you in some conversation/checks and task too. Like it was in Pathfinder. It would feel like they are cooperating more. Happens with exploration checks thou.

[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.
RE: You can not do it in real life either, make sense, you would kill them.

[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...
RE: Well. In a game you fight more than in tabletop, so it´s either this or more short rest or more potions in game. I didn´t get the memo food heals you till at the end of my first run and the difficulty of the game went higher and the annoyance of long rest were brutal. But the food should not be used in combat (it´s not a drink) and maybe it could be changed for bandages and balsams (with more uses than potions), maybe the use of medicine or nature skill (which would make more sense to me and the skills would make more sense in game). The nature skill could use the herbs you find. Or they could implement alchemy to make your own basic potions.

[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.
RE: Make more sense this way.

[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).
RE: Also make more sense this way. What I hate more is that they can not carry some light items.

[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...
RE: This one does´nt make sense in original rules. If you can carry a rock, you can make the rock fall on somebody. If you can carry a candle, you can burn somebody and so one. But the creative use of mage hand and barrels is little overpowered.


[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?
RE: Well, the fire spells are also magical. No problem with that. laugh But I don´t use it so much, you can use the potions and barrels that are everywhere. Maybe less flamabless in game...

[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.
RE: I like this one. Fire is fire, so it burns and cast things on fire. Same with water and electricity. Good strategy between Shadowharts water spell and Gale´s lightning spells. And the cantrips do not so much elemental terrains. And if you use the fire spells on flammables it´s only right that fire prospers.

[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.
RE: I don´t have problem with the level thing, but the ghithianki dragon should not be a level 4. Atleast level 10 or so early in the game. So you can see the difference. Is there someone strong? Good. His level should be 3+ level more then you (the dragon, the beholder, maybe even the hag). Level can replace the Challenge Rating system. And if you see a level 10 dragon early in the game, you know it would be incredibly difficult to kill him and in the later stages of the game you will know that you have chance against him now. Something like the cambions and mindflayers early in the game. You know you can not take the Cambion without the help of mindflayer. Later in game maybe.

[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating.
RE: Yes, there could be less barrels and also less food in my opinion.
Posted By: Dominemesis Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).


This is basically the argument people who want to buff spellcasters and drag down everyone else use. They conveniently forget that currently spellcasters can go nova every encounter (because in BG3 EA you can always take a long rest after any encounter), wizards have access to EVERY SPELL in the game, and the damage/utility of spells eclipses what single martial attacks can do (bugged abilities aside). These facts alone makes spellcasters much more powerful than martials. But this is exactly their point, to them "D&D feels like D&D" when casters dominate the game and can do everything other classes can, but better. That's what "being faithful to D&D" means for these people, but it's not so, it's just how they interpret things according to their convenience.

Case in point, go check youtube BG3 videos and see how many people are soloing the EA using wizards compared to other classes. Strangely enough, these "devalued spellcasters" can destroy the game without needing any help from the rest of the party.


Neither scenario is good. Whether its affecting martial classes or spellcasters, both sets of changes are part of the bigger problem being discussed. Long rests are supposed to be 1/24 hours, and Wizards aren't supposed to be able to scribe every spell in the game. Advantage shouldn't be easily achieved or handed out. All of these are complaints in the same vein: Namely that Larian's changes are causing issue that could be avoided by staying more faithful to the 5E rules.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 08:18 PM
Warranted and much needed criticism, but this was a hit and miss list. For instance:

1. PHB Rangers has multiple issues. Dependency on specific environment and enemies to shine this is hard to translate to a cRPG. Generally weak (albeit not at low-levels). Larian did some semi-decent changes. Larian's changes are surprisingly lacklustre though and it worries me that I can see this easily (haven't played D&D for years) when Larian did not. Let's quickly break down obvious problems with the new FAVORED ENEMY homebrew (misleadingly named as it functions now). PATHWAY would be better.

* Bounty Hunter gives a skill and a bonus to DC of Ensnaring Strike. Pretty WEAK compared to Ranger Knight who gets a skill and proficiency in heavy armor. Decent for roleplaying.
* Keeper of the Veil and Mage Breaker are too similar. Same skill and near useless secondary ability. True Strike is recognized as a crap cantrip (this could do with a homebrew buff) and Protection from Evil and Good is concentration spell competing with Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace, Swift Quiver, etc. Both will get little use.
* Sanctified Stalker gives a skill and the WEAK Sacred Flame cantrip. The cantrip is relatively nerfed by easy advantage to spell/weapon attacks and likely a melee Ranger who would need the ranged cantrip would pick Ranger Knight. So this will get little to no use.

