Larian Studios
Posted By: GM4Him Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 04:45 AM
So, I've been kinda saying it on other posts, but I'm laying it out here in a brand new one.

In the Great British Bakeoff (love that show), the judges sometimes make the bakers create Illusion Cakes. The concept of the Illusion Cake is to make something look like something else, but it's really a cake. So, in one episode, someone made their cakes look like hamburgers, french fries (chips in England, I believe), ice cream, etc. The cake tastes amazing, but at the end of the day, it was cake, not hamburgers and such.

That is how I feel about Baldur's Gate 3 right now, and I know I'm not alone. Baldur's Gate LOOKS like a D&D 5e Game set in the world of Forgotten Realms, but it doesn't taste or smell like a D&D 5e game set in the world of Forgotten Realms. It is a beautiful game and as fun as heck. I've never played a game THIS much. I almost never replay a game more than once. I didn't even replay Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 more than once. I could barely get through them once. It's too much work for me. I don't have endless hours to throw at any game, so for me to play 500+ hours, I must really really love this game.

I also really love cake, but if I see something that looks like a hamburger, and I bite into it and it tastes like cake, that's gonna mess with me. It might be fun at first, but at the end of the day I want cakes to look and taste like cakes and hamburgers to look and taste like hamburgers. (I'm getting hungry now.) smile

My point is that Baldur's Gate 3 is messing with me. It's like it WANTS to be a D&D 5e Baldur's Gate sequel game, but there are just so many elements that aren't D&D 5e Baldur's Gate. Again, I'm not alone in this because there are many who say it is more like DOS 1 and 2 than Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Why is it so much like DOS and not BG1 and 2? Because it strays so much from D&D, and there are too many elements from the first two games that are missing.

What could they do to make hamburgers taste and smell like hamburgers? Cook with hamburger meat and not cake. What I mean is, they need to do things that tie players into the originals from a feeling perspective. How do they do this?

1. Proper D&D 5e stats for monsters and enemies. This is absolutely essential to the feel. You can make them injured so they have less health. You can do all sorts of things to make them easier or harder to kill, but you need to at least give them their proper abilities, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc. Example: What makes a phase spider a phase spider is Ethereal Jaunt. They should be phasing into the Ethereal Plane, moving up on their enemies in ways their enemies can't see, and then phasing into the Material Plane and ninja assassinating the characters. Then, as a Bonus Action, they bounce back into the Ethereal Plane. So, every time a phase spider Ethereal Jaunts into the Material Plane to attack, they use their Bonus action and can't Ethereal Jaunt back. So you get an entire round before it can Ethereal Jaunt again to peg it before it escapes into the Ethereal Plane and does it all over again. They don't teleport like they all know an extreme form of Misty Step and bounce around game maps willy nilly acting like they can go anywhere and do anything no matter where you hide or how far you go to get away from them. Part of the whole fun of facing phase spiders is you have to try to guess and predict where they're going. You have to try to lure some away into traps and get them to try to attack your tanks while your squishies keep away and peg them as soon as they appear. It's all about strategy, but you can't do those strategies if they aren't even acting like phase spiders. Imps don't have resistance, intellect devourers don't do Devour Intellect, their most signature move, Sword Spiders don't Pounce on their prey, I still haven't seen a Minotaur do their signature Charge attack, but they sure like to Hulk Smash Leap everywhere, Wood Woads, Mud Mephits... Over and over again, most monsters don't do the things that they're supposed to, and they're nerfed in order to make the game work for a party of 4 at the levels Larian is limiting us to.

2. Proper base 5e rules. The more homebrew, the more you negate certain base elements of 5e that make different abilities and classes unique and fun. Rogue fast hands is virtually meaningless if everyone can drink a potion as a Bonus action. Cunning Action is pointless if everyone can hide as a Bonus. These are just 2 examples.

3. Party size of 6. Yes, there's a whole separate Mega-Thread for this, but in this particular thread, the point is that Party size of 6 is a Signature Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 Party Size. Party Size 4 is DOS. Why do people feel like this is more of a DOS game? One of the reasons is that it is Party Size 4. If you want Baldur's Gate 3 to smell and taste like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, you need to at least allow for a Party Size of 6. Why? Because one of the most awesome things about BG1 and 2 was that you met a TON of potential party members that you could have in your party. By the Hells! 6 was too limiting for me in those games. I was frustrated to no end because I wanted Minsc and Jaheira and Imoen and Aerie and Viconia and Mazzy and the thief guy who always said, "I can dance on the head of a pin" (can't remember his name for the life of me right now) and the monk guy and the paladin and just about every freaking character all in my party and I was limited to only 6. That's only 5 other characters because I had my custom made MC. That sucked. 4 is even more viciously limiting. I want to have ALL the origin characters in the party, and frankly, if they allow me to have Minthara and Karlach and Halsin and Zevlor and Elegis and Kagha and Rath and Nettie and whoever else they're going to allow us to have, 4 is going to feel SUPER UBER MONSTROUSLY LIMITING!

And as I've said in the Mega-thread, a party size of 6 would allow Larian to use proper D&D 5e stats without having to add or subtract any monsters from any encounters. The entire game would be perfectly balanced for a 6 party member size game with proper D&D 5e stats. So there wouldn't need to be nerfing of monster stats and stripping them of their signature moves or nothing. So combining both would only make for a truly authentic D&D 5e Baldur's Gate experience.

4. Random Encounters. Yes, a lot of people don't like Random Encounters. However, after playing Solasta again, I realized what I like about Random Encounters. Flavor. Variety. Immersion. I know, when you're on your way to fight the goblins at the goblin camp, the last thing you want to do is face some random encounter fighting a pack of wolves or a bear or whatever who pop up on you out of nowhere. However, what we have right now is a world that is DEVOID of life. The forest has no wild animals. Nothing is really and truly living or breathing. In BG1 and 2, you had animals hopping around, even if they didn't fight you, random fights that would spring up on you, and the world wasn't just waiting for you to spring the next cutscene. It was more living and breathing. Besides this, what most don't realize about Random Encounters is that they provide variety in the monsters you fight. There isn't much variety right now in BG3. When I roam in a forest, I might get attacked by a pack of wolves during one playthrough. The next time, I might run into giant spiders roaming the streets of Bogrot. The next time, I might encounter a group of kobolds when I'm roaming one of the dungeons or caves. One time, I might encounter a group of evil gnomes or bandits on the road or SOMETHING besides the same old encounters every time I replay the game. Yes, Random Encounters can be annoying, but when you don't have them, you also don't have variety in encounters. And again, the point is that Random Encounters was another element of the originals that is missing, and the more elements that are missing, the less it feels like the originals.

5. Day/Night. Yes, I'm repeating a lot of items that I've mentioned in the past, but aren't we all really just repeating everything that's been said for the last year? I won't go much into this, but Day/Night REALLY gave the originals the ambiance that is missing in BG3. The dark streets of Athkatla at night with vampires prowling about, the dark forest where you and the werewolf lady are fighting shadow wolves and other wildlife, the graveyard at night, even fighting the trolls in the dark or gnolls or spiders or all the plethora of other monsters that make D&D what D&D is (because having a variety of monsters is one of the absolute staples of D&D and what makes it fun), all of it is lost in the blaring, blazing light of day. I want to have zombies grab my characters' legs as I'm moving through the bog at night. Then they spring up out of the water as the horror music starts to play, and you can only see their eyeballs popping out of their heads in the pale moonlight. I want that gnoll scene at the toll house to be SO much scarier, which it could be at night, with the gruesome bodies all around . I want phase spiders and ettercaps roaming Bogrot at night pouncing at us from spidery webbed buildings with eerie, spooky music playing or off of rooftops. I want caves in the Underdark and where they should be without beaming rays of sunlight pouring down. Day/Night could be done so easily. Forget realtime clocks and so forth. Just implement a single button that switches it from Day to Night. Then, you want night to day, you Long Rest. Boom. Done. Yes, I'm aware intense coding is involved, but it would make this game a thousand times more fun.

This has gone on long enough, so I won't go into any of the other items I'm thinking of. The point is, Larian... Please, please please just hear me and think about this. If you get nothing else from this post, please at least get this. If you want this game to truly smell and taste like BG1 and 2 at all, and D&D at all, and not just look kinda like a D&D 5e Baldur's Gate sequel, but you want it to actually BE a Baldur's Gate sequel, then please consider implementing more of these things from the first games that would make it FEEL more like a D&D 5e Baldur's Gate sequel.
Posted By: Try2Handing Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 07:04 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If you want this game to truly smell and taste like BG1 and 2 at all, and D&D at all [...]
That's the thing, isn't it? It's arguable that it's of higher priority to Larian to make something truly their own, rather than make something that "smells and tastes like BG1 & 2". It's clear to me it was never their intention to make something like that in the first place. Plenty of people don't care much for the original games, and even dislike them, as clearly expressed by some on these very forums. Hell, some have even said that this BG3 atm is precisely how a BG game should be. So what incentive would Larian have to make a game more "similar" to the originals? Why exactly should they change their design direction now? From where I see it, it's more a problem of "not wanting to do it", rather than "not knowing how to do it". From a business standpoint, it really is more beneficial to them to try to cater to as many different groups of audience as possible, rather than aiming specifically for the BG fans. This game is their big step that truly takes them as a studio to an entirely new level. I don't see why they would want to turn around and try to please the BG fans now.

That aside, it's not just D&D rules and creature stats. There's the writing and overall atmosphere, for which Larian also has their own things.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 08:08 AM
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If you want this game to truly smell and taste like BG1 and 2 at all, and D&D at all [...]
That's the thing, isn't it? It's arguable that it's of higher priority to Larian to make something truly their own, rather than make something that "smells and tastes like BG1 & 2". It's clear to me it was never their intention to make something like that in the first place. Plenty of people don't care much for the original games, and even dislike them, as clearly expressed by some on these very forums. Hell, some have even said that this BG3 atm is precisely how a BG game should be. So what incentive would Larian have to make a game more "similar" to the originals? Why exactly should they change their design direction now? From where I see it, it's more a problem of "not wanting to do it", rather than "not knowing how to do it". From a business standpoint, it really is more beneficial to them to try to cater to as many different groups of audience as possible, rather than aiming specifically for the BG fans. This game is their big step that truly takes them as a studio to an entirely new level. I don't see why they would want to turn around and try to please the BG fans now.

That aside, it's not just D&D rules and creature stats. There's the writing and overall atmosphere, for which Larian also has their own things.


There is actually an article where Swen states that BG3 is a game that will be based on D&D 5e. They are not trying to make a strict DnD game because they want to make a game that is for everyone and they want to stick to their roots (DOS?). He also said they may not use al the rules of DnD because some of them may not translate well into a video game. He also said he is focusing on making first and foremost a video game not a tabletop.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 08:31 AM
Yeah yeah. So it'll look like hamburger, but taste like cake. So, the end result is that you either need to like cake that looks like hamburger and get used to it, or just go away.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 08:51 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Yeah yeah. So it'll look like hamburger, but taste like cake. So, the end result is that you either need to like cake that looks like hamburger and get used to it, or just go away.

Well, if you want a strictly hamburger and don’t want to taste anything else. Then you have no choice then to stick with the hamburger that exists since the chef has made it clear they are making something based on a hamburger but not necessarily a hamburger.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 10:41 AM
It’s foolish to hope that now Larian will pivot toward making “a Baldur’s Gate” game. It’s fine. BG1&2 exist still. In a couple of years wide public with catch up with Larian’s shortcomings, just as they finally seem to catch up with Bethesda. And maybe if BG3 is successful we will get somewhere down the line New Vegas equivalent for BG, by someone who understands and wants to make that game.

As it’s own thing, BG3 shows a bit of promise, as long as Larian stops unnecessarily messing thing up. When I heard rumours that Larian will be making BG3, I immediately understood that it will be D:OS2 with DND - and that sounded alright. D:OS2 had good presentation and good engine, but poor systems. While I don’t love DnD, it is a more mature, and more sophisticated ruleset. Alas, so far BG3 is still worse then D:OS2. Larian home brew additions don’t even have the little depth that D:OS1&2 had, while overriding and undermining core DND ruleset. It’s frustrating to say the least.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
get used to it, or just go away.
Isnt it like this with litteraly every game? wink
Posted By: dza101 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 11:06 AM
The thing is neither bg1 or bg2 werea faithful adaptation of the d&d rules either. More faithful adaptation of the current rules will not make it closer to the original games. That is a completely separate thing.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 11:55 AM
I like that there are some adaptations to the 5e rules, such as being able to drink a healing potion as a bonus action.

I also like that there are no random encounters. Having lots of trash mobs slows down the pacing for me.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 01:12 PM
Originally Posted by dza101
The thing is neither bg1 or bg2 werea faithful adaptation of the d&d rules either. More faithful adaptation of the current rules will not make it closer to the original games. That is a completely separate thing.

The point I was trying to make with more faithful stats, etc. Is that monsters do not act like they should and don't even use their signature abilities.

Besides this, the more you veer away from the Core stats and mechanics, the less like D&D it feels.

Take Neverwinter Online. I've played a lot of that too. Fun game. Totally not a D&D game. Nothing like D&D except setting and kinda sorta story. But it is so video gamey, it can hardly be classified as even in the same category as Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. It's labeled a Neverwinter game, but it doesn't feel at all like the original. I'd say it feels more like Final Fantasy 14 online or Skyrim online.

That's what I'm saying with BG3. The more they deviate from D&D 5e core rules and especially the stats, the less it feels like a genuine D&D Baldur's Gate game.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 02:07 PM
This original?
Posted By: Imora DalSyn Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 02:19 PM
I guess people expect every game in a franchise to be exactly the same.

It doesn't work like that anymore.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 04:06 PM
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
...it really is more beneficial to them to try to cater to as many different groups of audience as possible, rather than aiming specifically for the BG fans. This game is their big step that truly takes them as a studio to an entirely new level. I don't see why they would want to turn around and try to please the BG fans now.

That aside, it's not just D&D rules and creature stats. There's the writing and overall atmosphere, for which Larian also has their own things.

I personally wouldn't call half heartily pressing DnD's class system and action economy into DoS design concept as taking a big step. On the contrary, that show me they are a one trick pony. Taking a big step would have been trying to make a game that doesn't immediately gets me thinking of DoS 1/2.
Sure, the engine and art style they're using is a part of it but that's understandable and that is not all to blame. When I played a year ago, it hit me directly; oh, environmental tactics and surfaces, typical Larian, they even changed the cantrips to make them similar to the 1st lvl spells you get in DoS 2. And they really want those burning patches to hurt not adding saves to them.

Then, after feedback, they tuned that down and I felt; ok, now we're getting somewhere. There are still major issues like for example that they blatantly dislike the class system wanting to give class specific features to everyone because "in DoS the player can be whatever he wants", but they at least took a step in the right direction. And then, a month ago, they did it again, changed a spell to create surfaces though it shouldn't. Chromatic orb did have a similar effect in 4e but BG3 is (supposed to be) 5e.
They have the knowledge and experience to make environmental tactics and surfaces, when created by the players, visually stunning. But it isn't needed to be forced upon us. Instead of having a barrels of oil standing in the middle of a room, seeing a small bottle of oil or an oil lamp standing next to an enemy is enough. The opponent can think; "ha, you missed!" then...*seeing the wizard starting to conjure flames in his hand*..."oh shit". We don't need a spell creating an electrified puddle of water included with its damage, we already have "Create Water" if we want a conducting element to make our lightning based spell hit several opponents.

There is no reason for it. Like you said, they do have other ways to give a lasting, personal imprint on the game. The writing (I love Larians tendency for comical relief, especially their snarky animals) and the art style. Not following the source material when it comes to stats and rules isn't "not aiming for the BG fans". It's disrespecting DnD fans. In a DnD game.

Also, it's never more beneficial trying to cater the larger mass. Instead of getting a sharp product that is really liked by one group, you get a bland product that is, accepted at most, by many. Which is also clearly expressed on the forums.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
It’s foolish to hope that now Larian will pivot toward making “a Baldur’s Gate” game. It’s fine. BG1&2 exist still. In a couple of years wide public with catch up with Larian’s shortcomings, just as they finally seem to catch up with Bethesda. And maybe if BG3 is successful we will get somewhere down the line New Vegas equivalent for BG, by someone who understands and wants to make that game.

As it’s own thing, BG3 shows a bit of promise, as long as Larian stops unnecessarily messing thing up. When I heard rumours that Larian will be making BG3, I immediately understood that it will be D:OS2 with DND - and that sounded alright. D:OS2 had good presentation and good engine, but poor systems. While I don’t love DnD, it is a more mature, and more sophisticated ruleset. Alas, so far BG3 is still worse then D:OS2. Larian home brew additions don’t even have the little depth that D:OS1&2 had, while overriding and undermining core DND ruleset. It’s frustrating to say the least.

This. I feel as if Larian has too many irons in the fire. Get the basics right (5e), then work on improving and adapting for a videogame. I find it really weird that they keep feeding us more areas, but a lot of the basics are unclear (reactions, classes, character customisation, etc.). I don't want to have the story spoiled, I want to know if I will enjoy the game's mechanics.

Also, the chain is horrible and should be scrapped ASAP. It's by far the worst part of BG3.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by dukeisaac
I find it really weird that they keep feeding us more areas, but a lot of the basics are unclear (reactions, classes, character customisation, etc.).
Those are not mutually exclusive - people who work on writing, level design etc. Aren't necessarily same people who work on combat design and adaptation do the ruleset. People were craving for new content and Larian decided to deliver it with patch6, which otherwise would be fairly unremarkable (visual upgreats are great, but now quite meat&potatoe).

I am with you, that I am more interested in seeing progress in systems, then experiencing more of unfinished story content. During older panel from Hell Sven said they are working on better reaction system, so I hope that will happen in the future - maybe it requires new UI, maybe will be packaged with new classes.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 04:46 PM
it's a fair point concerning the areas and such. As you, I'm simpy more interested in what the system designers have to offer... that's what will keep my interest in the game.
Posted By: UnknownEvil Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 05:01 PM
My main problem with this "based on 5e" is that it tells me that they used 5e and added their own stuff. While this is ok, you need to stay true to the main way the rules work.

If you change something in a ruleset you may come out with a lot of rubbish and stuff stops working like it was intended too, breaking the ruleset. Shoving/jumping mechanics is a nice example. The way it was implemeted totally destroys the way combat is intended in D&D.
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/11/21 05:11 PM
I agree with 1,2,4 and 5 and have made posts many times especially day/night which is a game breaker for me to know they couldn't be arsed. Party size is dependent on campaign size even in D&D tabletop and I think the game map is cluttered enough at the minute with 4 party members, but of course this is my opinion.

My main issue is the addition of homebrew CORE game mechanics. BG is a D&D franchise and as such reflect that. I know Larian wanted to cut and paste DOS3, tweek a few numbers and hope nobody noticed but BG1&2 fans are where the money is as they are still alive and kicking. Tenny bops don't play games that involve effort, they push X and win, send a tweet then move on to the next exciting adventure.

I have no issue Larian adding their own flavor but the CORE game must mirror the mechanics already in black and white. I don't see how Larian can build a city like Baldurs gate or Waterdeep without a night cycle? They can't as most stuff happens at night. Random encounters when travelling between areas is a dice roll and a random map tile....too much to ask for? For those who want to play the story there are always easy mode and Larian are good at tweeking difficulty as DOS2 did it great.

The addition of "something" that competes with core game mechanics always has a cascade effect in D&D. Advantage and healing for example. Advantage is something gained though tactical positioning (or spell aka resource) of more than one character where instant healing is something class/spell specific. Monsters have their own playstyle mixing the fights up, 50 goblins is a slog but a lich, vampire lord etc. is a totally different fight, RUN AWAY!!! Time stop......boom dead.

D&D mechanics have nearly 50 years of ironing and tweeking I doubt a game adaptation is going to reinvent the wheel here. I will give it to Larian they are listening to the feedback but like I said earier no day/night is a game breaker for me personally and wouldn't of purchased EA if I knew. The game is good, could be better.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 03:12 AM
Regarding the OP, would love points 4 and 5.

The first thing that impressed me in BG2, back in 2000, was the level of immersion and how it felt alive even with outdated graphics. I think it was the core of the experience.

BG3 feels plastic and constricted and that comes from Larian not understanding what made the originals so special.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 10:30 AM
This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho. wink
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho. wink


Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself. He actually said that BG3 is meant to be "first and foremost" a video game in an interview from last year. In a recent interview with Eurogamer, a month ago, Swen even said that they can't do everything in tabletop DnD or they will never finish the game because that would require more people to be hired. In the gaming industry, you have a deadline and things need to be done before then. He also said that they have been given the freedom (most likely from WOTC) as with previous BG games to do what they want with this game.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 01:24 PM
I have an entirely different perspective. I don't care what rule set it is, or how closely tied to it the game stays. I didn't buy BG because it was DnD. I didn't buy BG 2 because it was DnD either. Upon thinking about it, I initially didn't buy BG anyway. At the time I was playing DOOM and Mortal Kombat. My girlfriend brought BG home one day, and after playing it a bit, I barely looked back at either. Although I did, I must admit, play a lot of MK up to the third installment.