2. Jump is part of the tadpole powers but should be presented as such. The design idea is increased mobility and maneuvering to advantageous positions leads to more interesting and rewarding tactical combat. Larian could even go more crazy with this sort of homebrew and less bewildering amounts of items and environmental interactions.
Posted By: Mathalis Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by Millisar
What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic. You're aiming to do this to the detriment of D&D 5e. Remember it's a D&D 5e game and was marketed as such, so the dissatisfaction from many tabletop players is comprehensible. See: It would be better if the game used D: OS rules in its entirety, so no one would come looking for D&D 5e.

Firstly, one thing must be clear: D&D 5e can be fun and dynamic without breaking the rules (even as a videogame). What it seems is that you judged D&D 5e boring and started adding random things (many from D: OS) that in the end seemed unfitting and only subtracted from the game. 5e gives room to creativity, and does it within the rules. We are used to think carefully about action economy, but in BG3 it was taken out. We are used to read the spells/features to explore them to the limit of the rules, but in BG3 they were changed and behave differently than the official ones (thus removing our references). We are used to thing what can be exploited in the environment, but in BG3 we don't need to think about it, because all the game BEGS to be thrown/exploded/triggered at the enemies.

It's disappointing, to be honest. With our references taken, it's hard to play BG3 after playing D&D 5e, and the inverse is true. Feels like I'm playing another version of D&D, and many things I learned (monster power; specific spell behavior; builds that work on certain conditions) don't work here because many things were changed. I tried to ignore it at first, but there are so many things changed that you can't run from it. I left the game aside for this reason, even though I found it interesting aside of the mechanics. Please Larian, rethink your take on the rules and make them more faithful to 5e.

Here's a list of "anti-5e" things I remembered with some comparisons and comments:

Annoying:
[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.
[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).
[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).
[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).
[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.

Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).
[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.
[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.
[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.
[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.
[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.
[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.
[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.
[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).
[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.
[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.
[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.
[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.
[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...
[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.
[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).
[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...
[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?
[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.
[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.
*Mind you: I know DMs are free to create their monsters in D&D 5e (and I do it), but 5e gives many sheets and tips as reference for you to change them and still make sense: if you change too much it would lose the likeness to 5e monsters. Change everything and things stop making sense.
[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating.

Before the accusators come, I'm no spokesman of anyone. But from what I've seen, these changes made many other 5e players upset. I myself won't lose hope that this game can be fixed before launch. I know Larian is competent. They only need to want it half as much as some of us do.


I like a lot of what you said. I know that every DnD RPG has modified the rules a bit to best fit the graphical story, but this has taken it really far. I have a hard time getting into the story myself. I hope they make some changes, because right now I don't really think I"m gonna keep my interest.
Posted By: Tulkash01 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 08:21 PM
Originally Posted by Dominemesis
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).


This is basically the argument people who want to buff spellcasters and drag down everyone else use. They conveniently forget that currently spellcasters can go nova every encounter (because in BG3 EA you can always take a long rest after any encounter), wizards have access to EVERY SPELL in the game, and the damage/utility of spells eclipses what single martial attacks can do (bugged abilities aside). These facts alone makes spellcasters much more powerful than martials. But this is exactly their point, to them "D&D feels like D&D" when casters dominate the game and can do everything other classes can, but better. That's what "being faithful to D&D" means for these people, but it's not so, it's just how they interpret things according to their convenience.

Case in point, go check youtube BG3 videos and see how many people are soloing the EA using wizards compared to other classes. Strangely enough, these "devalued spellcasters" can destroy the game without needing any help from the rest of the party.


Neither scenario is good. Whether its affecting martial classes or spellcasters, both sets of changes are part of the bigger problem being discussed. Long rests are supposed to be 1/24 hours, and Wizards aren't supposed to be able to scribe every spell in the game. Advantage shouldn't be easily achieved or handed out. All of these are complaints in the same vein: Namely that Larian's changes are causing issue that could be avoided by staying more faithful to the 5E rules.


D&D 5th ed has one class that can literally switch advantage on and off as it sees fit (barbarian via reckless attack), that's how difficult getting advantage in D&D is. Sure it's supposed to be ballanced because then enemies get advantage hitting the barbarian as well but then you just need to be a bear totem barbarian and you get resistance to all damage but psychic. At the same time there are low level spells capable of giving enemies disadvantage and they only cost a sppell slot.

The truth is a good part of 5th edition is about gaining advantage on attacks and that's not so difficult to achieve.

From the very beginning D&D has been about the party, every class doing one thing better than the others and therefore all of them being importrant for play. D&D and RPGs in genral are team games, but some people want spellcasters to be able to suceed alone. Nowadays (ok, it's a trend established since 3rd ed) these same people incessantly lobby for the notion that spellcasters have the right to rule every aspect of the game ("because... MAGIC!") making all other classes redundant and therefore destroying the concept of party roles and destroying party dynamics.

What I'm seeing in this thread (but I see similar stuff in other forums about other systems) is basically just people lobbying for better spellcasters when they work perfectly fine already.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 08:25 PM
Originally Posted by Tulkash01


D&D 5th ed has one class that can literally switch advantage on and off as it sees fit (barbarian via reckless attack), that's how difficult getting advantage in D&D is. Sure it's supposed to be ballanced because then enemies get advantage hitting the barbarian as well but then you just need to be a bear totem barbarian and you get resistance to all damage but psychic. At the same time there are low level spells capable of giving enemies disadvantage and they only cost a sppell slot.

The truth is a good part of 5th edition is about gaining advantage on attacks and that's not so difficult to achieve.


Every way to gain advantage has either a resource cost (a spell slot), or a drawback (Reckless attack gives enemies advantage on their attack rolls). Walking behind an enemy does not cost a resource or have a drawback. Neither does being up high.
Posted By: Tulkash01 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Tulkash01


D&D 5th ed has one class that can literally switch advantage on and off as it sees fit (barbarian via reckless attack), that's how difficult getting advantage in D&D is. Sure it's supposed to be ballanced because then enemies get advantage hitting the barbarian as well but then you just need to be a bear totem barbarian and you get resistance to all damage but psychic. At the same time there are low level spells capable of giving enemies disadvantage and they only cost a sppell slot.

The truth is a good part of 5th edition is about gaining advantage on attacks and that's not so difficult to achieve.


Every way to gain advantage has either a resource cost (a spell slot), or a drawback (Reckless attack gives enemies advantage on their attack rolls). Walking behind an enemy does not cost a resource or have a drawback. Neither does being up high.


Not always true: for example in my current playthrough I had to choose between gaining advantage on attack with Astarion (and his sneak attack damage provides a big reason for doing so) and being exposed to subsequent attacks. I choose to attack anyway and Astarion got downed in no time. Positioning yourself behind an opponent is not always risk free, and with better AI setting up traps this could be a very real problem for those who favor high risk/high reward approaches.

Edit: same is true for climbing up high. Sometimes the AI follows you and then throws you down causing falling damage and destroying your positioning advantage (this happened to me with the Kuo-Toa encounter for example).
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).


This is basically the argument people who want to buff spellcasters and drag down everyone else use. They conveniently forget that currently spellcasters can go nova every encounter (because in BG3 EA you can always take a long rest after any encounter), wizards have access to EVERY SPELL in the game, and the damage/utility of spells eclipses what single martial attacks can do (bugged abilities aside). These facts alone makes spellcasters much more powerful than martials. But this is exactly their point, to them "D&D feels like D&D" when casters dominate the game and can do everything other classes can, but better. That's what "being faithful to D&D" means for these people, but it's not so, it's just how they interpret things according to their convenience.

Case in point, go check youtube BG3 videos and see how many people are soloing the EA using wizards compared to other classes. Strangely enough, these "devalued spellcasters" can destroy the game without needing any help from the rest of the party.

Haha. Nice strawman attempt there buddy.

You assign ulterior motivations to a guy who on MULTIPLE occasions have criticised MULTIPLE balance issues with Larian's unfaithful D&D port. In fact, alongside easy advantage I have specifically criticised the super permissive rest mechanic and Wizards "unlimited Magical Secrets" (which is a relative nerf to Bards) as the worst offenders more times than I care to recall. Bad for immersion as well as causing an avalanche of class and subclass (and likely feat and spell) imbalances.