But I played BG games, and IWD games because I liked the stories. DnD had nothing to do with my enjoyment of the titles, at least beyond superficially. Then came Neverwinter Nights. I played that game for 5 years, but it had next to nothing to do with DnD, other than it happened to be the setting, loosely. I say "loosely" because I didn't play the campaigns for 5 years, I played the online modules that people were producing. I played on RP servers, I played on high magic worlds, and in the last year or so of that 5 years, I spent time making my own low magic world, created to tell a story that I wanted to tell in the toolset. While I'm not looking for the NWN experience here, I'm not sure we'll get a toolset, considering the MP aspect, that would be great, I am looking to be engaged by whatever the story is going to be, once it's fully fleshed out.

When I read "not BG", I'm not "like yeah". Instead I see "not the Warden" in Dragon Age, and "Mass Effect is Shepard's story". Bhaalspawn is, after all, the only thing that ties BG to BG 2 in so far as story is concerned. It's a rather important bit there, but that story has been written. I didn't see BG 3 and think that they were going to just remaster the previous two games, or try to retcon the old stories out for a new one. There's a lot more to the FR than just that one storyline. So, I'm waiting to see what they do. This was a pre-alpha test of basic stuff, not a finished product. I didn't get my dice out, and get new books, to go sit at someone's house to start a 5e campaign. I saw BG 3, and nostalgia kicked in for games that meant a lot to me when they were new, and got some hype going. I've been in on the ground floor of modules, especially in NWN, where I wrote story lines, drew up some maps, and even wrote some scripts for existing modules, before going on to create my own. So I didn't come in expecting a polished experience. I still don't expect to have the entirety of the story laid out in the Prologue and Act 1 so that I can say "not a BG game". Even with all of that assumed, I'm not sure I could do that w/out also going "not the Bhaalspawn"...
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 01:31 PM
I haven't read a single post from anyone about wanting an exact tabletop ruleset conversion for BG3. Why are people thinking in such extremes? The vast majority of D&D players are open to homebrew if it plays by the spirit of the rules. If only we could discuss the homebrew rationally without dismissing each other outright with extreme opinions like "Larian should do whatever they want" or "don't change anything". And again, I've not read the latter from anyone.

The problem that many are voicing is Larian not understanding the spirit of the rules. They are simply going too far with their homebrew additions. Surfaces are a good concept for a video game but the implementation is over the top. Same with dipping, high ground and backstab before change. Shoving. Good concepts with poor over the top implementation that promote repetitive tactics. Then there is the type of homebrew that gives out Rogues' Cunning Action to everyone for free that just fails to understand the spirit of the class based system (and multiclassing) on a fundamental level, and is completely unnecessary to enjoy the game.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself.

Maybe it's because their initial advertising campaign, and their original comments, on which the game was first advertised and sold, was the statement that they were making baldur's gate 3, which they would be making in the fifth edition ruleset, which they would be translating into the game, and I quote, "As faithfully as possible".

So, many folks who bought into the game on that premise are rightfully annoyed at how completely disingenuous that statement has shown to be. Funnily enough, it's really hard to find the earliest articles and interviews, where these statements and others of a similar nature were first made, nowadays, and their tune has dramatically changed as well. Many folks are annoyed because they used a premise and an advertisement which they never even intended to honour to draw people in and generate sales.... and are in fact on record elsewhere as admitting that what they really want to do is use the branding, legacy and high-profile nature of D&D and the BG series to pimp Their style of games to a new audience... when that's not what was originally advertised, and not what brought many of the folks here to the game in the first place.

We all know this is a video game, and that the rule-set can benefit from many and various changes and adaptations when transitioning to a video game format - both for pacing and for general quality of life... no-one is denying that at all. In many of my own focus threads, I take special care to point out and note rule deviations and adaptations that are actually very good calls and nice improvements or concessions to video game format where adaptation improves the experience. Those aren't the things that people are making threads about, for the most part.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:08 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself.
All you need to do is ask ... i was hoping i get to use this quote ... but i didnt expect opourtunity to come so soon. laugh

Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from last month
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from November 2020
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.

To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.

I think the messaging have been pretty consistent.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:12 PM
Thank you.

I've said before, and I'll say it again. I'm not opposed to homebrew but:

The more homebrew, the more you negate certain base elements of 5e that make different abilities and classes unique and fun. Rogue fast hands is virtually meaningless if everyone can drink a potion as a Bonus action. Cunning Action is pointless if everyone can hide as a Bonus. These are just 2 examples.

The more you deviate from the D&D 5e rules and stats and world of Faerun, the less the game feels like D&D and Baldur's Gate.

I actually like that they have some homebrew goblins, for example. That's fun. Not every goblin has to be a grunt or boss. I'm fine with almost every goblin in the game. What I don't like is the monsters that have virtually no characteristics that make them unique and therefore fun.

So don't tell me something is an intellect devourer and then not give them the ability to devour intellect. If it is an intellect devourer, give it intellect devourer stats. If you're going to make it a newborn intellect devourer which then explains why it doesn't have the proper full-blown stats, then call it an Ustilagor, which is an infant or newborn intellect devourer. Also, give it the appearance of an Ustilagor with stubby legs and so forth.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ustilagor

But I think most are not understanding about what I'm trying to say is that I don't have a problem with some Homebrew monsters and stats and so forth as long as there is a solid foundation of monsters with normal stats and abilities. The problem I have is that virtually no monsters have their proper stats and abilities and there are so many Homebrew rules that negate very basic special abilities four different classes.

So essentially, by creating so much Homebrew they are destroying very basic elements of what makes different races and classes what they should be based on established world-building that is been in existence for over 20 years.

Rogues are probably the biggest victims a Homebrew. So many of their special abilities are being made obsolete because every class can do but only they should be able to do. No. That's not true. Everyone can use Revivify scrolls and other cleric scrolls, everyone can use every wizard scroll, everyone can use every druid scroll, etc. Therefore, no class is unique and special because everybody can do everything.

So does it feel like D & D? No. Why? Because what makes things unique is being stripped from each class, each monster, each item so that nothing is special.

Here's something that I think is an acceptable homebrew. You have partial cover, therefore you get a + 2 to your armor class. Another Homebrew that I think makes sense is the flanking advantage Homebrew. Don't misunderstand. I'm not referring to backstab. I'm referring to if you have more than one person in melee with an enemy, you should get advantage on your dice roll to hit. Why? Because if you have two people trying to attack you at once from two different angles oh, it is incredibly hard to defend against both. That to me is a Homebrew that makes sense especially because it works well with the Rogue sneak attack.

But when you start to make special abilities and characteristics no and void with your Homebrew, you begin to destroy the entire rule system.

Anyway, I'm just trying to clear up the misunderstanding because it always seems like everyone who is opposed to what I have to say seems to take the extreme position like I'm against absolutely all deviations from the rules of DnD 5e
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:17 PM
Rag, you obviously didn't read the first two paragraphs of niara's response did you.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:25 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself.
All you need to do is ask ... i was hoping i get to use this quote ... but i didnt expect opourtunity to come so soon. laugh

Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from last month
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from November 2020
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.

To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.

I think the messaging have been pretty consistent.


You're welcome! grin
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Maybe it's because their initial advertising campaign, and their original comments, on which the game was first advertised and sold, was the statement that they were making baldur's gate 3, which they would be making in the fifth edition ruleset, which they would be translating into the game, and I quote, "As faithfully as possible".

So, many folks who bought into the game on that premise are rightfully annoyed at how completely disingenuous that statement has shown to be. Funnily enough, it's really hard to find the earliest articles and interviews, where these statements and others of a similar nature were first made, nowadays, and their tune has dramatically changed as well. Many folks are annoyed because they used a premise and an advertisement which they never even intended to honour to draw people in and generate sales.... and are in fact on record elsewhere as admitting that what they really want to do is use the branding, legacy and high-profile nature of D&D and the BG series to pimp Their style of games to a new audience... when that's not what was originally advertised, and not what brought many of the folks here to the game in the first place.

We all know this is a video game, and that the rule-set can benefit from many and various changes and adaptations when transitioning to a video game format - both for pacing and for general quality of life... no-one is denying that at all. In many of my own focus threads, I take special care to point out and note rule deviations and adaptations that are actually very good calls and nice improvements or concessions to video game format where adaptation improves the experience. Those aren't the things that people are making threads about, for the most part.

In regards to rules of DnD this is what Swen Said last month to Gameindustry.biz

'You don't want a game to be complicated, you want it to be very natural and very intuitive and so there's a lot of work being done on the background that we haven't shipped yet, where we're trying to say: what is the best and easiest way for a player discovering this rule so that they intuitively take it into account? This early access is clearly obviously a very important platform for us."

"I think when you'll see what we will release compared to where we started, you'll have this feeling of: holy shit, this is very, very accessible, I don't have to think about it, it just makes sense. And that's exactly the experience you have if you play D&D in real life. If you have a good DM, they're not going to bombard you with 300 pages of rules that you need to learn, they're just going to be: hey, you enter a dungeon and there's a door. What do you do?"

"We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time. It's really about us removing the barriers to entry and shoving it in front of people's noses really so that they just give it a go, and then usually it clicks. Because if you go to the reviews of BG3, of DOS 2, one of the things you really often read is: 'I never thought I was going to enjoy this, but here I am, a hundred hours later!'"

Interview with Swen Vincke
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:50 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Thank you.

I've said before, and I'll say it again. I'm not opposed to homebrew but:....

I agree with every word.

I hear alot of exteme arguments suggesting people are being D&D "purists" for want of a better word. Sven said...... Yes he said many things euphemeistically and directly but here is the thing, it is a far cry from adding flavor when you change the the core rules to a point where it simply doesn't resemble D&D anymore especially for certain classes. Adding homebrew is good, hp boost for garbage mobs is good, acid arrows that create 5 meter diameter pools of acid around the target not so much. Tweek stat numbers and personalities all you like but core mechanics NEED to remain constant or the entire class balance system falls apart.

I keep saying this, the CORE needs to be implented FIRST then add and remove homebrew stuff. I mean throwing a healing potion at your ally heals them? Come on man! I can undertand throwing basilisk oil at a petrified person but throwing a bottle of healing juice into the mouth of your mate is ridiculous. Little things like this don't add to the game it makes it stupid. Arrows do a bit of extra element damage you dont fire a bathtub of acid on the end on an arrow. A barrel of booze will weigh hundreds of Kgs so rolling it down steps is realisitc where putting one (or 3) in your backpack is bonkers.

The little things make a big difference.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Rag, you obviously didn't read the first two paragraphs of niara's response did you.
Oh yes i did ...
But it all seemed to me like: "i believe i have seen it somewhere really long time ago and i cant find it anymore" ...
While Composer gives us specific quotes even with link to source ...

It just dont seems to hard to decide wich one to believe. :-/
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 03:08 PM
The truth is somewhere in the middle, like what Niara wrote which many kind of skims across or share seats in the boat I'm in. "As faithfully as possible" - Most people just read 'faithful' and expect a near 100% adaption or in the upper ceiling toward 100%. Some few take it as far as any deviation is a war crime and make false claims (such as the source of that quote of mine where someone insisted as such). Then there's me, and I'd assume the notion that Niara refers to, that would prefer a more faithful adaption in terms of less changes to simple things like shove/hide being a bonus action instead of an action which has a ripple-effect into other aspects such as Rogue losing a lot of its class niche. That's where I often butt in to disagree with some people, not because of what they say, but how they say it. I think most people want the same thing in the end of the day.

It was never said to be a 100% faithful adaption, just somewhere between as faithful as possible to based on but with creative liberty for fitting a video game. I have my own criticisms of Swen's wording sometimes and warned how it'd be received multiple times in the long distant past (and my ego admittedly feels boosted of predicting it so accurately). But it's also our responsibility as gamers to apply some good faith and attention to detail in the information we read as well, and interpret its meaning rather than literal face value.

Most feedback that I've seen and forwarded tend to fall into the category of "I understand it's unreasonable to have a 100% adaption into a video game, but this criticism X and complaint Y are things I think deviates away from PHB more than is necessary" kind of format. And that's perfectly fine and good. At least that's how I choose to view most threads, focusing on the meaning underneath rather than the angry words or emotions that often distorts the underlined intent. My only hope / interest is to make sure those doesn't turn into keyboard-warrior fistfights. Because again, we all just want a fun game in the end of the day I think.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 03:09 PM
All those Swen Vincke quotes prove that Larian are doing much more than changing what needs to be changed for a video game. They have a different vision of D&D, or a very narrow vision on "what works" in a video game i.e. surfaces, pushing and jumping and puzzles to the extreme where they override the actual ruleset being used.

Rogue abilities are a VERY good example of something that has nothing to do with the platform. They just gave the Rogue abilities to everyone because someone over there likes to do Rogue stuff on all characters without multiclassing a few levels into Rogue. Or some misguided notion that every character needs to be able to do a Bonus Action every turn. They don't. The system wasn't designed that way and stubbornly fighting it isn't going to work. Turn based combat does not get better if you have more actions per turn, especially if they are repetitive or overpowered like Stealth (or Shove). Sharing the Rogue class abilities has nothing to do with being a video game but everything to do with class identity and balance.

Solasta on the other hand proves that 5e RAW combat is very enjoyable and tactical in a video game. It does not need superhero jumps for everyone, or exaggerated shoving, or a million surfaces everywhere or goblins firing knockback arrows. These are things that Larian have ADDED because they seem to have an uncontrollable obsession about that stuff. Those additions actually make the game LESS tactical because you're always better off doing the Larian things than doing the D&D things. Solasta feels more like D&D, and it also feels like a better combat system overall after the sneak, shove and bomb fest that is BG3.

Larian aren't augmenting D&D for a video game platform. They're assimilating it into their own narrow mindset that is very different from the D&D CRPG's we have known and played in the past. And BG3 is a worse game for it.

If they choose to tone the homebrew down a notch, it could be great. Augment D&D, not replace it.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 03:12 PM
I love how I beat you to it with an exact example, 1varangian :'D Rest my case! ♥
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 04:13 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
All those Swen Vincke quotes prove that Larian are doing much more than changing what needs to be changed for a video game. They have a different vision of D&D, or a very narrow vision on "what works" in a video game i.e. surfaces, pushing and jumping and puzzles to the extreme where they override the actual ruleset being used.

Rogue abilities are a VERY good example of something that has nothing to do with the platform. They just gave the Rogue abilities to everyone because someone over there likes to do Rogue stuff on all characters without multiclassing a few levels into Rogue. Or some misguided notion that every character needs to be able to do a Bonus Action every turn. They don't. The system wasn't designed that way and stubbornly fighting it isn't going to work. Turn based combat does not get better if you have more actions per turn, especially if they are repetitive or overpowered like Stealth (or Shove). Sharing the Rogue class abilities has nothing to do with being a video game but everything to do with class identity and balance.

Solasta on the other hand proves that 5e RAW combat is very enjoyable and tactical in a video game. It does not need superhero jumps for everyone, or exaggerated shoving, or a million surfaces everywhere or goblins firing knockback arrows. These are things that Larian have ADDED because they seem to have an uncontrollable obsession about that stuff. Those additions actually make the game LESS tactical because you're always better off doing the Larian things than doing the D&D things. Solasta feels more like D&D, and it also feels like a better combat system overall after the sneak, shove and bomb fest that is BG3.

Larian aren't augmenting D&D for a video game platform. They're assimilating it into their own narrow mindset that is very different from the D&D CRPG's we have known and played in the past. And BG3 is a worse game for it.

If they choose to tone the homebrew down a notch, it could be great. Augment D&D, not replace it.

Whether the fight in Solasta is better is just a matter of opinion.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Rag, you obviously didn't read the first two paragraphs of niara's response did you.
Oh yes i did ...
But it all seemed to me like: "i believe i have seen it somewhere really long time ago and i cant find it anymore" ...
While Composer gives us specific quotes even with link to source ...

It just dont seems to hard to decide wich one to believe. :-/

Ok. Fine smile

How about the fact that Larian keep using DnD 5e as a marketing tool?

"AN EXPANSIVE, CINEMATIC RPG WITH UNPARALLELED DEPTH AND PLAYER FREEDOM
Baldur’s Gate 3 is an expansive, cinematic, player-driven RPG based on 5e D&D. It features a rich character creation system where players can create an avatar based on many different D&D races, select their cantrips, skills & abilities, and enter a world where their actions truly define the story.

Baldur’s Gate 3 expands on Larian’s award-winning narrative gameplay both through the advent of cinematic storytelling, and with dice-rolls for key decisions throughout the game, in and out of combat. Dialogue options often have multiple responses, and some responses may require a dice roll to succeed, defined by both luck as well as the attributes of the player character, or circumstances of the situation.

No one play-through will be like another player’s, with a massively branching narrative and meaningful reactions to player actions, and happenings. It features a fluid, high-stakes turn-based combat system incorporating the rules of 5e D&D."

"incorporating" not inspired by or influenced by


"EVOLVED TURN-BASED COMBAT BASED ON 5E D&D
Play through levels 1-4 as the tabletop rules come to life in the videogame
Switch to turn-based mode at anytime to solve puzzles or sneak up on characters
Manipulate light and darkness with our dynamic shadow system for non-binary style stealth action
The next generation of turn-based combat featuring hundreds of D&D spells and actions
Unlimited freedom to explore and experiment"

Hmm, tabletop rules....

Both excerpts above is taken from Larians own homepage. https://press.baldursgate3.game/

There is no doubt that Larian has and still does use DnD 5e for marketing purposes. It's no coincidence that their announcement of BG3 was together with WoTC, the creator of DnD. It was to give their game legitimacy. Not as a good rpg game, larian is already known for that, but for a good DnD game.

And let's have a look on the second quote that The composer gave us

"BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions."

What worked and didn't work - because it is a videogame. Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?

Now. What Niara wrote isn't false, and The Composer did summarize the subject perfectly.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
How about the fact that Larian keep using DnD 5e as a marketing tool?

"AN EXPANSIVE, CINEMATIC RPG WITH UNPARALLELED DEPTH AND PLAYER FREEDOM
Baldur’s Gate 3 is an expansive, cinematic, player-driven RPG based on 5e D&D. It features a rich character creation system where players can create an avatar based on many different D&D races, select their cantrips, skills & abilities, and enter a world where their actions truly define the story.

Baldur’s Gate 3 expands on Larian’s award-winning narrative gameplay both through the advent of cinematic storytelling, and with dice-rolls for key decisions throughout the game, in and out of combat. Dialogue options often have multiple responses, and some responses may require a dice roll to succeed, defined by both luck as well as the attributes of the player character, or circumstances of the situation.

No one play-through will be like another player’s, with a massively branching narrative and meaningful reactions to player actions, and happenings. It features a fluid, high-stakes turn-based combat system incorporating the rules of 5e D&D."

"incorporating" not inspired by or influenced by

The game itself is BASED on DnD. The 5e that is being incorporated is for combat.

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
There is no doubt that Larian has and still does use DnD 5e for marketing purposes. It's no coincidence that their announcement of BG3 was together with WoTC, the creator of DnD. It was to give their game legitimacy. Not as a good rpg game, larian is already known for that, but for a good DnD game.

And let's have a look on the second quote that The composer gave us

"BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions."

What worked and didn't work - because it is a videogame. Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?

Larian did say that there may be some rules that they will not incorporated into the game because it doesn't translate well into a video game, so you may not see it. Swen has always said multiple times that Larian is the DM of this game and they are making this game for everyone. They also don't want to make it complicated for players that may have never played a DnD game. They want to make the game accessible and not seem complicated.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 06:00 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
How about the fact that Larian keep using DnD 5e as a marketing tool?
Why wouldnt they?
I mean this game IS based on DnD 5e ... its not their fault that some people wished for something else. :-/

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
"incorporating" not inspired by or influenced by
Indeed ... and also not "litteral transcription" ... what is your point?
We could find dozens of synonims they didnt use. laugh

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
There is no doubt that Larian has and still does use DnD 5e for marketing purposes.
And since their game is based on DnD 5e its perfectly fine ... again, what is your point here? O_o

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
It's no coincidence that their announcement of BG3 was together with WoTC, the creator of DnD.
And owner of Baldur's Gate trademark. laugh

It indeed is no coincidence, but i would say you presume too much. wink

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?
Question here is: Does it matter?