And I have specifically criticised in particular Wizards as the one who benefits most of all. Through buff to their attack cantrips directly and indirectly (environmental trigger, damages when misses) and through overpowered magical items as well: The Sapphire Spark (near double Magic Missile damage), Staff of Arcane Blessing (+5 average spell attack roll, +1-4 dex save), and Warped Headband of Intellect (allows metagaming using Int as a dump stat for Wizards/Arcane Tricksters/Eldritch Knights). Inversely, martial classes+Clerics have gotten their better non-magical medium and heavy armor spirited away - mysteriously more rare than ultra powerful magical items (another break in immersion). Moreover, I have ribbed many "spellcasters" who complain about Fire Bolt cantrip somehow being nerfed (which is not only wrong, but a very selective and disingenuous focus). Wizard is universally seen as the strongest class in D&D, yet Larian has seen fit to buff them in so many ways. I understand Swen Vincke, the boss and lead designer of Larian, is a fanboy of Wizards and only in this context does the buffs begin to remotely make any sense.

Case in point, think before you go off on a tangent. The way you were obviously triggered by the very hint of favoring casters makes me think you're not only misguided, but in fact a hypocritical martial class tribalist who mistakenly believed he was talking to his opposite number. Sorry to disappoint! Balance is a complex issue and if you attack anyone failing to mention all the intricacies (which you yourself failed to do) at every point, then you will be a very busy puppy indeed!
Posted By: Roxeus Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
"What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic."

And why are you the supreme court of what the rest of us find fun and dynamic? And why did you think your opinion was so important that it deserved a new thread as opposed to joining the numerous existing discussions on this subject?


I love this game as is. I think it could definitely be improved and I think that Firesnakearies' list of changes is awesome, but I don't presume to think that everyone will love them or the game will fail if they are not implemented.

Bien dicho yo igual amo este juego como esta visto muchas ideas de 5e seria demasiado molesto para los que no estamos acostumbrado al ese estilo o juego algo si me encantaria implementen todas las razas y clases pero no se si aplicar todas las reglas 5e ya alguna son molestas como la concentración como mata el rol de muchas clases.
Recuerden que no iba tratarse de un juego 5e sino una adaptación de las reglas creo exigen demasiado a Larian Studios , mas saben que ustedes reclaman a Larian pero Como lleva Nombre de Baldur Gate no son los únicos con los derechos también podrían darle sus opiniones veran les responden están agradecidos con su manera querer implementar el manual de 5e pero si seria posible aplicar todas las reglas lo habíamos hecho hace tiempo
BG3 NO ES DOS3
DOS3 no tiene cinematicas , No tiene sistema de opciones que afecten drásticamente tu historia.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Not always true: for example in my current playthrough I had to choose between gaining advantage on attack with Astarion (and his sneak attack damage provides a big reason for doing so) and being exposed to subsequent attacks. I choose to attack anyway and Astarion got downed in no time. Positioning yourself behind an opponent is not always risk free, and with better AI setting up traps this could be a very real problem for those who favor high risk/high reward approaches.

Edit: same is true for climbing up high. Sometimes the AI follows you and then throws you down causing falling damage and destroying your positioning advantage (this happened to me with the Kuo-Toa encounter for example).


I don't see the relevance of your anecdotes. If you had an ally beside the enemy, Astarion would be just as exposed and still get the Sneak Attack, but it would be by the rules. By the rules a Fighter cannot get advantage fighting an enemy 1 on 1 and going behind them, but they can in BG 3.

No one ever said that enemies could not attack you on high ground.
Posted By: Tulkash01 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Not always true: for example in my current playthrough I had to choose between gaining advantage on attack with Astarion (and his sneak attack damage provides a big reason for doing so) and being exposed to subsequent attacks. I choose to attack anyway and Astarion got downed in no time. Positioning yourself behind an opponent is not always risk free, and with better AI setting up traps this could be a very real problem for those who favor high risk/high reward approaches.

Edit: same is true for climbing up high. Sometimes the AI follows you and then throws you down causing falling damage and destroying your positioning advantage (this happened to me with the Kuo-Toa encounter for example).


I don't see the relevance of your anecdotes. If you had an ally beside the enemy, Astarion would be just as exposed and still get the Sneak Attack, but it would be by the rules. By the rules a Fighter cannot get advantage fighting an enemy 1 on 1 and going behind them, but they can in BG 3.