I mean Swen obivously leads this project ... if it would be movie, Swen would be director ... his job is to mediate(?) his vision for us ... and purpose of EA is to find out how much that vision is close to our expectations, possibly even bend it a little somewhere, so our goals get closer together ...

But he still sells his vision, his product, there is his name on it. :-/
And in the end he (probably not litteraly, i presume he have people for that) will decide wich of our suggestion goes good with his vision, and wich are completely off.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?
Question here is: Does it matter?

I mean Swen obivously leads this project ... if it would be movie, Swen would be director ... his job is to mediate(?) his vision for us ... and purpose of EA is to find out how much that vision is close to our expectations, possibly even bend it a little somewhere, so our goals get closer together ...

But he still sells his vision, his product, there is his name on it. :-/
And in the end he (probably not litteraly, i presume he have people for that) will decide wich of our suggestion goes good with his vision, and wich are completely off.

Yes it matter. Very much. It matters because we have laws against false advertising. It matters because we have 3 year long university programs with focus on media management. It matters because Larian isn't some indie studio with three people that never has spoken with a journalist before. They are an international multimillion company fully aware that everything they do, everything they say in regard to an ongoing project, is marketing. Not just what a single spokesperson say but everything. They are fully aware that using the BG trademark and keeping mentioning DnD 5e would attract fans of the franchise. Just as you use those quotes from Sven to justify homebrewing you like, I can use the rest of their marketing to justify why I don't feel it right.

This thread was about GM4him requesting for them to consider sticking closer to some things he liked with the previous BG games. He didn't ask for a
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
litteral transcript of tabletop rules
. Instead this thread turned into whether or not Larian has used deceitful tactics in their marketing. I claim they have, you claim they haven't. That's where we stand on that subject. Now, maybe time to get focus back on OP's suggestions?
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 07:20 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?
Question here is: Does it matter?

I mean Swen obivously leads this project ... if it would be movie, Swen would be director ... his job is to mediate(?) his vision for us ... and purpose of EA is to find out how much that vision is close to our expectations, possibly even bend it a little somewhere, so our goals get closer together ...

But he still sells his vision, his product, there is his name on it. :-/
And in the end he (probably not litteraly, i presume he have people for that) will decide wich of our suggestion goes good with his vision, and wich are completely off.

Yes it matter. Very much. It matters because we have laws against false advertising. It matters because we have 3 year long university programs with focus on media management. It matters because Larian isn't some indie studio with three people that never has spoken with a journalist before. They are an international multimillion company fully aware that everything they do, everything they say in regard to an ongoing project, is marketing. Not just what a single spokesperson say but everything. They are fully aware that using the BG trademark and keeping mentioning DnD 5e would attract fans of the franchise. Just as you use those quotes from Sven to justify homebrewing you like, I can use the rest of their marketing to justify why I don't feel it right.

This thread was about GM4him requesting for them to consider sticking closer to some things he liked with the previous BG games. He didn't ask for a
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
litteral transcript of tabletop rules
. Instead this thread turned into whether or not Larian has used deceitful tactics in their marketing. I claim they have, you claim they haven't. That's where we stand on that subject. Now, maybe time to get focus back on OP's suggestions?

Let me but in here, you are seriously misinterpreting what Larian has said or what they have marketed. They have not falsely advertised anything, so there are no legal implications. They used the term "BASED ON", that term does not mean a literal translation. "Based on" means that they are using what they know from DnD 5e as a foundation for their game. When you mentioned the word "incorporating", they were talking about the 5e rules of combat not the whole game itself. They use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. They mention DnD 5e because they have incorporated 5e rules, maybe not every single one that you would like but they have implemented some.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
It matters because we have laws against false advertising.
Lead designer dont like how things looks in game ... or lead designer dont like how things works in game ...
Therefore lead designer stated that things didnt translate well into this game. (your words not mine)

How is that "false advertising" ?

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
It matters because we have 3 year long university programs with focus on media management.
Lead designer dont like how things looks in game ... or lead designer dont like how things works in game ...
Therefore lead designer stated that things didnt translate well into this game. (your words not mine)

How is that anyhow tied to meda management?

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
It matters because Larian isn't some indie studio with three people that never has spoken with a journalist before.
Why is size of studio anyhow relevant to that Swen (in your example) stated that game dont translate well, bcs he either didnt like what se see, or didnt like what he play? O_o

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
They are fully aware that using the BG trademark and keeping mentioning DnD 5e would attract fans of the franchise.
And they are fully aware that using the BG trademarks and keeping mentioning DnD 5e on wich their systems are BASED, wich is exactly what they are advertising ... is totally okey, and fact that some people will ignore half of sentence to see only "DnD 5e" and "Baldur's Gate" cannot be avoided no matter how often Swen repeats that this game is not, will not be and never was ment to be litteral transcription of tabletop rules ... bcs those people will ignore the rest anyway.
I really wonder why tho.

Do you believe that if there will be enough people expecting something else, Larian will scap all their curent work and recreate everything to fit your expectation?

Or do you just WANT TO BE MAD at somethig and this is easy target? O_o

Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Just as you use those quotes from Sven to justify homebrewing you like, I can use the rest of their marketing to justify why I don't feel it right.
I dont understand this sentence ...
But if you wish to use their marketing to anyting, you have to use it whole, not just those parts of sentences that suits you ... then you could simply make out those quotes and claim they are real, since their value would be the same.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 08:27 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Let me but in here, you are seriously misinterpreting what Larian has said or what they have marketed. They have not falsely advertised anything, so there are no legal implications. They used the term "BASED ON", that term does not mean a literal translation. "Based on" means that they are using what they know from DnD 5e as a foundation for their game. When you mentioned the word "incorporating", they were talking about the 5e rules of combat not the whole game itself. They use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. They mention DnD 5e because they have incorporated 5e rules, maybe not every single one that you would like but they have implemented some.

Ofc they haven't broken any laws, they have lawyers and pr managers making sure of that. But you can still give the impression of doing something while also following the law. And that can still be considered deceitful. Larians staff is not naive, they know exactly what they can do. And neither I or GM4him has asked for a literal translation (I really can't see why that always comes up?!) We simply, based on the impression that they want to create a DnD 5e game, ask that they follow the rules more closely. That is all. Because several of their homebrew rules isn't there because its impossible to be transitioned otherwise into the game, but because Larian decided they didn't see it as fun. And we disagree with them on that. That, is our feedback.

And this was your first response to OT:

Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Well, if you want a strictly hamburger and don’t want to taste anything else. Then you have no choice then to stick with the hamburger that exists since the chef has made it clear they are making something based on a hamburger but not necessarily a hamburger.

Isn't that the exact kind of response you dislike in your thread about food?

And no, they do not use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. It's the other way around. They could have easily kept their whole story and named it something else. Or they could had made an entirely different story. But they didn't want to simply do what Tactical Adventures did, they coveted the BG trademark and the revenue that name would bring by itself. WoTC didn't ask Larian to do this game. Larian asked WoTC, several times, for permission to use the trademark and had to come up with a good pitch for that to happen.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 08:32 PM
1. Close adherence to stats - in general - seems like a good idea. In earlier versions enemies had higher HP, but lower armor. I don't know if any of that was reversed, but it probably should be because it affects the balance between things which use attack rolls and things which use saving throws. HOWEVER, I don't think it would be a good idea to put in Intellect Devourers unchanged with no way for the low-level players to avoid being rendered catatonic by "Devour Intellect", so that's a warning flag to me that you may be prioritizing purism a little too much.

2. Not everyone is going to agree on what the best way to translate the 5e rules for this adaptation. For example, I don't agree at all with your assertion that potions shouldn't be a bonus action. This is because you take a lot more damage than what potions are good for. If you're hurt by an enemy, take a full action to use a potion, then get hurt by the same attack again, you're going to end up worse off than ever. That makes using a full action to take a potion useless most of the time.

3. Larian isn't likely to budge on this, but I would like a party size of at least 5 for more flexibility.

4. Random Encounters.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
We simply ... ask that they follow the rules more closely. That is all. Because several of their homebrew rules isn't there because its impossible to be transitioned otherwise into the game, but because Larian decided they didn't see it as fun [or balanced]. And we disagree with them on that. That, is our feedback.
+1

Obviously there are 5e things that people don't find fun (e.g., the Ranger class). But even then it's still valid to analyze whether Larian's replacement mechanic is better or worse than the 5e rule. Larian is the DM and is technically allowed to make any changes they want, but if they make bad changes then we should and will call them out on that.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
No one play-through will be like another player’s, with a massively branching narrative and meaningful reactions to player actions, and happenings. It features a fluid, high-stakes turn-based combat system incorporating the rules of 5e D&D."
I might dislike many changes Larian make, but you can't accuse them of false marketing. Nowhere did they claim they will adapt rules 1:1. You can disagree with them on creative basis (aka. if the changes they made are for the better, and if they were needed for BG3 to feel like a good cRPG) but they can't be accountable of what you or anyone else might have imagined in their head, especially that detailed gameplay videos were made public even before EA was on sale. Many things we continue complaining about were raised even before any of us put our hands on the title.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:06 PM
+1
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Ofc they haven't broken any laws, they have lawyers and pr managers making sure of that. But you can still give the impression of doing something while also following the law. And that can still be considered deceitful. Larians staff is not naive, they know exactly what they can do. And neither I or GM4him has asked for a literal translation (I really can't see why that always comes up?!) We simply, based on the impression that they want to create a DnD 5e game, ask that they follow the rules more closely. That is all. Because several of their homebrew rules isn't there because its impossible to be transitioned otherwise into the game, but because Larian decided they didn't see it as fun. And we disagree with them on that. That, is our feedback.

And this was your first response to OT:

Once again, you are seriously misunderstanding and misrepresenting what is being said in regards to what Larian has said and done. As for you or GM4Him asking for a literal translation of DnD, you kinda have with always asking for more 5e and how the game is not DnD enough. Also, Larian never said that their homebrew rules didn't translate into video game, it's the DnD 5e rules that may not translate. You seem to have a habit of misquoting, maybe you are just misunderstanding what is being said. I'm not sure if there is a language barrier and that could be a reason.


Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Well, if you want a strictly hamburger and don’t want to taste anything else. Then you have no choice then to stick with the hamburger that exists since the chef has made it clear they are making something based on a hamburger but not necessarily a hamburger.

Isn't that the exact kind of response you dislike in your thread about food?

No, it's not. That's a food analogy in reference to DnD 5e and DnD homebrew.

{quote=PrivateRaccoon]And no, they do not use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. It's the other way around. They could have easily kept their whole story and named it something else. Or they could had made an entirely different story. But they didn't want to simply do what Tactical Adventures did, they coveted the BG trademark and the revenue that name would bring by itself. WoTC didn't ask Larian to do this game. Larian asked WoTC, several times, for permission to use the trademark and had to come up with a good pitch for that to happen.[/quote]

That literally makes no sense. The reason why they use the title "Baldur's Gate" is because the game is based on Baldur's Gate. No one said anything about WOTC asking Larian to do this but it's obvious WOTC doesn't mind. WOTC wrote a blog about this very same thing. They are allowing creators to make their own canon which is separate from theirs.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
No one play-through will be like another player’s, with a massively branching narrative and meaningful reactions to player actions, and happenings. It features a fluid, high-stakes turn-based combat system incorporating the rules of 5e D&D."
I might dislike many changes Larian make, but you can't accuse them of false marketing. Nowhere did they claim they will adapt rules 1:1. You can disagree with them on creative basis (aka. if the changes they made are for the better, and if they were needed for BG3 to feel like a good cRPG) but they can't be accountable of what you or anyone else might have imagined in their head, especially that detailed gameplay videos were made public even before EA was on sale. Many things we continue complaining about were raised even before any of us put our hands on the title.

+1
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:21 PM
The more you move away from the established rules, the less it actually is the original game.

Bottom line.

Neverwinter Online is D&D set in Faerun. Is it 5e? 100% no. It is an MMORPG, plain and simple. But then, no one cares because they in no way set an expectation that it would be even remotely like tabletop 5e. So, everyone plays it expecting a pure MMO game.

BG 1 and 2 were made as adaptations to tabletop D&D, and BG3 has also been created as an adaptation. So, immediately, it's like the illusion cakes. They said, "I'm making an adaptation of 5e rules.". So, immediately D&D fans and DMs like me especially are thinking, "I know these rules and I'm finally getting a true video game adaptation of D&D turn based 5e. Yes, they said there would be homebrew, but what DM doesn't have some homebrew. I can handle some homebrew."

But the more they deviate from the rules with homebrew after homebrew, suddenly, I as a DM begin to think, "Am I really even playing D&D anymore? It feels more like some other game here. Where is the Rogue Expertise? Why don't imps use poison stingers? Why don't intellect devourers devour intellect? Why do phase spiders have ultra overpowered Misty Step and spit poison? Why don't we use Hit Dice during short rests?" Over and over again, I'm wondering WHY they made their homebrew and therefore killed a bunch of other rules and characteristics which then required more homebrew which then killed more rules until now I'm not even sure if I'm playing even a D&D game.

It's a fun game. I love it. It's just not what I originally wanted based on what was advertised, an actual adaptation of D&D. It's more like Neverwinter online in the end. It is set in Faerun, but gameplay-wise, it is getting further and further from true D&D.

It smells like cake and tastes like cake, but it looks like hamburger. At the end of the day, it's cake, not hamburger.

Just to be clear, hamburger = D&D 5e.
Cake = Whatever BG3 actually is.

I like cake, but it's NOT hamburger, even if it was packaged like hamburger.
Posted By: JandK Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:34 PM
Something that bothers me, and I think this is on topic, is when people pressure Larian to change things that are fun.

For instance, the barrels. I've seen a lot of comments about how the barrels are overpowered and should be removed from the game and so on. I completely disagree with that.

Personally, I never use barrels. I don't need to use them to get through the encounters. But I like having them there in case I ever just want to have fun and start blowing them up. Sometimes that's fun, and it's nice to have them around as an option.

*

It's like the new weapon features, things like Pommel Strike and Lacerate. I like that stuff. It makes the weapon choice a little more interesting and brings more options into the moment. Someone might argue that it weakens the two weapon fighter because someone with a great sword can now have a bonus attack, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I mean, it's limited to once per short rest, I think, whereas the two weapon fighter keeps going with the bonus attack.

At any rate, regardless, it's just fun. It's extra options. Now I consider these things when I decide which weapon I want to wield.

*

That said, I do think it was an improvement to change the height from advantage to a plus two.
Posted By: Imora DalSyn Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:53 PM
Look, rage aside, they're not going to change it drastically this far into development.

I'd quit fussing over it, imo.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The more you move away from the established rules, the less it actually is the original game.

Bottom line.

Neverwinter Online is D&D set in Faerun. Is it 5e? 100% no. It is an MMORPG, plain and simple. But then, no one cares because they in no way set an expectation that it would be even remotely like tabletop 5e. So, everyone plays it expecting a pure MMO game.

BG 1 and 2 were made as adaptations to tabletop D&D, and BG3 has also been created as an adaptation. So, immediately, it's like the illusion cakes. They said, "I'm making an adaptation of 5e rules.". So, immediately D&D fans and DMs like me especially are thinking, "I know these rules and I'm finally getting a true video game adaptation of D&D turn based 5e. Yes, they said there would be homebrew, but what DM doesn't have some homebrew. I can handle some homebrew."

But the more they deviate from the rules with homebrew after homebrew, suddenly, I as a DM begin to think, "Am I really even playing D&D anymore? It feels more like some other game here. Where is the Rogue Expertise? Why don't imps use poison stingers? Why don't intellect devourers devour intellect? Why do phase spiders have ultra overpowered Misty Step and spit poison? Why don't we use Hit Dice during short rests?" Over and over again, I'm wondering WHY they made their homebrew and therefore killed a bunch of other rules and characteristics which then required more homebrew which then killed more rules until now I'm not even sure if I'm playing even a D&D game.

It's a fun game. I love it. It's just not what I originally wanted based on what was advertised, an actual adaptation of D&D. It's more like Neverwinter online in the end. It is set in Faerun, but gameplay-wise, it is getting further and further from true D&D.

It smells like cake and tastes like cake, but it looks like hamburger. At the end of the day, it's cake, not hamburger.

Just to be clear, hamburger = D&D 5e.
Cake = Whatever BG3 actually is.

I like cake, but it's NOT hamburger, even if it was packaged like hamburger.

Adaptation in works of art does not mean carbon copies, many adaptations are only in part. Here is how they define adaptation in film.

"An adaptation is new story, or a retelling of an old story in a new media form, that is based on an already existing work."
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by Imora DalSyn
Look, rage aside, they're not going to change it drastically this far into development.

I'd quit fussing over it, imo.

This is the best response. +1
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Ofc they haven't broken any laws, they have lawyers and pr managers making sure of that. But you can still give the impression of doing something while also following the law. And that can still be considered deceitful. Larians staff is not naive, they know exactly what they can do. And neither I or GM4him has asked for a literal translation (I really can't see why that always comes up?!) We simply, based on the impression that they want to create a DnD 5e game, ask that they follow the rules more closely. That is all. Because several of their homebrew rules isn't there because its impossible to be transitioned otherwise into the game, but because Larian decided they didn't see it as fun. And we disagree with them on that. That, is our feedback.

And this was your first response to OT:

Once again, you are seriously misunderstanding and misrepresenting what is being said in regards to what Larian has said and done. As for you or GM4Him asking for a literal translation of DnD, you kinda have with always asking for more 5e and how the game is not DnD enough. Also, Larian never said that their homebrew rules didn't translate into video game, it's the DnD 5e rules that may not translate. You seem to have a habit of misquoting, maybe you are just misunderstanding what is being said. I'm not sure if there is a language barrier and that could be a reason.


Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Well, if you want a strictly hamburger and don’t want to taste anything else. Then you have no choice then to stick with the hamburger that exists since the chef has made it clear they are making something based on a hamburger but not necessarily a hamburger.

Isn't that the exact kind of response you dislike in your thread about food?

No, it's not. That's a food analogy in reference to DnD 5e and DnD homebrew.

{quote=PrivateRaccoon]And no, they do not use the BG trademark because the story revolves around Baldur's Gate. It's the other way around. They could have easily kept their whole story and named it something else. Or they could had made an entirely different story. But they didn't want to simply do what Tactical Adventures did, they coveted the BG trademark and the revenue that name would bring by itself. WoTC didn't ask Larian to do this game. Larian asked WoTC, several times, for permission to use the trademark and had to come up with a good pitch for that to happen.

That literally makes no sense. The reason why they use the title "Baldur's Gate" is because the game is based on Baldur's Gate. No one said anything about WOTC asking Larian to do this but it's obvious WOTC doesn't mind. WOTC wrote a blog about this very same thing. They are allowing creators to make their own canon which is separate from theirs.[/quote]

That food analogy is basically saying, if you don't like what Larian has done, suck it up, because this is their intention with their game. And that can be used against your wish to revert the change with food as well. They changed it because they wanted to change it. It's exactly the same. I may be born in Sweden and therefor not having English as my native tongue but I do take pride in having a very good understanding of it, and so did my teachers, so there is no language barrier.

I also did study media management, marketing, economics and organization theory so when I say that Larian went for the BG title because they know how valuable that trademark is, its not something I picked out of the blue. MILLIONS of players recognize that name. Just adding that title to your game is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free marketing! And marketing is THE number one expensive post in a games budget.
Yes, WoTC do allow creators to make their own canon, but they don't allow just anyone to use their established trademarks. If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story. Whether or not that makes sense to you, well....

And asking for something more, is not dealing with absolutes. The world isn't black or white. I'm not against ALL of Larians homebrewing. But I don't have to like everything they do either. To make another food analogy: Just because I dislike bananas doesn't mean I hate fruit. So no, we don't "kinda" have. That's you misunderstanding our intent. Or should I interpret you asking for some homebrewing you like to exist, meaning that you think DnD rules should get thrown out completely? Because I don't.
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by JandK
Something that bothers me, and I think this is on topic, is when people pressure Larian to change things that are fun.

For instance, the barrels. I've seen a lot of comments about how the barrels are overpowered and should be removed from the game and so on. I completely disagree with that.

Personally, I never use barrels. I don't need to use them to get through the encounters. But I like having them there in case I ever just want to have fun and start blowing them up. Sometimes that's fun, and it's nice to have them around as an option.

*

It's like the new weapon features, things like Pommel Strike and Lacerate. I like that stuff. It makes the weapon choice a little more interesting and brings more options into the moment. Someone might argue that it weakens the two weapon fighter because someone with a great sword can now have a bonus attack, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I mean, it's limited to once per short rest, I think, whereas the two weapon fighter keeps going with the bonus attack.