No one ever said that enemies could not attack you on high ground.


By 5th edition rules a fighter can shove an opponent (athletics check) cause it to get prone and everyone suddenly has advantage against it. In BG3 shove is good for causing falling damage but since the opponent immediately rcovers and gets on its feet it's not an effective tool to gain advantage. On the other hand moving behind an opponent gives you advantage in BG3 while it does not in 5th ed. Btw 5th edition rules are not so clear about high ground. The DM may very well rule it does give advantage, or not depending on his interpretation of the situation.
Posted By: Firesnakearies Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 10:39 PM
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.
Posted By: Tulkash01 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael


Haha. Nice strawman attempt there buddy.

You assign ulterior motivations to a guy who on MULTIPLE occasions have criticised MULTIPLE balance issues with Larian's unfaithful D&D port. In fact, alongside easy advantage I have specifically criticised the super permissive rest mechanic and Wizards "unlimited Magical Secrets" (which is a relative nerf to Bards) as the worst offenders more times than I care to recall. Bad for immersion as well as causing an avalanche of class and subclass (and likely feat and spell) imbalances.

And I have specifically criticised in particular Wizards as the one who benefits most of all. Through buff to their attack cantrips directly and indirectly (environmental trigger, damages when misses) and through overpowered magical items as well: The Sapphire Spark (near double Magic Missile damage), Staff of Arcane Blessing (+5 average spell attack roll, +1-4 dex save), and Warped Headband of Intellect (allows metagaming using Int as a dump stat for Wizards/Arcane Tricksters/Eldritch Knights). Inversely, martial classes+Clerics have gotten their better non-magical medium and heavy armor spirited away - mysteriously more rare than ultra powerful magical items (another break in immersion). Moreover, I have ribbed many "spellcasters" who complain about Fire Bolt cantrip somehow being nerfed (which is not only wrong, but a very selective and disingenuous focus). Wizard is universally seen as the strongest class in D&D, yet Larian has seen fit to buff them in so many ways. I understand Swen Vincke, the boss and lead designer of Larian, is a fanboy of Wizards and only in this context does the buffs begin to remotely make any sense.

Case in point, think before you go off on a tangent. The way you were obviously triggered by the very hint of favoring casters makes me think you're not only misguided, but in fact a hypocritical martial class tribalist who mistakenly believed he was talking to his opposite number. Sorry to disappoint! Balance is a complex issue and if you attack anyone failing to mention all the intricacies (which you yourself failed to do) at every point, then you will be a very busy puppy indeed!


I criticized you on what you wrote on this thread, especially because you claimed that martial classes have been buffed to "insane levels" by Larian's implementation of 5th edition rules and I don't think that's true at all. Martial classes have basically the same chance to hit other classes have unless they can get advantage. In 5th edition a wizard casting a spell or a cantrip using his casting ability modifier and his proficency bonus has the same to hit bonus a fighter has while using his main offensive ability and his proficency bonus. I.e. a lvl 4 wizard with 18 intelligence has a +6 to hit when casting a spell/cantrip that requires targetting the same as a 4th level fighter with 18th strength. This is basically the same in BG3 EA. The only advantage martials have over casters in this regard is the rule for "backstabbing" but that requires going toe to toe with the enemy unlike casting spells from a distance.

As for your accusation, I've never asked to nerf casters in BG3, unless you consider the request of changing the way the long rest system works to be an attack on casters (it's a broader issue). My point is that the game is ballanced ON PARTY level. Each class is good at something and bad at something else. Currently BG3 favors casters and there's people asking for buffs to casters and nerfs to mechanics that favor martial classes.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 06/11/20 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Technically true, but there are a lot of other components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move."
This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction.
Posted By: Baraz Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 07/11/20 04:41 PM
What what I have seen in the game, I feel the facing system should be removed.

I have seen kobolds move a few feet to hit a character from the back, then move back to the front where they were before :P

Likewise, it is super easy to walk around a few feet to hit the back on enemies.
It is a bad logic system.