At any rate, regardless, it's just fun. It's extra options. Now I consider these things when I decide which weapon I want to wield.

*

That said, I do think it was an improvement to change the height from advantage to a plus two.

It wasn't the barrels themselves people had problems with. Lets say a barrel of booze has the same amount of liquid as an oil drum in the real world. That is 170Kg, now put 4 in a backpack and you have half a metric tonne in your bag...... There was the problem. I do enjoy crazy barrel fun. I am going to MOD BG 3 on release like crazy for the fun explodey times for that very reason. It is why games like fallout 4 and skyrim are still fun to this day. But not main game mechanics.

The weapon features do nothing to effect fighter classes as they have mechanics that makes these attacks even better. I really like they added these weapon options. The issue I have is they are once per rest? I mean why? it isn't "a resource" so this makes no sense in D&D. Why would you only be able to swing a greatsword once a certain way per rest? The point is it has to make sense for it to be homebrew D&D. Like wet characters being electrocuted in water. That makes sense so why not? This is a genuine DM choice.

Homebrew still has to be belevable otherwise it is just stupid and lessens the experience. Throwing a barrel over twice the weight of Lae'zel 60ft is something an ogre couldn't do. No casting a spell in a world where magic exists isn't the same as a halfling carrying a metric tonne of barrels in his pack. Howver there are mechanics in D&D that would allow you to do this. A type 4 bag of holding can carry 1500lbs but cost 10k gp but you would still need to be strong enough to get the barrel out.

Another thing is the arrows that contain "a bit" of acid covering 30sq meters on impact. How does that make sense? See the issue? It not that it isn't fun in a game not claiming to be "something like" D&D as these "little changes" are nothing like D&D. Tidal waves of goop fired from a hand crossbow breaks concentration and damages a class mechanic hard enough to maintain without it.

The game is okay it has the potential to be amazing.
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by JandK
Something that bothers me, and I think this is on topic, is when people pressure Larian to change things that are fun.

For instance, the barrels. I've seen a lot of comments about how the barrels are overpowered and should be removed from the game and so on. I completely disagree with that.

Personally, I never use barrels. I don't need to use them to get through the encounters. But I like having them there in case I ever just want to have fun and start blowing them up. Sometimes that's fun, and it's nice to have them around as an option.

*

It's like the new weapon features, things like Pommel Strike and Lacerate. I like that stuff. It makes the weapon choice a little more interesting and brings more options into the moment. Someone might argue that it weakens the two weapon fighter because someone with a great sword can now have a bonus attack, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I mean, it's limited to once per short rest, I think, whereas the two weapon fighter keeps going with the bonus attack.

At any rate, regardless, it's just fun. It's extra options. Now I consider these things when I decide which weapon I want to wield.

*

That said, I do think it was an improvement to change the height from advantage to a plus two.

+1
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Does that tell us that things don't work on a digital platform if Sven personally don't find it fun? Or does it tell us that some things don't translate well mechanically since in table top it can be imagined, in video game it has to be visually presented?
Question here is: Does it matter?

I mean Swen obivously leads this project ... if it would be movie, Swen would be director ... his job is to mediate(?) his vision for us ... and purpose of EA is to find out how much that vision is close to our expectations, possibly even bend it a little somewhere, so our goals get closer together ...

But he still sells his vision, his product, there is his name on it. :-/
And in the end he (probably not litteraly, i presume he have people for that) will decide wich of our suggestion goes good with his vision, and wich are completely off.

Yes it matter. Very much. It matters because we have laws against false advertising. It matters because we have 3 year long university programs with focus on media management. It matters because Larian isn't some indie studio with three people that never has spoken with a journalist before. They are an international multimillion company fully aware that everything they do, everything they say in regard to an ongoing project, is marketing. Not just what a single spokesperson say but everything. They are fully aware that using the BG trademark and keeping mentioning DnD 5e would attract fans of the franchise. Just as you use those quotes from Sven to justify homebrewing you like, I can use the rest of their marketing to justify why I don't feel it right.

This thread was about GM4him requesting for them to consider sticking closer to some things he liked with the previous BG games. He didn't ask for a
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
litteral transcript of tabletop rules
. Instead this thread turned into whether or not Larian has used deceitful tactics in their marketing. I claim they have, you claim they haven't. That's where we stand on that subject. Now, maybe time to get focus back on OP's suggestions?

...and any lawyer playing through the game would tell you that you'd get in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Courts, much like everyone else, hate to have their time wasted. The problem is, courts can levy fines against the people that waste their time.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?

Baldur's Gate 2 was set in Athkatla. The only relation it had to BG 1 was tied to the characters from the first game, and that the main character was a Bhaalspawn. You could completely skip BG 1 to play BG 2, and I'd be willing to bet that more than a few people did just that. If WotC, or Hasbro thought Larian was walking all over their trademarks/IP, you can bet we'd know about it already. So what have you heard from either of them to indicate that they're abusing that trademark, or is this something that you're coming up with to justify your own perceptions of the game? Careful with this, because false copyright claims can land you in legal hot water just as fast as frivolous lawsuits about false advertising.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?

Are you even reading what you are writing? You literally said "If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story." You're making it sound like it has nothing to do with Baldur's Gate. That's where I'm pointing to you that it does. I don't understand what you are trying to get at and you are making a lot of assumptions and false accusations.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:20 PM
The amount of bad-faith takes here is pretty astounding. There is no doubt that Larian advertised the game as a Baldur's Gate game, based on the 5e ruleset.

Asking that the game's mechanics be as close to 5e, in EA, is not unreasonable. Larian adding its homebrew to the game is also reasonable, to the extent that it does not break the core ruleset the game is based on.

Currently, Larian's homebrew is "breaking" the action economy, it is creating too much overlap between the classes and is removing a lot of the tactical choices (by providing significantly better (read OP) options).

In short, the game balance is all over the place. A somewhat straightforward approach would be to align the game with 5e, and then apply homebrew were necessary/fun. What's so hard to understand in that?
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
If they're gonna give permission to a company to use Baldur's Gate, it better be somehow connected to the city or previous chapters in that story.

The game is called Baldur's Gate because it takes place 100 years after Baldur's Gate 2 and the characters in the game have all made it clear that they are going o the city of Baldur's Gate. Have you attention to the story? Where in the world are you getting that it doesn't involve the city of Baldur's Gate or related to the previous installments?

I didn't. Now who has a problem with the language? The discussion, between us two, was never whether or not the game should be called Baldur's Gate. It was why Larian wanted to use the title Baldur's gate 3 in the first place. But since you seem to have missed that point I made earlier it explains why we keep bickering about this like two senile old grandpa's.

Please. You don't strike me as a naïve or dull person. You must understand the concept of trademarks and why they are valuable. Right?

Is the idea that Larian strived to be able to gain advantage by using a well renowned trademark, a concept so foreign, that you disregard the subject every time?

Baldur's Gate 2 was set in Athkatla. The only relation it had to BG 1 was tied to the characters from the first game, and that the main character was a Bhaalspawn. You could completely skip BG 1 to play BG 2, and I'd be willing to bet that more than a few people did just that. If WotC, or Hasbro thought Larian was walking all over their trademarks/IP, you can bet we'd know about it already. So what have you heard from either of them to indicate that they're abusing that trademark, or is this something that you're coming up with to justify your own perceptions of the game? Careful with this, because false copyright claims can land you in legal hot water just as fast as frivolous lawsuits about false advertising.

The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by dukeisaac
The amount of bad-faith takes here is pretty astounding. There is no doubt that Larian advertised the game as a Baldur's Gate game, based on the 5e ruleset.

Asking that the game's mechanics be as close to 5e, in EA, is not unreasonable. Larian adding its homebrew to the game is also reasonable, to the extent that it does not break the core ruleset the game is based on.

Currently, Larian's homebrew is "breaking" the action economy, it is creating too much overlap between the classes and is removing a lot of the tactical choices (by providing significantly better (read OP) options).

In short, the game balance is all over the place. A somewhat straightforward approach would be to align the game with 5e, and then apply homebrew were necessary/fun. What's so hard to understand in that?
Well said. As many others have expressed, I wish this forum had a "like/upvote" feature.

I'll add: obviously Larian chose to use the Baldur's Gate name and D&D 5e system at least partly for the name-recognition to boost sales. They are a company; they need to make money in order to exist and create new games. This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing and denying it does nobody any favors.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:39 PM
I keep getting a lot of responses about how we're so far in development so basically just shut up. I thought the entire point of the suggestion forum is to offer our suggestions of what we think would make the game better. You can tell me that you don't like my suggestions oh, and you can tell me why, and that makes perfect sense to me. But what doesn't make sense to me is when people are out here telling me to stop complaining - which I think is a gross misunderstanding because I'm not complaining, I'm attempting to make suggestions that I think would make the game better - because we're so far into development.

This entire thread is about me suggesting that the game would be better and would feel more like DND 5e and Baldur's Gate if they were more true to the proper stats for monsters with their special abilities that are signature special abilities that make the race what they are, and stop home brewing everything so much that the game no longer feels like we're playing The dungeons & dragons game.

It is about the feel of the game. The Baldur's Gate feel is missing. Why? You may not agree, but I think that the reason is that they are disregarding very basic core elements.

Rogues don't seem like Rogues, mages don't seem like mages, and clerics don't seem like clerics.

Imps don't seem like imps, intellect devourers don't seem like intellect devourers, phase spiders don't seem like phase spiders.

There's no night travel and ambiance. I can't even tell you how much that effects the overall tone and mood of the game. From my earliest D & D memories, dark and spooky forests, graveyards, streets, and mountain pathways with scary ambience music, that was the stuff that sparked the imagination and sent chills down the spines of the players. That's what made things exciting fin fun.

I feel like what we have in this game, it is fun and nice, but we are missing so much more.

Reasonable limitations make a game challenging and rewarding. If a games rules are too loose, it removes the challenge and there is nothing fun to overcome. The more you deviate from the established rules the more you have to deviate from the established rules to fix the rules you deviated from. They have created so much more work for themselves by deviating so much from the established core rules.

Again, I'm not opposed to Homebrew. But Homebrew should be limited to minor rules, not completely overhauling the core rule system.

I also like things like exploding barrels, and special moves that make different weapons unique. To me, those are clever and they make sense. Otherwise, what's the difference between a mace and a hand axe? What's not good is it character picking up a hundred pound barrel and throwing it 50 feet, or a character jumping literally 30 feet and then still moving like another 15, while leaping up in the air like 15 ft. That's broken, and that is what makes the game not as good as it could be.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/11/21 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

Feeling they were deceitful is one thing, claiming that they are is another. Which is why some of us have told you otherwise, because you seem to be claiming that they are and even mentioned the whole legal system against them.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Well said. As many others have expressed, I wish this forum had a "like/upvote" feature.

I'll add: obviously Larian chose to use the Baldur's Gate name and D&D 5e system at least partly for the name-recognition to boost sales. They are a company; they need to make money in order to exist and create new games. This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing and denying it does nobody any favors.

Fully agree about the like/upvote feature... It would filter a lot of the BS in these threads and focus the feedback on actionable stuff Larian can use in development.

To the second point, there's no doubt about it, it's just savvy business acumen. But they need to manage those expectations accordingly.

Or maybe I'm just naive and Larian is more than happy that it took my money after "unconsciously" deceiving me about the product they were selling. If so, shame on me I guess
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:23 AM
Nope. Same here. I'm not about the legal nonsense. I don't care about that. Bottom line is, they made people think this was going to be THE D&D 5e ultimate adaptation. That is totally the expectation that they set. There are too many of us for it to be just me and you.

Especially in the beginning, there were so many more people upset that this game was more like DOS than D&D. SO many more people.

You can't disappoint your fan base like that without consequences.

There likely won't be a BG4 from Larian. I'm still afraid BG3 will never fully happen because of things like that. Hopefully, we'll still get this full game.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:30 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Nope. Same here. I'm not about the legal nonsense. I don't care about that. Bottom line is, they made people think this was going to be THE D&D 5e ultimate adaptation. That is totally the expectation that they set. There are too many of us for it to be just me and you.

Especially in the beginning, there were so many more people upset that this game was more like DOS than D&D. SO many more people.

I think the issue some of us are having is where did Larian specifically say that they are making a true DnD 5e game and not a game based on DnD 5e? I believe that is where the confusing lies because I don't remember Larian saying anything that states they are making a 100% copy of DnD 5e. Larian keep emphasing that the game is "based on" even before the release of EA.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:44 AM
They said, in their initial interviews, before EA even came out, that they were excited to be making Baldur's Gate 3, that they would be making it using the fifth edition of the dungeons and dragons ruleset, which they were going to be implementing as faithfully as possible. Those were the original advertising comments made. Those comments were weakened and backtracked very hard after EA launched. This is not a shared hallucination - this happened. No, I can't provide quoted interviews - they've disappeared.

It may well be that those initial comments were made indelicately, and were not, exactly, intended to deceive... but they were nevertheless not indicative of their actual intention and so people who came to the game excited and invested in it, based on those comments, got very upset when it became clear that those initial comments were not actually reflective of what they were doing at all.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:52 AM
In any case, there's a strong argument to say that the game is less and less based on 5e anyway... With each additional homebrew, their chipping away at the core ruleset.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

Feeling they were deceitful is one thing, claiming that they are is another. Which is why some of us have told you otherwise, because you seem to be claiming that they are and even mentioned the whole legal system against them.

Well, the legal thing was specifically in regard to Rag's question whether it mattered if a certain quote could be interpreted in different ways. And it is important. We were taught to always be as transparent and as specific as possible when dealing with journalists as to hinder any misconception on the readers part. Sure, being vague can have its uses when deflecting those misconceptions but it's always better if they don't arise from the very start. As you've seen, saying "based upon" is not very definitive on your intentions.

But, going through my responses in this thread, I can admit, although it pains me, that I might...just barely....been a tiny little bit...zealous and derailing in my answers. For that...I apologize. Pfww, that was hard.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:04 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
They said, in their initial interviews, before EA even came out, that they were excited to be making Baldur's Gate 3, that they would be making it using the fifth edition of the dungeons and dragons ruleset, which they were going to be implementing as faithfully as possible. Those were the original advertising comments made. Those comments were weakened and backtracked very hard after EA launched. This is not a shared hallucination - this happened. No, I can't provide quoted interviews - they've disappeared.

It may well be that those initial comments were made indelicately, and were not, exactly, intended to deceive... but they were nevertheless not indicative of their actual intention and so people who came to the game excited and invested in it, based on those comments, got very upset when it became clear that those initial comments were not actually reflective of what they were doing at all.

Baldur's Gate 3 is based on the fifth edition D&D ruleset, which Wizards of the Coast designed to make the game more accessible to new people. Vincke said that made his team's job a little easier than what a still-young BioWare faced in the '90s.

Based on; The interview also goes on to mention trial and error in interpreting TT into video game translation.

Baldur's Gate 3 will utilize Dungeons and Dragons' 5th Edition Rules.

Utilize means to make use of, not necessarily fully and solely only use without interpretation.

Vincke also confirms that Baldur's Gate 3 will emphasize environmental interaction of some sort, though it's unclear what form it will ultimately take. When I ask Vincke if Baldur's Gate 2 will have interactions similar to that of Divinity: Original Sin 2, where you could set up massive combos by, say, arcing lightning across water, he says, "And more."

In reference to earlier statements on the forums. Homebrew / extra system designs were talked about long before EA release.

Q: On the subject of gameplay, is it going to be influenced by Original Sin or are you trying to make something that's closer to the original Baldur's Gate games?

A: We are moving forward, so we don't want to go look backward. We want to innovate within the RPG genre and we have a bunch of ideas. We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work. So we started working on that. And then we also added systems that would replace the game master because there's no human sitting inside of your computer. And that allows you to do things that you would otherwise not be able to do. And so that is pretty much the approach that we've taken. All the core values that were important to us in Original Sin, like the fact that the game reacts to what you did and that the story would change in a logical way are still in, except that we are doing more.

Boldened text implies creative liberties / changes to the ruleset deemed necessary for a video game format. Hence, not 100%. (Though this isn't meant to disqualify criticisms / requests of turning current design to be closer than it currently is, I too want this. I'm just putting cards on the table here.)

Edit/Appendix: Whether or not having tried it in video game format, or comparisons with Solasta is beyond the point, I think most of the critiques among us, me included believes there's a lot of current changes steering away from PHB that would be better if changed back to RAW. Point is what was said, namely clear indication of some homebrew and creative liberty in interpretation of the ruleset. Expectations beyond this is solely on the player individually.

FL: What rule set will you be using?

Vincke: Based on the 5th Edition because we ported all the rules to the computer game and looked at what worked and what didn’t work. There are somethings that don’t work for video games. But there is also the aspect if you’re playing tabletop, the game master and imaginations is a large part of it. There are things that are just not described in the rule set that you could do and we obviously have to make it work inside of the video game, that is something that we have to add on top of it.

Similarly, based on.

Now here's the real kicker. It's not vanished. Here's every single interview available on google specifically published before 2020. Dig in!
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by The Composer
FL: What rule set will you be using?

Vincke: Based on the 5th Edition because we ported all the rules to the computer game and looked at what worked and what didn’t work. There are somethings that don’t work for video games. But there is also the aspect if you’re playing tabletop, the game master and imaginations is a large part of it. There are things that are just not described in the rule set that you could do and we obviously have to make it work inside of the video game, that is something that we have to add on top of it.
The highlighted is obviously a lie though. Baldur's Gate 3 does not have a proper reaction system, and comments by Swen/Larian have heavily implied that they are still working on the reaction system to make it work better with 5e. But how can they simultaneously have had "ported [5e's reaction system] to the computer game" and yet, 1 year after EA release, 2-4 years past initial development, still have a reaction system with less functionality than tabletop that they're trying to make work more like 5e? Shouldn't they just able able to use that original build?

There are numerous other aspects of BG3 that don't make any sense if Larian truly "ported all the rules to the computer game" first. Height and Backstab Advantage, countless spells, shove checks not working properly (atheletics vs athletics/acrobatics skill check), jump+disengage bonus action, bonus action hide, darkvision, the short rest system, Prone implementing unconscious (and losing concentration), casting 2 leveled spells in a turn, surfaces, mage hand being a summon, the list goes on. And many of these are universal things, not niche "one subclass's ability" things that it'd be reasonable for Larian to implement only in later builds.

Sure, it's possible that
- Larian implemented all of these exactly matching 5e (modulo bugs and misunderstanding the rules)
- Larian then changed these things to their homebrew versions
- For a good number of them, Larian then changed BACK to closer to RAW

But it's overwhelmingly more likely that Larian did not start with a build that was just 5e rules. They started with a D&D-DOS hybrid which was much more DOS than it is currently, and only after releasing the game to the public they were told by many players about all the shortcomings of their homebrew changes and began implementing these things closer to per 5e rules.

Edit: To clarify, it's perfectly fine that Larian literally did not implement every single D&D rule first; "all rules" obviously is an exaggeration. At the very least they wouldn't have all classes implemented in this first build, which again is fine. The problem is the sheer number of important rules that were clearly changed from 5e RAW on initial EA release, rules which realistically wouldn't have been implemented that way had Larian truly tried 5e RAW first.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:32 AM
Oh I have my doubts as well. Could be that rules and systems are differentiated, or that it's implemented on a theoretical design level - Who knows. Not to get into depths of my speculations, it's rather besides the point. The point is what's said about promising an 'as faithful as possible' interpretation, which similar words have been said on context, but everyone's using that out of context here.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:32 AM
Thanks for those Composer.

These are some of the comments that I would point to as well, specifically as being misleading. A company can wiggle and wheedle and say "Yes well, saying 'utilise' is not the same as saying we're actually using that system", but that's not how it reads, or comes off. It comes off as saying: "Hey, what rule system are you suing for your game?" "We're using D&D 5e!". And that is not the reality... it may not have intended to mislead, but misleading it is. I will speak from the perspective of players, and payers, who read that, felt it said something very clear and quite specific, and then were upset when that turned out not to bee the case, and felt strongly misled.

This doesn't feel like it's based on D&D 5e at all - or at least it does not seem to be so - It feels like it's based on something more personal to Larian, with 5e being worked into it and mapped over it. It feels like it would have been more honest to say "We're excited to see how our Divnity style gameplay and mechanics can make use of a 5e framework".

Here is where I have to step away from pure analytics:

Quote
We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work.

I've seen this quote plenty. I simply do not believe it. I cannot accept it as an honest statement of truth. It looks, smells, tastes and feels in every way, and with all evidence present, as a dishonesty. There is no feasible, believable way that they started with a faithful implementation, and then rolled through design process from that, to what we have now - something that in it's earliest patches was almost a majority built out of D:OS2.