Flanking, ie. two allies on two sides, would be the good system. Those with Sneak attack could use it when flanking for example. Flanking is easy to implement considering the game already is able to consider a back, so if character X is on back and character Y is on front = flanking.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 07/11/20 05:50 PM
I’m a paladin in the quest to complain about Larian balance issues but being just a 100% purist won’t solve the game problems. Pointing the differences is a good thing but I expect a deeper evaluation in how they gonna affect the overall balance. Out of the homebrew the ones I dislike the most are the advantage system and surfaces effect that was added which undermines casters. Shove & disengage are also bad as they’ve break the balance of classes. That’s all I dislike about the BG3 rules. The rest I’m okay and I’ll manage to survive.
Posted By: millenialboomer Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 09/11/20 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Like flanking, it's an optional rule for a reason. Solasta has proven that we can have everything 5E has translated into a computer game. I want this but with full 5E Faerun with Larian's graphics budget. Giving us full 5E shouldn't be hard if a band of nobodies were able to pull it off with the SRD rules.
Posted By: Millisar Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 09/11/20 04:44 PM
Edit time limit passed, so I'm doing it as quote. Fixed the formatting and added the high ground and facing rule issues:

Quote
What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic. You're aiming to do this to the detriment of D&D 5e. Remember it's a D&D 5e game and was marketed as such, so the dissatisfaction from many tabletop players is comprehensible. See: It would be better if the game used D: OS rules in its entirety, so no one would come looking for D&D 5e.

Firstly, one thing must be clear: D&D 5e can be fun and dynamic without breaking the rules (even as a videogame). What it seems is that you judged D&D 5e boring and started adding random things (many from D: OS) that in the end seemed unfitting and only subtracted from the game. 5e gives room to creativity, and does it within the rules. We are used to think carefully about action economy, but in BG3 it was taken out. We are used to read the spells/features to explore them to the limit of the rules, but in BG3 they were changed and behave differently than the official ones (thus removing our references). We are used to thing what can be exploited in the environment, but in BG3 we don't need to think about it, because all the game BEGS to be thrown/exploded/triggered at the enemies.

It's disappointing, to be honest. With our references taken, it's hard to play BG3 after playing D&D 5e, and the inverse is true. Feels like I'm playing another version of D&D, and many things I learned (monster power; specific spell behavior; builds that work on certain conditions) don't work here because many things were changed. I tried to ignore it at first, but there are so many things changed that you can't run from it. I left the game aside for this reason, even though I found it interesting aside of the mechanics. Please Larian, rethink your take on the rules and make them more faithful to 5e.

Here's a list of "anti-5e" things I remembered with some comparisons and comments:

Annoying:
  • High ground and low ground affects hit rate. I wonder if it was added to compensate the removal of cover rules.
  • 5e's optional facing rule is mandatory in BG3. There's currently no way to disable it.
  • Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.
  • Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).
  • All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).
  • Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).
  • Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.


Action Economy/game balance butchers:
  • Every weapon (even mundanes!) gives you a special ability. Ex: spears have a thrust attack that passes throught enemies. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).
  • Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.
  • Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.
  • Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.
  • Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.
  • You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.
  • You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.
  • The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.
  • In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).
  • You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.
  • Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.
  • You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.
  • You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.
  • Food heals you in BG3. No comments...
  • Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.
  • Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).
  • Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...
  • In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?
  • Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.
  • This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.
    Mind you: I know DMs are free to create their monsters in D&D 5e (and I do it), but 5e gives many sheets and tips as reference for you to change them and still make sense: if you change too much it would lose the likeness to 5e monsters. Change everything and things stop making sense.
  • Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating.


Before the accusators come, I'm no spokesman of anyone. But from what I've seen, these changes made many other 5e players upset. I myself won't lose hope that this game can be fixed before launch. I know Larian is competent. They only need to want it half as much as some of us do.
Posted By: UnknownEvil Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 09/11/20 05:09 PM
I also agree to a lot of things said here.

I stopped reading D&D rules at 4th ed, so my knowledge about 5e is basic at best, but some things you did just kind of break the fun, not only because they are annoying but (even if its a fantasy setting) they are incredibly illogical. Some mentioned it, everything burns or explodes. small cantrips that hardly do any damage create fields of ice or fire. Every goblin has arrows of fire/acid/thunder and whatnot...not to talk about grease and alchemists fire or acid vials. That stuff should be rarer then that. And if i look at how much gold those arrows cost...

When i examine some npcs i can just be amazed at the stats... Stuff like this makes me quit the game for a while before i start anew. wink

I won't complain about how close you stay to 5e rules but if you use them, try to follow them as closely as possible. Otherwise just say "our own rules based on a modified 5e ruleset". But keep functionality over show. As with the romance stuff....there is a thin line between fun to play and annoying players. Not everything must be super-special.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 09/11/20 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Technically true, but there are a lot of other components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move."
This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction.

And this would already eliminate the actual problem with Larian's implementation where you can just leapfrog back and forth over an enemy to get advantage every single turn regardless of circumstances.
Posted By: Sludge Khalid Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 09/11/20 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Technically true, but there are a lot of other components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move."
This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction.

And this would already eliminate the actual problem with Larian's implementation where you can just leapfrog back and forth over an enemy to get advantage every single turn regardless of circumstances.


Yup. But I wouldn’t argue with this people that play by the rules when they are convenient and when it’s not they claims that DnD5e is not balanced. Nevertheless, both facing rules & high ground positioning advantage are rules that completely takes out elements of the standard game and causes a chain reaction through the entire combat system. I’ve made a whole post regarding the impact of this in the spell slot economy and in the non released classes. But again, why to take in account someone that say it’s fine to bonus disengage to protect the casters & vehemently agree with the implementation of the optional rules presented in DMG. Living incoherence
Posted By: millenialboomer Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 15/11/20 01:43 AM
Can you link to the post about the spell slot economy? I would think that casters gain incredible advantage with the current house rule setup?
Posted By: Buddyshrews Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 15/11/20 03:51 AM
I agree with some points and disagree with others. I'm not overly concerned with balance. 5e isn't the most finely tuned thing in the world, which makes sense to me as a tabletop RPG. You can make overpowered or underpowered classes. I'm more worries about the fun and class identity. Giving everyone their time to shine.

I like the greater focus on things like use of terrain and positioning. I'd love to see cover implemented at some point. I think it's a good advantage you can lean into with it being a video game over tabletop. On the flip side, I don't like the huge use of surfaces. I'm a huge DOS fan, and I expected some overlap, but I don't like that even cantrips make surfaces. It's more annoying than enjoyable. Another carryover from DOS is the hug amount of spell scrolls. It's just too much to be carrying around.

I like potions as a bonus action. Potion as an action feels bad in 5e. I use this as a house rule in my 5e games anyway.

I like the special weapon abilities. It gives the weapons some more identity rather than the size of the damage die.

One major point I agree on is hide and disengage being bonus actions. It feels bad as a fighter when everyone I fight disengages and I get no opportunity attack, and it's too much of an advantage to ranged attackers. The biggest casualty here is the rogue. Cunning action is a huge core to one of my favorite 5e classes. It just makes them feel worse. One of their really niche and unique abilities is default to everyone in the game. Even shove bonus action is fine to me. Speaking of, using shove to help ranged attackers doesn't matter anymore since you can ALWAYS get away now. At least add the Sentinel feat in the game.

I also really do not like the way reactions are handled right now. I don't know what the best way is, but I know it feels off right now. I can see the argument that prompts would get really obnoxious. It just kind of destroys the abilities to have the pre-preemptive rather than reactive. Riposte feels bad when you waste it on the mob you didn't want to. Hellish rebuke feels off having to cast in advance. It makes me worry about the Bard coming up. Lore bard is amazing, but how would Cutting Words and bardic inspiration work in this system? It would truly get obnoxious asking to use cutting words every time someone in your party gets attacked. I think there is a need for some change in these systems to make them work in a video game, but it just feels really off right now.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Larian: D&D 5e rules - 15/11/20 09:20 AM
With reactions, I would understand a more radical rewrite. The prompt is really obnoxious and kills the flow of combat. The "wrong" reactions are even worse. Maybe look to older editions of D&D, make them automatical or bonus actions instead.

- Make Shield bonus action and 3 turns
- Give more opportunity attacks but apply them automatically, equal to Dex modifier (minimum 1). This would reward medium armor great weapon Fighters who have 14+dex and generally make sense that finesse fighters can strike more and faster.

Something along those lines.

I don't like the current implementation of weapon special attacks. Everyone getting a powerful move like Cleave seems wrong. It should be a class ability rather. It's the character doing the move and not the weapon. And why can you swing your blade in a wide arc only once per rest? Maybe it should be weaker like getting a penalty to attacks but more or unlimited uses.

The spear rush is a silly Super Sayian move, not something you'd expect in a grown up D&D RPG. Spears should get topple like staffs so a 5th level Fighter could do Prone + attack with advantage against a high AC target.
© Larian Studios forums