At very best... at very best, what I can see in this statement that I could actually believe, is that they set out the rules for 5e On Paper, looked at them, and then said "Well, we can't do that and that with our engine, and the probably wouldn't be fun, I don't think, I want to do more than that... Let's do it our way, start with what we've got, and try to see how much of this 5e we can work in as we go." And all without much actual contact with playing 5e or D&D in general.


I'm sorry that I'm so cynical about that... I just cannot buy it.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:35 AM
Same, but it too is besides the point. I'm purely talking about player expectation of "faithful translation" being a hyperbolic self-imposed expectation that we as gamers often do (I fear I might be in that dangerous pool for Halo Infinite, biting nails in anticipation to not be disappointed) and using faint memories of statements where the context or details are long forgotten. I've provided the details and sources now, so you can make up your mind more clearly in a grounded way, so that our criticism can be genuine, instead of emotional or based on a fading memory.

Edit: I've even forwarded some criticism of my own that was brought up to Swen at some point, where I quote myself from private conversations:

Quote
[...] ...criticism for Swen is that I think he should stop referring to acts in any measure in how he did with Dos2, because it just confuses players. Saying it has three acts (just like Dos2 had in his words) makes people think act 1 is 1/3 of the game, which in the definition of how he uses those terms, doesn't equate in reality at all. Call it acts, but not in the whole "beginning, middle and an end" thing because players view each section of the game as an act, not how it's narratively segmented

Context here is Larian internally refers to acts as three-fold. DOS2 had three acts according to Swen: Fort Joy > Reaper's Coast + Nameless Isle > Arx. The rest of us would say Act 1 is Fort Joy, Act 2 is Reaper's Coast, Act 3 is Nameless Isle, Act 4 is ARX. That has seemed to be a trend for BG3 too which I believe is not speaking the language of the audience. So a lot of people think of EA as one third of the full game, because Act 1 out of 3 acts in the language they know from earlier games.

So there's all sorts of criticisms I'd make too, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to ensure that we're speaking the same language here, and not relying on inaccurate claims based on memory.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:45 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
At very best... at very best, what I can see in this statement that I could actually believe, is that they set out the rules for 5e On Paper, looked at them, and then said "Well, we can't do that and that with our engine, and the probably wouldn't be fun, I don't think, I want to do more than that... Let's do it our way, start with what we've got, and try to see how much of this 5e we can work in as we go." And all without much actual contact with playing 5e or D&D in general.
.

This is closer to what I'd imagine too. Which isn't necessarly bad IMO. But now it's up to us to voice that feedback (and I've forwarded soooo much...) and hope that Larian comes to their senses and give it a practical shot. One of my top current examples being certain bonus actions that should be actions as per PHB, because the ripple effect is undermining the class fantasy and value of eg. Rogue.

But it helps to focus on that, rather than misquoting and rallying up anger about something that is a fading memory at best. I know you, and that you're not angry. But one post leads to another, and halfway through the next page it'd be spiraling the wrong way otherwise by someone else that has less control of temper.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 02:02 AM
You are right, and I should have kept an eye on myself better - constructive conversation is what matters.

Though... I'm not sure what the odds are, at this point, of them taking a step back, giving the whole engine an overhaul to actually work in a way that's deigned for 5e, and going from there. It seems a slim hope given how far throug the process we are now.

But... wee do know that a major update to magic, spellcasting and its associated systems is something that is happening, so, maybe the best thing to do is remain vocal about wanting a game system that feels like it was legitimately made to play 5e or something 5e-like, and hope that the architectural changes continue.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 02:05 AM
Originally Posted by The Composer
Same, but it too is besides the point. I'm purely talking about player expectation of "faithful translation" being a hyperbolic self-imposed expectation that we as gamers often do (I fear I might be in that dangerous pool for Halo Infinite, biting nails in anticipation to not be disappointed) and using faint memories of statements where the context or details are long forgotten. I've provided the details and sources now, so you can make up your mind more clearly in a grounded way, so that our criticism can be genuine, instead of emotional or based on a fading memory.
[...]
So there's all sorts of criticisms I'd make too, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to ensure that we're speaking the same language here, and not relying on inaccurate claims based on memory.
I don't think you can disentangle Larian's promise that they "ported it to video game format" first from the general expectations of BG3 set by Larian. It's part of their Full Statement™ on how well BG3 will match 5e RAW, and taken together it heavily implies that BG3 will be as close to 5e RAW as possible. That the vast majority of changed rules will be those that are un-fun or simply don't work in a video game.

So I suppose it's breaking the spirit of their words rather than the letter (except actually the letter of the specific "ported 5e rules video game first" sentence). Yes, they literally said that there would be modifications. But they also implied that they'd only modify 5e rules when necessary, which doesn't seem to be the case imo.

Can I sue Larian for false advertising? Absolutely not. Am I disappointed at many of the (imo needless) changes away from 5e they've made, which doesn't quite match the impression I had prior to EA release? Yes. But of course, as you say, the best way to advocate for any changes is to argue for why BG3 would be better if Mechanic X was changed.

p.s. I agree that the "Act" language is confusing, especially given that Larian map design naturally leads to considering a single theme-park location as one "Act."
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 02:11 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
You are right, and I should have kept an eye on myself better - constructive conversation is what matters.

Though... I'm not sure what the odds are, at this point, of them taking a step back, giving the whole engine an overhaul to actually work in a way that's deigned for 5e, and going from there. It seems a slim hope given how far throug the process we are now.

But... wee do know that a major update to magic, spellcasting and its associated systems is something that is happening, so, maybe the best thing to do is remain vocal about wanting a game system that feels like it was legitimately made to play 5e or something 5e-like, and hope that the architectural changes continue.

Edit: Added quote for convenience due to new page.

I feel that the odds are good for certain things like making shove/hide an action, most likely at best chance of happening along-side with reactions system implementation. I'd like to think that they're only bonus actions temporarily until missing systems are in place. At least that's my belief/hope that keeps me sane.

Stuff like Wizard being able to learn anything from scrolls is an easy fix too. That's just a matter of convincing the designers. Simple changes like those are very hopeful from a "easily doable from a technical PoV". I say that with confidence because I've worked with older versions of the engine for many years, and spend most of my time tinkering in the game files, than playing the game. I just cba doing anything with it until we actually have modding tools and compilers available. I stick with Dos2 until then.

However I used to view day/night cycle as a full hard impossibility due to the lighting system being similar to Dos2. I've made a day/night/weather system in Dos2, and I'm happy with the results for how I implement them, but it's limited to outdoor areas and certain circumstances due to limitations. However after lighting changes in patch 6, I'm more hopeful from a technical PoV, but still not convinced due to expense > pay (not economic, but manpower and time investment). Lots would really want it for atmosphere and a sense of immersion, time passing etc, so the convincing to be done there IMO is more at why it matters for the experience and adventure at this point.


Edit 2: I don't disagree with you, Mrfuji. There are many times where I daydream of being Larian's PR person; I have many ideas on how I'd do it both from a social media perspective, and community interaction. There are many things I'd have done / said differently.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:56 AM
Originally Posted by The Composer
Edit 2: I don't disagree with you, Mrfuji. There are many times where I daydream of being Larian's PR person; I have many ideas on how I'd do it both from a social media perspective, and community interaction. There are many things I'd have done / said differently.

Well. it wouldn't be the first time in these forums that I request that Larian hires you and the other mods to be just that smile
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 06:30 AM
People make mistakes. I get that. They may have started out with the full intent of being 100% TT by the book and decided, "Ah crap! Budget, timing, the amount of work necessary, let's just DOS it for now and give them more D&D 5e later as time goes on."

Who knows?

I'm not out here trying to point fingers about what they promised, though I clearly remember my first time reading about the game. I remember the comments about true 5e adaptation.

BUT, I will say that what is hard to remember is whether Larian actually said it or someone else did. I will admit, with all the hype, it may have been a different source.

Regardless, the point still remains, BG3 is D&D-ISH right now. It can still be tweaked to be more D&D-ISH. I'm not expecting a full adaptation, but the more they make it 5e, the more honed and refined the game will get and the more Baldur's Gate it will feel.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:25 AM
In regards to "they have always said that they will adapt the rules to a version that works as a PC game": I think we all are fine with that. We know that there is no actual human DM, who can do stuff on the fly. We know some rules/abilities will not really work. So no one was really suprised that the GooLock did not have it's telepathy feature at the start of EA (and still does not have anything, sadly). This is a feature that is pretty useless in a computer game. But chaning up spells like chromatic orb? That is just changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

And in regards to things like reactions, bonus action economy and things like wizards learning all the spells: I will say it again and again. We NEED a roadmap. It is pointless to argue over these things while larian is just silent on all these issues.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:35 AM
But apart from all that, there is more to it than just the rules. Day/Night, animals roaming about; non-harmful ones like deer and rabbits.

Like in Neverwinter Nights. You walk around the forest and there's a stag, maybe a bear, etc. Right now, the Grove is where you encounter most animals. They don't have to be talkative. Just have them scamper off and squeak at you or something. BG1 and 2 didn't have talking animals. They just roamed the landscape.

It's about the little things. They all add up.
Posted By: Aaezil Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:49 AM
#4 is a thing that i hope they have already been working on as it would be good for depth and immersion. And if not its not too hard to add in if they have the time.

Everything else in the list if they haven’t already been working on its prob too late in development cycle now speaking from game software development experience.
Posted By: fylimar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:57 AM
I agree with those, who want a bit more faithful adaption of the 5e rules and the D&D world.
It's not about having the rules a hundred percent implimented, but have it feel more like 5e and less than a total homebrew.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 10:35 AM
I think it's within the scope still to make the game enough like D&D.


Mostly it has to do with stuff like...

- make Long Rest more restricted so it's actually a meaningful choice instead of a free ability and spell reset button

- nerf Jump height to 5e standards and add climbing as the main way to reach elevation

This is VERY important from a tactical point of view. Climbing should halve your movement and Athletics and Acrobatics need to matter. Terrain should be much more than just giving you a +2/-2 to attack.


- revert Shove and Hide to Actions, give Rogues their unique abilities back

- nerf Shove distance to 5e standards so combat doesn't turn into a ridiculous shove fest

- fix Wizards leaning other classes spells and every class using scrolls (and before anyone says it's more fun this way... that's what multiclassing is for and we don't have it yet)

- add saving throws to homebrew stuff like surfaces and bombs and whatnot, no inescapable damage
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So, immediately D&D fans and DMs like me especially are thinking...
... instead of reading all oficial info properly and that is their misstake.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 11:00 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
BG3 will be as close to 5e RAW as possible.
This could actualy be source of our disagreement ...
"As close as possible" ... do you even understand how loose frase that is?

One person could implement strictly every rule, as we say here litteral transcription of rules 1:1 ... and still feel that he didnt do good job in his effort to make it "as close as possible" since he didnt manage to imeplement something that would allow Illusion Wizard to create ilusion of anything he would like ...
Wich is possible in tabletop, but certainly not in videogame. laugh

Other person cound implement only turn based combat, copy races and classes and that is it, and make everything else just they way he see fit, no matter what original rules say ... and yet feels like he did the good job, since in his eyes the game is "as close as possible", bcs making it more like 5e dont fit his idea of fun.

I mean ... its all about perspective ... "as close as possible" can mean both "as close as videogame system limitation would allow us" and "as close as we dare, while we still like the outcome" ... and neither of that is breaking any promises, its only matter of our own expectation. :-/
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 11:24 AM
I think one of the things that need to be said is that Larian wants this game to also be accessible to people that have never played Dungeons and Dragons table top (which is why they may be using a lot of DOS mechanics). If you bombard a new player with rules and rules and more rules, you can wind up alienating them by making them feel like this is more for hardcore DnD 5e players. We all know that every company always wants new customers as many as possible. Which is why they will make changes in order to attract new customers/players even if the ones that have been there from the beginning may not like it. They should understand that in order for a product to remain popular the company needs to attract new people. In regards to wanting Baldur's Gate 3 to be RAW DnD game, you risk limiting access to players that have not played a DnD game but may be interested in this world setting. In order to draw someone into something, you have to gradually introduce them you don't want to bombard them.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 11:49 AM
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
<Redacted>

You are comparing the numbers of a table top game to a video game. Those are two different fan bases with different numbers in different platforms. You say that the majority have not asked for 5e RAW which I agree, especially if you look at Reddit but there seems so be some here in these forums that do. I also agree that some may want more 5e type rules but there are those that want exact 5e rules at least in how I have seen it. If I'm wrong in that assumption then I'm wrong but as of right now that's how it seems.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
<Redacted>

Okay, I think you misunderstood my initial comment that you responded to. I wasn't referring to DOS players coming into DnD. I was referring to the general audience that may not have played a tabletop game. The reason why I mentioned DOS is because Larian is using those mechanics as its what made them popular. In terms of people coming into DnD, that has to do with the general audience and not DOS fans.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:13 PM
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
<Redacted>

I think Larian implementing DOS mechanics is to attract the DOS players. Larian changing some of the 5e rules or reinterpreting them by maybe making them more easy in some way may be to attract the general audience that have not played the tabletop DnD game.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:28 PM
The 5e rules are not complicated. What we have now is 10,000 times more complicated.

Like Short Rest. Hit Dice is not complicated. You get unlimited Short Rest, but you have a number of dice to heal with based on level.

Instead, they homebrew it and limit you to 2 Short Rests. How many HP do you recover per Short Rest per character? I don't even know with their current system. 500+ hours and I have no clue. I just know I get some HP back, and usually a lot.

And only 2 Short Rests then force me to long rest more frequently, with a tadpole eating my brain.

And 1 year later, we're still trying to make the resting system make sense.

No. 5e is the least complicated D&D system ever made. It could translate so well to computer.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:47 PM
I do apologize if I misunderstand you but these two statements do seem to contradict each other:


Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I think one of the things that need to be said is that Larian wants this game to also be accessible to people that have never played Dungeons and Dragons table top (which is why they may be using a lot of DOS mechanics).
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I think Larian implementing DOS mechanics is to attract the DOS players.

In the first post you seem to think that DoS mechanics might be helpful for players that haven't played table top dnd. But when <Redacted> pointed out that DoS, atleast according to him, is an even more complex system than DnD, you think Larian use DoS mechanics to attract people used to that system, not to attract people that never played TT.

So...you don't agree with <Redacted> as to DoS being more complex, or you think the general audience is more used to DoS than DnD?
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Baldur's Gate 2 was set in Athkatla. The only relation it had to BG 1 was tied to the characters from the first game, and that the main character was a Bhaalspawn. You could completely skip BG 1 to play BG 2, and I'd be willing to bet that more than a few people did just that. If WotC, or Hasbro thought Larian was walking all over their trademarks/IP, you can bet we'd know about it already. So what have you heard from either of them to indicate that they're abusing that trademark, or is this something that you're coming up with to justify your own perceptions of the game? Careful with this, because false copyright claims can land you in legal hot water just as fast as frivolous lawsuits about false advertising.

The discussion that started between me and Lady Avyna came with me claiming that larian wanted to use the BG trademark to attract potential players. Lady Avyna disregards that and claims the reason they chose to use Baldur's gate as the title for their game is because they wanted to make a game that somehow connects to previous games, even if it's only the city Baldur's Gate itself, henceforth the number 3 in the title. But those two reasons aren't mutually exclusive(sorry if that's the wrong phrasing). Ofc they need to have the game somehow connected to previous games, however frivolous, still the "3" in the title. I never claimed they wrongfully used the trademark, atleast that was not my intention. I claimed them using that trademark would attract fans of the series and set expectations, expectations they would be aware of, and according to my opinion purposefully didn't fulfill. I also admitted that they haven't broken any advertising law but that their marketing tactics still felt deceitful. There is nothing there that I have to be careful with.

It certainly got my attention. But this is where I'm disconnected from the "make it more 5e" crowd, the version of DnD makes no difference to me. The first act states quite clearly that we are headed to Baldur's Gate from where we landed, and so, I'm not overly fussed about that. There's enough speculation floating around the internet about potential characters from the series showing up that I'm curious. First, and foremost, however, I want this game to be every bit as good as it's predecessors were. Yes, I very much want to love this game. In EA, I have no idea of what's to come later, and frankly, I like it that way. I intentionally limit what I do in game now, in order to prevent burn out before full release, including ignoring it for months. I don't care, for example, that some updates require me to delete my previous saves, and I don't need a way to prevent an update from installing. I want to see systems, I'm not fussed about story. I haven't done a lot this update because my processor is on the fritz. I got a new one, but my MB doesn't support it, so I'm waiting for a new MB to come in, likely today, I hope...

The problem with expectations is that they're all over the place. There are some players that truly do expect a 1 to 1 conversion into 5e, and to whom no homebrew is acceptable. There are others that profess a lot of knowledge about DnD, 5e in particular, but don't know how some of the monsters actually work. Someone, for example, pointing to Phase Spiders "teleporting". So even when they're presented with things that are actually in the rules, they're screaming "but homebrew". It doesn't do a lot for their arguments.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
<Redacted>

You are comparing the numbers of a table top game to a video game. Those are two different fan bases with different numbers in different platforms. You say that the majority have not asked for 5e RAW which I agree, especially if you look at Reddit but there seems so be some here in these forums that do. I also agree that some may want more 5e type rules but there are those that want exact 5e rules at least in how I have seen it. If I'm wrong in that assumption then I'm wrong but as of right now that's how it seems.

You're wrong. This is a strawman you have built in your head.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by The Composer
However I used to view day/night cycle as a full hard impossibility due to the lighting system being similar to Dos2. I've made a day/night/weather system in Dos2, and I'm happy with the results for how I implement them, but it's limited to outdoor areas and certain circumstances due to limitations. However after lighting changes in patch 6, I'm more hopeful from a technical PoV, but still not convinced due to expense > pay (not economic, but manpower and time investment). Lots would really want it for atmosphere and a sense of immersion, time passing etc, so the convincing to be done there IMO is more at why it matters for the experience and adventure at this point.

Heartbeats
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
The problem with expectations is that they're all over the place.

Which is also why I pointed out to Rag why a single quote from Sven being able to be interpreted in different ways was important and why it mattered. Sven isn't stupid. he is purposefully vague when he speaks with journalists. A lot of spokesmen are. But that's not the best way to do it as it can, obviously, lead to misconceptions and expectations. And that somehow led to you claiming that I accused them of abusing the trademark. Which I never did, not even once. I several times claimed they wanted the trademark for the name recognition. How is that accusing them for abusing the trademark? Recognizing Larian Studios as a company with the goal to make money, and not just a bunch people really wanting to make the best game they can, is not calumny. Implying that someone is about to commit to calumny, is.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
<Redacted>

You are comparing the numbers of a table top game to a video game. Those are two different fan bases with different numbers in different platforms. You say that the majority have not asked for 5e RAW which I agree, especially if you look at Reddit but there seems so be some here in these forums that do. I also agree that some may want more 5e type rules but there are those that want exact 5e rules at least in how I have seen it. If I'm wrong in that assumption then I'm wrong but as of right now that's how it seems.

You're wrong. This is a strawman you have built in your head.

Then do care to explain if you know so much.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The highlighted is obviously a lie though. Baldur's Gate 3 does not have a proper reaction system, and comments by Swen/Larian have heavily implied that they are still working on the reaction system to make it work better with 5e. But how can they simultaneously have had "ported [5e's reaction system] to the computer game" and yet, 1 year after EA release, 2-4 years past initial development, still have a reaction system with less functionality than tabletop that they're trying to make work more like 5e? Shouldn't they just able able to use that original build?
Not necessarily no. There is something called "prototyping" - trying things out in a quick, cheap and easy to impliment way to see what works and what doesn't. Of course, Larian didn't create fully produced, fully working faithful 5e translation which they then started to change - that would be a massive waste of resources. But it doesn't mean they didn't do some prototyping. Maybe in their own engine, maybe in one of the free, easy to mod ones (like Unity). It's possible they didn't implement everything into one build, but rather created different experiements when considering different mechanics.
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:21 PM
The mathematics AKA the mechanics of a tabletop game are DIRECTLY transferrable from paper to code. I know cus I can do it. There is literally no dice roll system that cannot be translated from a pen and paper system to code, it is very very easy to do in fact. The computer was literally invented to do this.

The caveats that are problematic are additional homebrew mechanics that change ^^^^^^^^^ these linear (cause and effect) calculations. They have cascade effects though the linear probability system that is 5e in a nut shell. Adding another dice roll for an AoE that isn't supposed to be there can change 5 other dice rolls trying to calculate the effect of "something else". This in turn makes a "misses" "hits" and makes another 6 saving throws that prevent concentration or sneak etc. Even linear probability can become extremely complex given enough variables.

My point being the mathmatics of 5e are set in stone, there is no wiggle room. Why? Because adding extra dice rolls changes the outcome of gameplay so drastically it becomes another system. Larian actually know this and have moved it closer to 5e as such. Larian can add new spells, weapons, armors, monsters and lore for all I care as long as they all follow the tried and tested 1+1=2.

Every class in 5e Phb is balanced around these numbers. Change one thing in the formula and Clerics become pointless, wizards become demi-gods, rouges become useless. Throwing a healing potion in the mouth of your mate 50 foot away is the same a a cleric casting a spell for the same purpose. Hding as a bonus action is a rouge skill not a wizard skill. All these little (not little) things take away from the tactical, straegic, class and difficulty of the game. It makes it cheezy in fact.

The DM does not change "the laws of physics" they add flavor. This being "would firing a lightning bolt into water while other are standing in it electrocute them?" sure of course, then lets do that then. Can I throw a 200kg barrel of "stuff" 60 feet with my 18kg halfling wizard with 6 STR? Urrrm no mate. <<<< this is the job of the DM (Larian).
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:24 PM
What I don't get is why 5e doesn't work for video games, or rather why people think it doesn't.

I can create a map in Tabletop simulator and play with players and DM an entire campaign using full blown TT rules. With the map, the players can move their avatars and use full rules just fine.

This is what I was expecting with BG3 except instead of the DM moving monsters, the computer does.

For combat, I don't see why this isn't doable. It works. I've done it. Video game pawns and maps. So why don't those rules translate exactly?
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
For combat, I don't see why this isn't doable. It works. I've done it. Video game pawns and maps. So why don't those rules translate exactly?
Of course it can be done: see Solasta.

Still, tabletop and digital games tend to feel different to play. You know, a bit how card mechanics always feel off (at least to me) in a computer game, even if its a fun game. I think Larian really doesn't want their playerbase to feel like they are playing an adaptation of a table-top experience - but rather a game build from ground up to be a cRPG. I think it's more of a "game feel" that Larian has issues with.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:37 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
You are comparing the numbers of a table top game to a video game. Those are two different fan bases with different numbers in different platforms. You say that the majority have not asked for 5e RAW which I agree, especially if you look at Reddit but there seems so be some here in these forums that do. I also agree that some may want more 5e type rules but there are those that want exact 5e rules at least in how I have seen it. If I'm wrong in that assumption then I'm wrong but as of right now that's how it seems.

You're wrong. This is a strawman you have built in your head.

Then do care to explain if you know so much.
Explain what? We've been over this hundreds of times in this forum. Every time somebody says that they want the game to be more like 5e or that 5e is better in some way there's always somebody like you who disingenuously reinterprets this as "it must be 5e raw by the letter no exceptions". The whole derail in this thread about whether or not Larian said "based on 5e" or "like 5e" was caused by you and Ragnarok doing exactly that at the page 1-2 break, like so:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=799460#Post799460
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho. wink

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=799470#Post799470
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho. wink


Exactly, I don't know how much clearer Swen has to make himself. He actually said that BG3 is meant to be "first and foremost" a video game in an interview from last year. In a recent interview with Eurogamer, a month ago, Swen even said that they can't do everything in tabletop DnD or they will never finish the game because that would require more people to be hired. In the gaming industry, you have a deadline and things need to be done before then. He also said that they have been given the freedom (most likely from WOTC) as with previous BG games to do what they want with this game.

This is pure strawmanning. You are arguing against a point that you've built in your heads, and that is not representative of what GM4 actually argued. What's worse is, I even think GM4 made this thread more or less directly after the exact same thing happened in the food topic last night:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=799224#Post799224
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If I play chess, and someone changes the rules so pawns can now move in any direction, and rooks can now move diagonally, and kings can now move any number of squares, am I still playing chess?

That said, if you say to the person you are playing against, "But those are just optional rules. You don't HAVE to play it that way. I am, but you don't have to. It's up to you if you want to challenge yourself that way or not."

Do you think the other player is going to not use the new rules when the entire game is now designed around the new rules?

Comparing chess to dnd is apples and oranges. Chess has a set of rules where you HAVE to play that way or else you can't play the game. In DnD the rules are there as a guide. If not a guide and you HAVE to play 5e the way it is, then homebrew rules would not exist.

I am actually not opposed to homebrew rules, believe it or not. What I disapprove of is changing 5e rules to things that don't make sense from a balance and realism standpoint.

For example, I don't have a big problem with them making potions a Bonus action. I'd prefer them to be an Action because once you make them a Bonus then the Rogue's Fast Hands special ability becomes almost pointless. One of the main points of them having that special trait is because Rogues do things faster than most others. Make potions Bonus for everyone and Rogues become less special.

These are the kinds of homebrews that are ruining the game from a balance perspective and making things less special. Food as a healing item ruins the entire point of potions. You can eat them as Bonus, no matter how ridiculously big, and they can heal just as much or more.

They should be items meant for survival, not healing, so that healing potions aren't completely negated.

And I apologise if I am being overly combative here, but having to always defend oneself against this strawman as soon as one brings up how BG would benefit from being more like 5e in any way is exhausting my patience. There's has been, since BG3 went into EA and joined these forums, maybe a single guy or two who has insisted that they want 5e exactly raw in every way, and I don't think either of them are still active here any more. They are certainly not representative of the forums enough to even matter in a generalisation of it. It only "seems like that's how it is here on the forums" to you because that's how you interpret it whenever somebody brings up 5e rules as a reference at all.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:43 PM
For my part, I do not believe I have ever seen anyone, on this forum or otherwise, ever, trying to suggest that the game should be, or that they want it to be, exact 5e raw.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:51 PM
Let's play chess.

I give the rook 5 HP. I give the pawn 1 HP. I give the king 50 HP. I give the bishop 3 HP.

Each does as much damage as they have HP.

Are we playing chess or a chess like game? Looks like chess. Some of the rules are even the same.

Doesn't feel like chess, though, does it.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
And I apologise if I am being overly combative here, but having to always defend oneself against this strawman as soon as one brings up how BG would benefit from being more like 5e in any way is exhausting my patience. There's has been, since BG3 went into EA and joined these forums, maybe a single guy or two who has insisted that they want 5e exactly raw in every way, and I don't think either of them are still active here any more. They are certainly not representative of the forums enough to even matter in a generalisation of it. It only "seems like that's how it is here on the forums" to you because that's how you interpret it whenever somebody brings up 5e rules as a reference at all.

First all do NOT accuse me of doing something that I am not, just because I may be seeing something differently. This is one the biggest problems in these forums. Occasionally there will be people like you coming into forums to answer in a very combative way to the point that a moderator has to step in. It's impossible to come into these forums to have a cordial conversation or even a disagreement without someone insulting the other person. Please don't do that. If you disagree with something I said, that fine but don't accuse me of acting a certain way. I'm tired of people doing that in these forums because I don't do that to them.
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:55 PM
The homebrew stuff I like is,

1) Cleric casts create water
2) Mage casts lightning giving them a buzz
3) Rogue takes advantage with a sneak attack
4) Druid casts thunder wave to knock someone on the water

Thsi synergy adds mechanics without changing the rules.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Let's play chess.

I give the rook 5 HP. I give the pawn 1 HP. I give the king 50 HP. I give the bishop 3 HP.

Each does as much damage as they have HP.

Are we playing chess or a chess like game? Looks like chess. Some of the rules are even the same.

Doesn't feel like chess, though, does it.

I believe this is where the confusing is. I understand that there are certain things in the game that would benefit with better 5e rules. I'm all for that. What I don't understand is the language some may be using where it sounds like they may be asking for literal 5e rules. Example would be the chess analogy you just used. That's where the confusion may be. Could you explain that better?
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
What I don't get is why 5e doesn't work for video games, or rather why people think it doesn't.
Ok, that should be easy to explain ...
How would you implement this spell?

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/spell:minor-illusion

Quote
You create a sound or an image of an object within range that lasts for the duration. The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again.

If you create a sound, its volume can range from a whisper to a scream. It can be your voice, someone else’s voice, a lion’s roar, a beating of drums, or any other sound you choose. The sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends.

If you create an image of an object—such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest—it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can’t create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.

If a creature uses its action to examine the sound or image, the creature can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Dexai
And I apologise if I am being overly combative here, but having to always defend oneself against this strawman as soon as one brings up how BG would benefit from being more like 5e in any way is exhausting my patience. There's has been, since BG3 went into EA and joined these forums, maybe a single guy or two who has insisted that they want 5e exactly raw in every way, and I don't think either of them are still active here any more. They are certainly not representative of the forums enough to even matter in a generalisation of it. It only "seems like that's how it is here on the forums" to you because that's how you interpret it whenever somebody brings up 5e rules as a reference at all.

First all do NOT accuse me of doing something that I am not, just because I may be seeing something differently. This is one the biggest problems in these forums. Occasionally there will be people like you coming into forums to answer in a very combative way to the point that a moderator has to step in. It's impossible to come into these forums to have a cordial conversation or even a disagreement without someone insulting the other person. Please don't do that. If you disagree with something I said, that fine but don't accuse me of acting a certain way. I'm tired of people doing that in these forums because I don't do that to them.

This. As a moderator, I can with some authority confirm that this is the case, with knowledge that it's usually just natural human emotions distorting an underlying interest for improvements in a game they care about. So I don't typically read into it much, but there is a tendency for people to eventually get into extremes. And that's where I sometimes butt in, unless I see that people have resolved it already in conversation or reeled themselves in. Last thing I want to do is stifle genuine discussion and criticism (I have a bunch of criticisms and desires for change in some areas too! I'm here as a gamer, and moderator. I try my best to differentiate, but it's important to point out because lots of people see the color of a name before a person.)

I refer to a previous post of mine, albeit it it took two pages rather than halfways into the next page.

Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by Niara
At very best... at very best, what I can see in this statement that I could actually believe, is that they set out the rules for 5e On Paper, looked at them, and then said "Well, we can't do that and that with our engine, and the probably wouldn't be fun, I don't think, I want to do more than that... Let's do it our way, start with what we've got, and try to see how much of this 5e we can work in as we go." And all without much actual contact with playing 5e or D&D in general.
.

This is closer to what I'd imagine too. Which isn't necessarly bad IMO. But now it's up to us to voice that feedback (and I've forwarded soooo much...) and hope that Larian comes to their senses and give it a practical shot. One of my top current examples being certain bonus actions that should be actions as per PHB, because the ripple effect is undermining the class fantasy and value of eg. Rogue.

But it helps to focus on that, rather than misquoting and rallying up anger about something that is a fading memory at best. I know you, and that you're not angry. But one post leads to another, and halfway through the next page it'd be spiraling the wrong way otherwise by someone else that has less control of temper.
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:05 PM
Minor illusion cantrip is already in the game. In D&D it simply compels anything with senses to go look at "something", once investigated they roll an INT saving throw per round until they realise it is bogus. Then, depending on the circumstances may investigate a wider area to find the caster or simply go back to whatever they were doing.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:06 PM
The point is that the more you change the characteristics of the game, the less like the game it is. If a pawn no longer moves only 1 or 2 spaces ahead, or you give them HP, or whatever, you change a lot of the feel of the game. What you would once do no longer applies because the new rules have changed the entire feel of the game.

Let's take Star Wars RPG. I've played like several versions. Every time, there are new rules for the Force. Each new set of rules changes the entire way the Force is used in the game. Slight rule changes trickle to other areas.

Now, I'm not suggesting no homebrew. I'm merely saying that changes in rules should be done with discretion and should not drastically change the whole system. +2 for height advantage doesn't break the system. Making Hide a Bonus for everyone breaks Rogues and makes them less valuable.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:09 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The point is that the more you change the characteristics of the game, the less like the game it is. If a pawn no longer moves only 1 or 2 spaces ahead, or you give them HP, or whatever, you change a lot of the feel of the game. What you would once do no longer applies because the new rules have changed the entire feel of the game.

Let's take Star Wars RPG. I've played like several versions. Every time, there are new rules for the Force. Each new set of rules changes the entire way the Force is used in the game. Slight rule changes trickle to other areas.

Now, I'm not suggesting no homebrew. I'm merely saying that changes in rules should be done with discretion and should not drastically change the whole system. +2 for height advantage doesn't break the system. Making Hide a Bonus for everyone breaks Rogues and makes them less valuable.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you mean now.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:13 PM
Originally Posted by The Composer
One of my top current examples being certain bonus actions that should be actions as per PHB, because the ripple effect is undermining the class fantasy and value of eg. Rogue.
It kinda makes sence tho, that Larian is pushing on Bonus Actions so hard ...
I mean i dunno about you people, but i have them unused like 75% of time, it just feels little odd to left resources unspended. laugh :-/

Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Minor illusion cantrip is already in the game.
Im aware ... the question was "how would you implement it" tho, not "is this in game?"

Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
In D&D it simply compels anything with senses to go look at "something", once investigated they roll an INT saving throw per round until they realise it is bogus. Then, depending on the circumstances may investigate a wider area to find the caster or simply go back to whatever they were doing.
Might be ...
Until your Illusionist Wizard get to level 14, where "something" is no longer good enough, since you get:

"Illusory Reality
By 14th level, you have learned the secret of weaving shadow magic into your illusions to give them a semi-reality. When you cast an illusion spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose one inanimate, nonmagical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real. You can do this on your turn as a bonus action while the spell is ongoing. The object remains real for 1 minute. For example, you can create an illusion of a bridge over a chasm and then make it real long enough for your allies to cross.

The object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone.
"

You can ofcourse bypass this by seting max level for 13 ...
Lazy, but effective "solution" ... question is if that will work every time.

//Edit:
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The point is that the more you change the characteristics of the game, the less like the game it is. If a pawn no longer moves only 1 or 2 spaces ahead, or you give them HP, or whatever, you change a lot of the feel of the game. What you would once do no longer applies because the new rules have changed the entire feel of the game.
Problem here is that you are comparing game wich have rules set for few hundert of years and nobody even know for sure theese days why wich figure plays the way it plays ...

And game thats rules is curently in progress of creation ...
Yes it have some set of rules they can inspire with, but for once even those are not set in stone, and even if they would it means little to nothing, since they are ment for different game anyway. :-/
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:13 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
For my part, I do not believe I have ever seen anyone, on this forum or otherwise, ever, trying to suggest that the game should be, or that they want it to be, exact 5e raw.

It's partial due to perspective and perception, in my opinion / understanding. Just to be absolutely clear, I actually do not view the following quotes to be demanding exact 5e RAW, and in fact the threads are overall in the same ballpark of "prefer to see changes closer towards 5e in a reasonably faithful way", but I believe it's clear how they can be perceived to demand as such. And due to the bombastic, emotional and slightly hyperbolic nature of how the message is framed, you can see how those threads begin as wholesome, reasonable and calm, and slowly degrade and turn into more hyperbolic and over-dramatic arguing as the pages move on.

I think some people subconsciously still have those threads in mind, stuck as a feeling. Then future perception is influenced by that under a bias, regardless of where our individual opinions recide.

Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias | Source
Well if its not going to be 5e I might as well refund right now, because thats what they communicated what this was going to be and thats what I expected.

Originally Posted by CamKitty | Source
Originally Posted by fixxer
This game isn't DND, and doesn't have to follow the ruleset and it's their choice. Larian have creative freedom, and after playing DOS2 quite a lot i think they know what they are doing and have faith. Trust the method behind the madness, but understand no matter which way they go, not everyone will be happy and if you come to the game expecting a 1:1 DND clone you've already set yourself up for disappointment.

No, don't make a Baldur's gate game if you are not foloowing DnD rules. Otherwise, just make DoS 3.

+1 for the topic

Originally Posted by Beenker | Source
Agree, this game is basically reskinned DOS. I won't recommend this game to anyone in its current state. There are just so many things wrong

I'm also curious, what exact thing did Wizards of the Coast even do at this point? Lore? They definitely didnt ensure that Larian stuck to the 5e ruleset.

Edit: I point these out, because I believe a similar tribalistic nature is taking foothold in this thread as well. We can keep this civil and grounded, I think. I ask you to, because ultimately I dare wage that we all just want the game to feel as much D&D as it reasonably can, whilst realizing there's a compromise somewhere in the middle. The disagreements tend to boil down to semantics and nuances of how much is enough, and I don't think this "No you are the baddie, no you are strawmanning me, I'm not the one strawmanning you" shenanigans bears any positive points to continue. Stick to the merits of the criticism and feedback, than trying to upper got'cha one another.

Edit 2: I refer mostly to Dexai, Lady Avyna and <Redacted> in the moderation-aspect of this post. It doesn't matter which one of you are more right than the other. In terms of OP and thread topic, you're all wrong.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by Dexai
And I apologise if I am being overly combative here, but having to always defend oneself against this strawman as soon as one brings up how BG would benefit from being more like 5e in any way is exhausting my patience. There's has been, since BG3 went into EA and joined these forums, maybe a single guy or two who has insisted that they want 5e exactly raw in every way, and I don't think either of them are still active here any more. They are certainly not representative of the forums enough to even matter in a generalisation of it. It only "seems like that's how it is here on the forums" to you because that's how you interpret it whenever somebody brings up 5e rules as a reference at all.

First all do NOT accuse me of doing something that I am not, just because I may be seeing something differently. This is one the biggest problems in these forums. Occasionally there will be people like you coming into forums to answer in a very combative way to the point that a moderator has to step in. It's impossible to come into these forums to have a cordial conversation or even a disagreement without someone insulting the other person. Please don't do that. If you disagree with something I said, that fine but don't accuse me of acting a certain way. I'm tired of people doing that in these forums because I don't do that to them.


<Redacted>

Quote
You say that the majority have not asked for 5e RAW which I agree, especially if you look at Reddit but there seems so be some here in these forums that do. I also agree that some may want more 5e type rules but there are those that want exact 5e rules at least in how I have seen it. If I'm wrong in that assumption then I'm wrong but as of right now that's how it seems.

<Redacted>

That's because I did see more than one person want RAW DnD. That could be maybe 5 people tops but that still is classified as some people. This of course isn't everyone and I get that. I also don't want to continue this discussion of pointing fingers or people coming in into a conversation between two people to stir the pot. That doesn't help anyone and it turns in an online fight. Let's just leave it at that and continue discussions with GM4HIM who is the OP.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:32 PM
Hence why hyperboles and being over-dramatic to make a point is nearly always a bad idea in discussion. People think it exaggerates a point to make it more clear, but more often than not, it distorts and undermines the point they try to make. Big fan of calm and level-headed discussion. It also makes it harder to interpret due to pure text form, missing intonation (and often context. In my quotes in previous post, the replies seem less intense if viewed as a part of the whole thread, but read on their own, they may be perceived as pretty intense, which is what I'm trying to illustrate.)

Anyway, I hope you can all rest your shoulders and get rid of the tension now.

Edit:

Originally Posted by <Redacted>
Originally Posted by The Composer
Edit 2: I refer mostly to Dexai, Lady Avyna and <Redacted> in the moderation-aspect of this post. It doesn't matter which one of you are more right than the other. In terms of OP and thread topic, you're all wrong.

<Redacted>

Oh nothing particular or severe. Just a combination of discussion participants kicking an anthill that I don't think is necessary to be dragged on as long as it has already. I'm just wanting to put an end to it. From all of you. Because most of what's needed to be said has been said, and it can only lead to bickering and needless arguing from here.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:36 PM
Originally Posted by The Composer
Edit 2: I refer mostly to Dexai, Lady Avyna and <Redacted> in the moderation-aspect of this post. It doesn't matter which one of you are more right than the other. In terms of OP and thread topic, you're all wrong.

In my defense, I already spoke to GM4HIM, who cleared up his view and I understand. The quotes that you posted are the ones I was referring to as asking for strict 5e rules because it seems that way. They sounds as they want no homebrew rules, it may not be their intention but that how that sounds like in their writing. Dexai accused me of being disingenuous and a strawman and I take offense to that because that is not what I'm doing, I'm sorry if people think that but I'm sincerely not doing that. The comments I have made are based on how I see things. I don't understand how that would make me a bad person to some.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by The Composer
It's partial due to perspective and perception, in my opinion / understanding.

^^
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 06:09 PM
It is an illusion cantrip so shadow magic wont apply as it is not a 1st level spell or above. Some spells will be difficult to translate without an actual DM I agree but these spells will be esoteric in nature and probably wont be in the spell list anyway. I hope some of the fun spell variants will be included. Spells that effect the environemt in an illusionary manner like "tiny hut" will be pretty cool I think but I think that is an evocation ritual.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by <Redacted>
<Redacted>

I don't know, honestly. Though I've wanted a full forum overhaul and update for an eternity! But I've helped people have their account or posts deleted under certain circumstances and private requests, so if anyone wants it, all they have to do is reach out. However we typically avoid deleting messages in standard moderation circumstances. Exceptions being severe cases that can't be left standing (such as scam, spam, etc) or ban evasions.

If possible and necessary, at least I personally prefer to remove a post with a replaced "[Removed by moderation.]" text in its place for a very specific reason. Way back when I wasn't moderating anything, a rising theme and topic people sometimes mentioned was a notion of that there was no moderation going on at the forums, being a wild, wild west sorta thing. So visible moderation presence for people to see became important to me, because I think it's on some level important to a lot of people. Anyway...

Can certainly raise the subject, it's a good question smile
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:00 PM
I'm optimistic Larian will make additional adjustments to address some of the more unpopular homebrew/compromises based on feedback. No doubt there will be Mods produced after final release that will further fine tune the experience for those looking for more 5e authenticity.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:38 PM
I don't like mods, so I'm hoping they won't just trust the mod approach for things like this.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 07:59 PM
Haven't read every reply but I wanted to say that the OP is exactly right.

My suspicions at this point is that those of who were looking for a successor to BG2 will be disappointed. Larian seems to wedded to the mechanics that made DOS2 such a success and the CEO is 'slavishly' committed to his vision of 'fun'.

Hope to be proven wrong.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Haven't read every reply but I wanted to say that the OP is exactly right.

My suspicions at this point is that those of who were looking for a successor to BG2 will be disappointed. Larian seems to wedded to the mechanics that made DOS2 such a success and the CEO is 'slavishly' committed to his vision of 'fun'.

Hope to be proven wrong.

Same here. I quit DOS and DOS2 at mid way because both games were not for me. I bought BG3 in EA because of its name and because it was marketed as being based on 5e, and to (hopefully) be able to stir the game away from DOS2. I'm not too optimistic this will be the case, in part because of the complete lack of engagement from Larian.
Posted By: Seleniumcodec Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/11/21 08:37 PM
After carefully reading this I'm going to defend Larian in this case, just because this game in part has similar animations to the Divinity series it bares no similarity so lets put a full stop to that.

It is absolutely impossible to make a full 5e game whilst engaging that will please everybody or turn out to be endless in it's options as how many times have you guys sat with your friends playing then come to the conclusion " Yeah, Fred you've won" otherwise it would go on forever and bore the pants off you, remember the record is 38 years and I haven't got that much time?

BG2 was not that great I completed it in a few days and the damn game glitched on me more times than my nans pacemaker has so stop pretending it was.

Conclusively I just rolled a 1 after drinking my last beer and I'm about to pass out.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 12:56 AM
That is not true. Problem is, they never gave people the chance. I find more people out here who have never tried 5e, and they say, "I'm glad they didn't do 5e because I hate 5e and it would never work in a video game.

Here's my stance:

I play Tabletop with others. We use an app on Google Play Store. It guides them in character creation. Super easy to do. Full 5e. All electronic.

We play a tabletop session. I use Tabletop simulator or an app that allows me to use digital maps and pawns. We run fights. Everything is via apps. They move their pawns, the app even says how far they move in feet. They use dice rolling app to roll for hits and damage. They get hit, their app records the HP loss.

Again, all electronic via apps and all using full blown D&D 5e stats and rules with a few homebrew like advantage flanking bonus because that makes sense to me.

So, if we can run tabletop using apps for everything, why can't they implement 5e more in BG3?
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
That is not true. Problem is, they never gave people the chance. I find more people out here who have never tried 5e, and they say, "I'm glad they didn't do 5e because I hate 5e and it would never work in a video game.

Here's my stance:

I play Tabletop with others. We use an app on Google Play Store. It guides them in character creation. Super easy to do. Full 5e. All electronic.

We play a tabletop session. I use Tabletop simulator or an app that allows me to use digital maps and pawns. We run fights. Everything is via apps. They move their pawns, the app even says how far they move in feet. They use dice rolling app to roll for hits and damage. They get hit, their app records the HP loss.

Again, all electronic via apps and all using full blown D&D 5e stats and rules with a few homebrew like advantage flanking bonus because that makes sense to me.

So, if we can run tabletop using apps for everything, why can't they implement 5e more in BG3?


Yeah it's a good question. They clearly haven't even really tried it, cause they never wanted it.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 02:30 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Again, all electronic via apps and all using full blown D&D 5e stats and rules with a few homebrew like advantage flanking bonus because that makes sense to me.

So, if we can run tabletop using apps for everything, why can't they implement 5e more in BG3?

Probably because they think they know better. They think they know what is fun and what is not.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 04:52 AM
I put this in the party size threat, but I'm including it here because it is a perfect example of how D&D combat should go with proper stats and rules and a party size of 4 Players + Shadowheart (Party Size Max of 6; though in this case it is only a party size of 5 because you only have 1 additional companion).

Here. Example of how the Intellect Devourer battle should go on the beach with proper D&D 5e rules and stats, 4 Players + Shadowheart for a party of 5. All at level 1 still.

Initiative = Shadowheart rolled 20 total, then Lynari 18, Intellect Devourer 2 (ID2) 17, Diadell 16, Vel 13, Drogyn 3, ID1 3, and ID3 3.

Shadowheart keeps her distance and rolls a 20 with her Guiding Bolt. Hit. 15 Damage off of ID1. It had 22 HP total to begin with. It now has 7 HP remaining.

Lynari is a drow wizard and casts Magic Missile at ID1. Rolls 3d4, does 6 damage. ID1 has 1 HP left.

ID2 uses Dash and runs 80 feet, moving up to Drogyn who is towards the front.

Diadell, a wood elf Rogue, moves up and attacks ID2 with her two shortswords. Sneak Attack proper rules = Advantage is not necessary if an ally is within 5 feet of the target. Since Drogyn is there, she gets to use Sneak Attack if she hits. First roll 1. Critical Miss. Second roll 14+5=19. Hit. 1d6 damage = 4, but ID2 has Resistance to Piercing and Slashing weapons. Half damage. Diadell only does 2 points off. ID2 had 25 HP. It now has 23.

Vel is a half elf Druid. He casts Entangle and effects an area that captures both ID1 and ID3 in it. Both must make Strength checks against Vel's Spell DC or be ensnared/restrained for up to 10 rounds. Each round, a successful check could free them. Vel's DC is only 12. ID1 rolls a 1. ID3 rolls a 4. They both fail and are restrained.

Drogyn is a half-orc barbarian. He attacks ID2 with his greatsword and rolls a 4+5=9. Miss. He needed a 12.

ID1 rolls to break free of the Entangle spell. Rolls a Natural 20 and succeeds. That cost an Action. It can now only move 40, but because of difficult terrain (the Entangle spell area), it cannot move fast enough to get up to the adventurers.

ID3 rolls to break free of the Entangle spell. Rolls a 10-2=8. (Strength is only 6, which is a -2 bonus). It fails and can't move.

Round 2. Shadowheart casts Guiding Bolt again on ID2. She rolls a 9+3=12. Hit. She rolls 4d6 and does 10 damage. It still has 13 HP.

Lynari casts Magic Missile again. She hurls 1 at ID1 and the other 2 at ID2. She does 1 point of damage to ID1, killing it. She does 4 to ID2. It has 9 left.

ID2 attacks Drogyn. Here is how an Intellect Devourer should behave. First, attacks with claws. Rolls a 2+4=6. Miss. Has Multiattack, so it can attack with claws and Devour Intellect in the same turn. Uses Devour Intellect on Drogyn. He must make a DC 12 Intelligence saving throw or take 2d10 psychic damage. He rolls a 9+0=9. Failure. DM rolls 2d10 and only gets 3. He's lucky. He had 15. He now has 12 HP. But that's not all. The DM also rolls 3d6. If the total equals or exceeds Drogyn's Intelligence score of 10, that score is reduced to 0. The target is stunned until it regains at least 1 point of Intelligence. DM rolls a 12. Drogyn is out of the fight. His Intelligence is now 0.

Diadell's turn. She attacks twice, once with each shortsword. She rolls a 2 and 4. Miss both times. Vel runs up and attacks ID2 with his spear. He rolls 6+3=9. Miss.

ID3 rolls a 14-2=12 and finally breaks free of the Entangle spell. It moves through difficult terrain, unable to reach the heroes.

Round 3. Shadowheart has no spell slots left. She pulls out her crossbow as a free action and fires at ID2. 11+3=14. Hit. 1d8+1 damage, she rolls a 7+1=8, but ID2 has Resistance. Half damage. She only actually deals 4 HP off. It has 5 HP remaining.

Lynari casts Firebolt. Natural 20. 2d10 damage (using extra d10 because of Critical Hit). She rolls a 9 total. ID2 dies in a fiery ball of death.

Diadell sheaths her swords and falls back 30 feet. She pulls out her bow and fires. This is all 1 Free Action. She hits with a Natural 20. 2d6 damage. 6+3=9. No Sneak Attack because no advantage. Resistance means half damage. ID3 loses 5 HP. It had 20. It now has 15.

Vel has no attack to use that won't bring the creature closer to him and the others, so he falls back.

ID3 uses Dash to move 80 feet, but is unable to get close to the remaining heroes because they moved further away.

Round 4. Shadowheart fires her crossbow again. 11+3=14. Hit. 3+1=4 divided by 2 (Resistance) = 2. It has 13 remaining.

Lynari casts Firebolt again. She only rolls a 4 to hit. Miss.

Diadell rolls for her bow and misses with a 2.

Each of them moved 30 feet further away to escape.

Vel risks his life to keep ID3 away from the others. He runs 30 feet and uses Thorn Whip. He rolls a 1. Critical Miss.

ID3 takes the bait and charges him. It attacks with claws. 4+4=8. Miss. It uses Devour Intellect. Vel rolls an 18+1=19 to resist and succeeds. He only needed a 12. He takes no damage.

Round 5. Shadowheart fires again with 11+3=14. She does 6+1=7 damage divided by 2 = 4. It has 9 remaining. She moves another 30 feet away to hopefully keep it at a distance.

Lynari casts Firebolt. 16+4=20. Hit. 8 damage. ID3 only has 1 HP remaining.

Diadell fires her bow. Natural 20. 2d6. She rolls a 6. Resistance reduces it to 3. That is enough to kill it.

Party gains 270 XP each. From the Imp fights during the Prologue, they received 600 XP during the first fight divided by 5 (including Lae'zel) = 120 XP each. After meeting Shadowheart, they had a party of 6. They faced another group of 2 Imps and a Hellsboar on the bridge. Each imp was 200 XP and Hellsboar was 100. So that was 300 XP total. Then they faced a second group of the same for another 300 XP total. Divided by 6, that was another 100 XP each. So, by the end of the Prologue, they had 120+100=220 XP. The DM then awarded them 50 XP for completing the Prologue for a total of 270 XP. They needed 300 XP to level up.

So, they were able to level up after the Intellect Devourer fight, having a total of 540 XP.

Notice how this fight was not so tough with a party of 4 + Shadowheart. They still lost a man who would now only recover during a Long Rest; thus the Long Rest would be suggested by the game at that point because you have a fallen companion who wouldn't recover until after the Long Rest from Devour Intellect. Thus, it makes sense to do a Long Rest Tutorial at that point especially if that battle didn't go as well as this one did.

First, what part of this fight here couldn't be done in a video game? Anything?

Second, THAT is how Intellect Devourers should act and how tough they really are.

Third, tell me that the game wasn't designed with a party size of 5+ based on this scenario above. The ONLY reason it works for a Party Size 4 at all (and ESPECIALLY for just 1 MC and Shadowheart) is because they not only reduced each of the ID's to like 10-12 HP, but they removed Resistance and Multiattack and took away their Devour Intellect and Body Thief abilities.

This is why I'm suggesting:

1. Option for Party Size 6. This Option allows 4 Player Multiplayer games to have their 4 Custom Characters and Shadowheart, thus giving them a better chance of surviving this fight.
2. Option for Core D&D 5e Rules Difficulty so that when you play 4 Player Multiplayer + Shadowheart, it is a challenging and rewarding experience instead of an absolute breeze that is lame and almost pointless. It also gives the Intellect Devourers their proper stats and signature attacks so that they are actual Intellect Devourers.
3. Option for Players to be able to create up to 4 Custom Characters even in Single Player Mode so that they could play with the Core D&D 5e Rules Difficulty from the beginning of the game and not be totally wiped out by fighting 3 Intellect Devourers with only 1 MC and Shadowheart.

THIS is what I'm talking about. Imagine if Vel had failed his roll. ID3 would have taken him down as well, leaving only Lynari, Diadell and Shadowheart. They would have to keep running and shooting, keeping it at a distance and slowly dwindling it down to kill it off.

I, the DM, would not have allowed it to use Body Thief. I would have had ID3 try to use Body Thief on Vel and then announced, "The creature tries to use its Body Thief ability, which allows it to consume the target's brain and teleport into the target's skull. It can then possess the body and control the body of its target. However, SOMEthing seems to be preventing it. A strange glow appears around your companion's head, shielding them from the monster's power."

Now THAT would be awesome, and THAT would make total sense from a story perspective. It would then let the player(s) know that Intellect Devourers are normally vicious, terrible, and evil creatures that can actually take over a person's body like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and they can use that body against their own allies. Best not to underestimate them in the future. PLUS, it lends even more evidence to the player that their tadpoles are NOT normal.

THIS is the kind of thing I'm looking for in BG3 that I think would make it better.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 06:36 AM
And it's not just combat I'm talking about.

Here's another example of what I'm trying to get across here.

Imagine this. Day/Night Cycle. You crash on the beach. It's early morning. We know this because it's night when the nautiloid crashes. So, when we wake up, it's morning. We fight Intellect Devourers. We long rest. End of Day 1. You make camp on the beach just outside the Dank Crypt entrance.

Next morning, we set out, meet Astarion, the fishermen, and Gale. We go through the entire dank crypt. We come out, and the party needs a short rest. You short rest once, the sun moves in the sky and it's afternoon. But they need to short rest again because they lost a lot of HP. The afternoon turns to evening. The sun has set. Now, the entire landscape is dark.

The party moves away from the dank crypt, and suddenly, they spot something moving in the shadows on the path ahead. Stealth mode. Astarion is sent ahead to investigate. Whatever it is has both hearing and sight cones. Astarion enters the broader hearing radius. He has Stealth Expertise. The creature's passive Perception is 12. Astarion rolls a 7. Now, in current game, he would get a 7+4 for Proficiency for Stealth skill which is a failure because he doesn't have Expertise. However, in this version of the game which is more true to D&D 5e, he has Expertise, so his skill is +6 for a total of 13. He succeeds. He creeps up close enough to see a giant badger. Player is a druid and approaches in animal form. Creatures spots the druid MC and immediately attacks. Druid MC uses Animal Friendship and succeeds. Animal calms down. Text box pops up (because we don't need voice acting for every little thing we encounter). "You frightened me. I thought you were going to try to kill me. How can I help you, Friend?"

You converse with the animal, and it tells you about the grove to the north. Then it hops off.

You continue along in the darkness. Quiet music is playing that's a bit spooky but not too much. You encounter the tieflings with Lae'zel. You get a +2 to Intimidate because you are a group of adventurers moving about in the dark and encountering them in the night. If you had encountered them by day, you'd get no Intimidate bonus. Ah, but your MC doesn't have Intimidate. So, you switch mid-conversation, to Astarion to use Deception. You chose Deception for his other Expertise. He doesn't get the +2 bonus for night because he's going to try to trick them into leaving. So, instead of your MC who has no bonuses attempting to make the roll, Astarion who has a +6 to Deception, gets to make the roll.

He succeeds and they run off, thinking a group of mind flayers is coming from the crashed ship. You free Lae'zel and she joins the party. Now you have 6 party members. Take your pick. 4 Custom Characters, Astarion, Gale, Shadowheart and Lae'zel. You can even boot your Custom Characters and only take the origin characters if you want. Your MC is the only one you have to take.

You approach the grove gate. Aradin and his team are shouting up at... nothing. There is no one anywhere atop the rocks. It looks just like sheer mountain walls because Silvanus' power is cloaking the entire grove so it cannot be seen or detected. The gate blends into the rock walls with vines so that you can't even see the faintest outline of it.

Suddenly, Kanon's head appears as if popping out of the rock walls. The illusion ripples as he does so. He shouts down at Aradin saying that he can't let anyone in. It's Zevlor's orders. Aradin shouts back that goblins are right behind. Kanon steps further out of the illusion, onto the very edge of the rocky ledge. Zevlor then appears and joins him. He and Aradin have their little exchange. Zevlor orders the gates to be opened. Goblins appear in the darkness, along with the worg. The light of some of their torches illuminates the forested area. Several archers fire. Kanon is raising the gate. The archers, however, are firing volleys at the wall where Zevlor is standing. Zevlor manages to take cover, but Kanon is hit by stray fire. You can suddenly see the gate because it was lifting. Otherwise, it still looks invisible. It descends, and the fight begins... at night.

Your party is on the hill. You can't be detected at first because of the cover of night and you aren't moving. Even if you aren't stealthing it, you are still not detected at first because of the fact that it is night and you are more than 60 feet beyond their line of sight. During the combat, you get +2 bonus to Stealth every time you try to hide. As soon as you are detected, the goblins fall back away from the main gate of the grove and focus on you. After all, they know they'll get pummeled by defenders on the wall, and their only hope is to kill you first. Suddenly, the battle becomes much harder. Same number of enemies, but they are now focusing their attention on you and not on Aradin and his crew and the defenders on the wall. However, you have a party of potentially 5-6. So, the fight isn't too overwhelming. Besides, you get a +2 for high ground up on the hill and you can have Astarion use cover of night to help him hide and do Sneak Attacks on his enemies. Whatever your strategy, the point is that even if you only took a party of 4, you'd still have Aradin and his group to help you, AND the defenders on the walls could help as well, including Wyll.

This would then also explain why Zevlor and everyone else acts like you saved the grove. If you were the ones to take the brunt of the attack upon yourselves, it makes sense that everyone would hail you as the heroes.

You enter the grove. It is night. The beauty of the grove by star and moonlight with torches lit. It's not late night. It's evening, so everyone is where they normally are. Still makes sense for nothing to have changed. You go about talking to people. You have Astarion rob a few people, gaining a +2 bonus for darkness of night AND his +6 Stealth Expertise. So, he's sneaking around and pickpocketing all over the place, but not suits of armor. Just little things like potions and gold and other small trinkets he can then sell to vendors and earn enough gold to buy armor and weapons and such.

You decide to sneak Sazza out. Ah! Cover of night will help with that. You have the choice of going through the secret tunnels OR sneaking her right out through the camp. Since you have cover of night +2 bonus for Stealth, she has a better chance of sneaking out with you especially if you have some of your characters engage different characters in the grove in conversation, causing them to turn their backs on Sazza.

Finally, you go meet Kagha and Rath and you make a Perception roll in the central chamber. All of your party does. One succeeds and points out the murals on the wall. You look at them and get the story of the grove. If Shadowheart is with you, she explains to you who Shar is and gives you a very basic background about her. Since she is your companion, and a Sharran, she WANTS you to approve of Shar and thus her, so she tells you a bit of the story and puts her own spin on it so that you'll like Shar. However, Gale refutes the tale, or maybe Wyll or Astarion or Lae'zel, or you make a Religion roll of 10 or higher and know that most people view Shar as evil and nasty and she doesn't even glow in the dark. Now, you know something about Shar.

Finally, you Long Rest. Day 2 ends. You make camp in the grove because that is the safest place you could possibly camp in the entire EA. It becomes your main camp. All other camps, even the one on the beach for Day 1 earlier, are mini-camps. A little cutscene is given at the end of Day 2 here when you first camp in the grove showing one of the druids guiding you to a quiet spot in the grove where you can make camp just at the edge of the river.

Skip ahead. You are roaming the forest at night. You are nearing Bogrot. Suddenly, you hear the screams of something in the night sky. It sounds like it's coming from the town. Slowly, you make your way in. You see goblins running west towards the goblin camp. They are fleeing from something. Is it you? You make your way into the town. AMBUSH! Phase spiders Ethereal Jaunt into the Material Plane right next to your party; 3 of them. Perception rolls are made to determine if you are surprised. You fail. They surprise attack you. During first round of combat that isn't the surprise round, they attack and phase back into the Ethereal Plane. Battle ends. They were only attacking you to soften you up and test you out. They can see you aren't goblins. They're just messing with you.

You continue through the village, exploring a few buildings and expecting spiders again at any moment. Bam! Three jump out at you again and attack. This time, Perception rolls are made and your party succeeds, or at least a few of them do. Phase spiders attack and flee again. Battle ends.

Because not every encounter in D&D has to be fought to the absolute death. That's not even realistic. Enemies will often surrender or flee if they are losing a fight. This speeds up combat and doesn't bog the game down with having to kill absolutely everything. And sometimes, enemies will do hit and fade tactics, ESPECIALLY phase spiders.

Finally, after softening you up a bit here and there, the phase spiders make their full assault. They appear again as you're in the street. They phase in and attack. Next round, they attack and phase out. Next round, they attack and phase in. You weaken them to quarter health. They flee into the Ethereal Plane and leave you alone for the remainder of your surface exploration.

You long rest, because they beat the crap out of you. You return by day. NOW the goblins are there and the ogres and everything that is currently there in the game. Whole new experience because it's by day.

Now THAT kind of stuff would REALLY take this game up a ton of notches.
Posted By: RutgerF Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 07:18 AM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
In D&D it simply compels anything with senses to go look at "something", once investigated they roll an INT saving throw per round until they realise it is bogus. Then, depending on the circumstances may investigate a wider area to find the caster or simply go back to whatever they were doing.
Might be ...
Until your Illusionist Wizard get to level 14, where "something" is no longer good enough, since you get:

"Illusory Reality
By 14th level, you have learned the secret of weaving shadow magic into your illusions to give them a semi-reality. When you cast an illusion spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose one inanimate, nonmagical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real. You can do this on your turn as a bonus action while the spell is ongoing. The object remains real for 1 minute. For example, you can create an illusion of a bridge over a chasm and then make it real long enough for your allies to cross.

The object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone.
"
Easy. Have you seen how Wish was implemented in BG2? The cast initiated a dialogue, and you chose one of the options provided. The list of options was influenced by current circumstances (for example, if a party member was dead, you could get a chance to resurrect them), and the total amount, usefulness and degree of benefit / harm the choices provide depended directly on the caster's INT. Sure, it's pretty simplistic (on the surface; the actual implementation must have been fiendishly difficult), but it's probably the best Bioware could do, considering the circumstances. I'm pretty sure many "purists" would shirk at such a limited implementation, but when ToB was released, for many people this was just "Wow!".

There are many ways to go with such things:

  • Simply skip the spell entirely;
  • Make it situational, tied to particular locations, and implemented via cutscenes. For example, we might not have the spell in the game per se, but we might have a magickal item that allows us to cast it, with limited charges. Then, as your party comes to a place for which a suitable cutscene exists and they have said item in the inventory, either one of the party members can make a remark about the item's potential usefulness here, or the item itself might start "wriggling in your backpack" (the latter was used in Dark Souls, for example).
  • Go the Bioware's way and implement a dialog / cutscene for every time you cast it. Development wise, this will be the most challenging one.


I'm pretty sure Larian would have their own ideas, if / when they ever come to implement something as heavily dependent on player's imagination as your example.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Problem here is that you are comparing game wich have rules set for few hundert of years and nobody even know for sure theese days why wich figure plays the way it plays ...
Oh, please, don't be ridiculous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess
Posted By: Black_Elk Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 07:46 AM
Those are some great write ups for possible play by plays. I enjoyed reading them and seeing how various continuity and timing issues were addressed in the encounter design. Also how important basic abilities are tutorialized in a way that makes sense given the context with deference to pacing. I can tell from the presentation that you've thought a lot on how this campaign would feel with somewhat more TT style guided narrative. Makes me pine for the night game, and for a larger party, and some exposition that builds on the character archetypes for the current companions.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
That is not true. Problem is, they never gave people the chance. I find more people out here who have never tried 5e, and they say, "I'm glad they didn't do 5e because I hate 5e and it would never work in a video game.

Here's my stance:

I play Tabletop with others. We use an app on Google Play Store. It guides them in character creation. Super easy to do. Full 5e. All electronic.

We play a tabletop session. I use Tabletop simulator or an app that allows me to use digital maps and pawns. We run fights. Everything is via apps. They move their pawns, the app even says how far they move in feet. They use dice rolling app to roll for hits and damage. They get hit, their app records the HP loss.

Again, all electronic via apps and all using full blown D&D 5e stats and rules with a few homebrew like advantage flanking bonus because that makes sense to me.

So, if we can run tabletop using apps for everything, why can't they implement 5e more in BG3?

I think it's because that is not Larian's vision. Like I mentioned before in this thread, Larian has said multiple times that BG3 is "first and foremost" a video game. That right there tells you they are not trying to implement too much 5e or tabletop mechanics. I can understand the need to for more 5e rules or mechanics but it seems Larian has been trying to create a hybrid game, a cross between regular rpg and tabletop. Another problem in BG3 is that it has a lot of similarities with DOS2. Just the opening sequence alone is almost the same but in a different setting. BG3 to an extend is not original when it comes to writing the story as they seem to have taken bits and pieces from DOS2.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 12:10 PM
Regular RPG??? I don't understand. D&D tabletop IS the original RPG. It is the RPG EVERY RPG is based on. How can you cross regular RPG with it?
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 12:14 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Regular RPG??? I don't understand. D&D tabletop IS the original RPG. It is the RPG EVERY RPG is based on. How can you cross regular RPG with it?

I meant in terms of video game rpgs like Dragon Age, Fallout, Skyrim. Those types of mechanics. That’s what I meant about hybrid of video game rpg and tabletop. Those have different mechanics. One example of tabletop turned video game rpg is Cyberpunk.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 12:21 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I think it's because that is not Larian's vision.
This should be all that needs to be said ...
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I think it's because that is not Larian's vision.
This should be all that needs to be said ...
And that's their prerogative. That doesn't however, erase issues that they are creating.

Still, a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation. Larian doesn't want to make table-top simulator but a good computer game? Good, fix your game then. Bad mechanics and balance problems remain just that, no matter what were the reasons for their creation. I don't think that many of us would care about how BG3 compares to 5e (though I am sure some still would), if it worked.

I think you will also find quite a bit of inconsistency as to when Larian thinks that BG3 should feel like a tabletop dice game, and when it shouldn't. If there is one thing I am not entirely conviced about is that if Larian has defined, focused vision. BG3 seems to me to be all over the place.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Regular RPG??? I don't understand. D&D tabletop IS the original RPG. It is the RPG EVERY RPG is based on. How can you cross regular RPG with it?

I meant in terms of video game rpgs like Dragon Age, Fallout, Skyrim. Those types of mechanics. That’s what I meant about hybrid of video game rpg and tabletop. Those have different mechanics. One example of tabletop turned video game rpg is Cyberpunk.

???

Those are first person hack/slashers with dialogue options. Totally different mechanics and I don't think they're crossing tabletop with any elements of those games. What elements from those games says, "My character can jump 30 feet forward and 20 feet up and shove enemies 300 feet off a cliff and Rogues don't get Expertise but everyone can do anything so no class is special"?

None of the homebrew even closely says Dragon Age, Fallout or Skyrim. It's just changes to rules for the sake of changing the rules because they think the change is fun. I mean, seriously, what about stripping an Intellect devourer of its very signature Devour Intellect ability even remotely indicates they are crossing TT with any other VGs? Same question with stripping Rogues of their uniqueness... And clerics... And mages...

It sure doesn't seem to me that they are crossing anything. What it seems like is that they are trying to cater to players who just want more casual gameplay and not a challenge. Most who defend the "Larian Vision" don't seem to me to want their Rogues to be restricted from using scrolls and spells, Clerics from casting Magic Missile scrolls, etc. They want everyone to be able to do everything so nothing is special, and they want to fight super awesome monsters that are way beyond their characters' abilities because they are somehow gods, but in truth they aren't, the enemies are just extremely nerfed so that they only SEEM super tough when they're not. In no way ever should a party of less than 5 should face 3 even wounded intellect devourers at level 1 or a demon or cambions. Level 4 or less party of 4 or less should never face a Bullette or two minotaurs or a party of 4 githyanki or the mud mephits and wood woads...the phase spiders... SO many things.

Every encounter in the game is Deadly. Deadly! So they nerf them and strip them of their abilities to make them Easy or Medium Challenge Rating. Makes no sense. Why not make the encounters using different monsters that are legit Easy or Moderate? Why take Deadly monsters and extreme nerf them? And again, how is that even remotely a "video game" thing?

I'll tell you what that is. That's the DM at a tabletop session throwing a dragon at level 4 players and then flubbing the rules because he realized he is gonna kill his players. So he makes the dragon wounded and strips all of its special moves so that it doesn't wipe the party in one round. And the players are all like, "Oh yeah! We just killed a dragon! Woo hoo!"

You didn't kill a dragon. Fools! You killed an illusion dragon with NO real dragon characteristics. The DM just flubbed everything because he screwed up."

I've been there. Done that. Never forget the Darth Vader appearance I had during a Star Wars RPG session. I expected the players to run. They didn't. They attacked VADER! So, I severely nerfed him and then had some sort of lame "Stormtroopers rush in and save him" crap because they wound up killing Vader because I nerfed him. Bad! Bad! The players were like, "Come on. You let us win, didn't you?"

Yep. Sure did. Threw something too hard at you. Had to or game over and everyone's mad.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Regular RPG??? I don't understand. D&D tabletop IS the original RPG. It is the RPG EVERY RPG is based on. How can you cross regular RPG with it?

I meant in terms of video game rpgs like Dragon Age, Fallout, Skyrim. Those types of mechanics. That’s what I meant about hybrid of video game rpg and tabletop. Those have different mechanics. One example of tabletop turned video game rpg is Cyberpunk.

???

Those are first person hack/slashers with dialogue options. Totally different mechanics and I don't think they're crossing tabletop with any elements of those games. What elements from those games says, "My character can jump 30 feet forward and 20 feet up and shove enemies 300 feet off a cliff and Rogues don't get Expertise but everyone can do anything so no class is special"?

None of the homebrew even closely says Dragon Age, Fallout or Skyrim. It's just changes to rules for the sake of changing the rules because they think the change is fun. I mean, seriously, what about stripping an Intellect devourer of its very signature Devour Intellect ability even remotely indicates they are crossing TT with any other VGs? Same question with stripping Rogues of their uniqueness... And clerics... And mages...

It sure doesn't seem to me that they are crossing anything. What it seems like is that they are trying to cater to players who just want more casual gameplay and not a challenge. Most who defend the "Larian Vision" don't seem to me to want their Rogues to be restricted from using scrolls and spells, Clerics from casting Magic Missile scrolls, etc. They want everyone to be able to do everything so nothing is special, and they want to fight super awesome monsters that are way beyond their characters' abilities because they are somehow gods, but in truth they aren't, the enemies are just extremely nerfed so that they only SEEM super tough when they're not. In no way ever should a party of less than 5 should face 3 even wounded intellect devourers at level 1 or a demon or cambions. Level 4 or less party of 4 or less should never face a Bullette or two minotaurs or a party of 4 githyanki or the mud mephits and wood woads...the phase spiders... SO many things.

Every encounter in the game is Deadly. Deadly! So they nerf them and strip them of their abilities to make them Easy or Medium Challenge Rating. Makes no sense. Why not make the encounters using different monsters that are legit Easy or Moderate? Why take Deadly monsters and extreme nerf them? And again, how is that even remotely a "video game" thing?

I'll tell you what that is. That's the DM at a tabletop session throwing a dragon at level 4 players and then flubbing the rules because he realized he is gonna kill his players. So he makes the dragon wounded and strips all of its special moves so that it doesn't wipe the party in one round.

Let me make myself clear to you and everyone else here. I do in fact, agree with what you want for BG3. After you explained earlier in the thread and your list of the things that would make the game better. I agree and that would make the game better. What I'm trying to explain in regards to what Larian has done is a mixture of rpg type storytelling like you have with Neverwinter MMO, that game doesn't utilize the mechanics of tabletop but real time fighting. That's what I mean. Plus, Larian seems to have used DOS2 as a base for BG3 with a twist of DnD tabletop mechanics. This seems to be where a lot of us are having an issue because it's either they make a tabletop video game or they make an rpg with no tabletop like Neverwinter.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I think it's because that is not Larian's vision.
This should be all that needs to be said ...
And that's their prerogative. That doesn't however, erase issues that they are creating.

Still, a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation. Larian doesn't want to make table-top simulator but a good computer game? Good, fix your game then. Bad mechanics and balance problems remain just that, no matter what were the reasons for their creation. I don't think that many of us would care about how BG3 compares to 5e (though I am sure some still would), if it worked.

I think you will also find quite a bit of inconsistency as to when Larian thinks that BG3 should feel like a tabletop dice game, and when it shouldn't. If there is one thing I am not entirely conviced about is that if Larian has defined, focused vision. BG3 seems to me to be all over the place.

I agree it's all over the place because it seems they have used difference sources as a base for their game and just like mashed it all together.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 01:39 PM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Again, all electronic via apps and all using full blown D&D 5e stats and rules with a few homebrew like advantage flanking bonus because that makes sense to me.

So, if we can run tabletop using apps for everything, why can't they implement 5e more in BG3?

Probably because they think they know better. They think they know what is fun and what is not.

And they also have said more than once that they are the GM/DM in this game. I take that as them saying, "This is our game with our vision, ect. whether you like it or not."
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 02:19 PM
Ok. I understand what you're saying, Lady A, and I realize that. I do. I also do respect them as DM, whether it seems like it or not.

But they're asking for feedback from their players, which any good DM should do.

And my feedback is: Please don't nerf enemies and please make the game more realistic by removing a lot of the unrealistic homebrew, and make the classes and monsters unique again by giving them back their proper stats, and please create better ambiance with day/night, and please remove all the rays of sunlight in places that are dark, such as the Underdark, and all the other things that we've been suggesting.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Ok. I understand what you're saying, Lady A, and I realize that. I do. I also do respect them as DM, whether it seems like it or not.

But they're asking for feedback from their players, which any good DM should do.

And my feedback is: Please don't nerf enemies and please make the game more realistic by removing a lot of the unrealistic homebrew, and make the classes and monsters unique again by giving them back their proper stats, and please create better ambiance with day/night, and please remove all the rays of sunlight in places that are dark, such as the Underdark, and all the other things that we've been suggesting.

I can agree with that.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 03:11 PM
Lady A. I appreciate you. I know we don't always agree, but I feel at least we can have a conversation without bashing our heads into the wall.

Thank you.
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Those are some great write ups for possible play by plays. I enjoyed reading them and seeing how various continuity and timing issues were addressed in the encounter design. Also how important basic abilities are tutorialized in a way that makes sense given the context with deference to pacing. I can tell from the presentation that you've thought a lot on how this campaign would feel with somewhat more TT style guided narrative. Makes me pine for the night game, and for a larger party, and some exposition that builds on the character archetypes for the current companions.

Fully agreed. Which is why I don't understand the pushback the OP is getting. The legwork is being done, a lot of good suggestions are being provided.

It would be great if the discussions converged towards the specifics, rather than debating the intent.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Lady A. I appreciate you. I know we don't always agree, but I feel at least we can have a conversation without bashing our heads into the wall.

Thank you.

You're welcome. I think it always helps a conversation to find a common ground.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 04:07 PM
Here's another, shorter example of what I'm looking for.

You approach the gith Patrol. It's night. Ominous roar. "What the heck was that?"

"Dragon," says Lae'zel. "My kin are near."

Shadow of dragon created in moonlight seen on the ground. Ominous music begins.

Gith sequence happens at night (well potentially if you choose to travel by night). Dragon lights up the area with flames and lands.

You approach. If Shadowheart is with you, she suddenly refuses to go any further, and before you can say anything, she flees. You have the option of another character to add instantly to your party to replace her, or you can choose to go after her.

You replace her. Voss determines you must die but uses Detect Thought. "Ah! The weapon is in the hands of their cleric companion. Beretha. Kill them. Quedenos! To the sky. We will find their companion and retrieve the weapon.". And THAT'S why he leaves. He goes after SH who has the weapon.

If you go after SH instead, she absolutely refuses to go with you. Lae'zel, however, demands that you go. You must choose. Who will you listen to? Whoever you choose might impact your relationship and so forth.

The point: solid reasoning for why Voss leaves and also creates tensions in the party. Kinda like how Jaheira and Aerie would fight. We need better, sound reasons why Voss wouldn't just kill us himself and claim the credit for finding the weapon and we need more companion interaction that is full of flavor and tension and drama. Not to the point of being unfun, mind you, but some where it makes sense, like this scene.
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Here's another, shorter example of what I'm looking for.

You approach the gith Patrol. It's night. Ominous roar. "What the heck was that?"

"Dragon," says Lae'zel. "My kin are near."

Shadow of dragon created in moonlight seen on the ground. Ominous music begins.

Gith sequence happens at night (well potentially if you choose to travel by night). Dragon lights up the area with flames and lands.

You approach. If Shadowheart is with you, she suddenly refuses to go any further, and before you can say anything, she flees. You have the option of another character to add instantly to your party to replace her, or you can choose to go after her.

You replace her. Voss determines you must die but uses Detect Thought. "Ah! The weapon is in the hands of their cleric companion. Beretha. Kill them. Quedenos! To the sky. We will find their companion and retrieve the weapon.". And THAT'S why he leaves. He goes after SH who has the weapon.

If you go after SH instead, she absolutely refuses to go with you. Lae'zel, however, demands that you go. You must choose. Who will you listen to? Whoever you choose might impact your relationship and so forth.

The point: solid reasoning for why Voss leaves and also creates tensions in the party. Kinda like how Jaheira and Aerie would fight. We need better, sound reasons why Voss wouldn't just kill us himself and claim the credit for finding the weapon and we need more companion interaction that is full of flavor and tension and drama. Not to the point of being unfun, mind you, but some where it makes sense, like this scene.

Ah, I see and I totally agree with you there.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 04:24 PM
That's just an example of how characters aren't behaving like they should, but that one is outside of combat.

A Kith'rak would NEVER let a subordinate claim such a prize. His own pride would demand he kill the heroes and claim the weapon for himself. If anything, he'd have sent Beretha off to inform the others while his dragon torched us.

I also think it'd be cool to have to go hunting for SH afterwards and find her hiding someplace like Waukeen's Rest. Then you have to try to get back to the grove or something without being spotted by the randomly passing Quedenos. If you get caught, you have to try to run for it and find a place to hide or something before he catches and kills you. There are plenty of things they could do with this that would be scary exciting and lots of fun.

It's an opportunity missed in my opinion.
Posted By: KingTiki Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 06:00 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
I think you will also find quite a bit of inconsistency as to when Larian thinks that BG3 should feel like a tabletop dice game, and when it shouldn't. If there is one thing I am not entirely conviced about is that if Larian has defined, focused vision. BG3 seems to me to be all over the place.

This. You really can see how they struggle to let go of some things that are really diametrical to the overall quality of the game. In one patch they tone down the surfaces just to change up a 5e spell to give it surfaces again. They need to come to terms that this is not and should not be DOS3. I also feel like they could not iterate and improve on their engine much more than they have and so they try to rely on things that worked before. Hence a lot of mash up from DOS2 mechanics into BG3.

They should work hard to rectify those things. The potential is huge for this game, but if we have 2 opposing design philosophies in one game it will feel bad.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 06:51 PM
And THAT is really what Lady A, I think, is referring to when she says a crossing of video game and tabletop. The truth is, BG3 is a blending of DOS2 and tabletop D&D because they took DOS2 and tried to make it D&D=ish probably for budget purposes and to see how well it was received. Then, realizing it wasn't received very well by many, they started to sort of implement more and more D&D 5e rules and such because so many fans on Steam, Reddit, this forum, and many others were screaming, "Why is this game a DOS sequel and not a BG sequel! It feels too much like DOS3 and not BG3."

So, they have been getting better in some ways, but we are still missing so many more elements, and that is my point. It feels MORE like a BG sequel, but it is still missing so many many things.

The biggest, for me, is the monsters. I'm telling you, one of the things that makes D&D what it is, it is the variety of monsters and their special abilities. A red dragon that can't breathe fire is not a D&D red dragon. It's some sort of Ice Drake from Lord of the Rings. (I'm just throwing out an example that's not in the game to make my point. If they threw a red dragon into the game and it didn't breathe fire ever, people would be like, "What the heck!")

See, part of the issue is that we have a lot of DOS fans and other video game fans who don't know much about the monsters of D&D. Therefore, they can't fully appreciate what is missing. I put the example of the Intellect Devourers in this thread because that is how they are supposed to be. In fact, I would even say that the example I put in here is so NOT even how they would act. The truth is, and the full lore of it is, they are stealth assassins. They wouldn't face you in direct combat unless they had to.

Here's what I'd REALLY like to see as a true and faithful adaptation of intellect devourers.

You meet Shadowheart. You come up the beach towards the nautiloid. Oh! There is a fisherman standing there. "Hi! Oh, am I so glad to see you. There are so many dead around here," he says. "Thank goodness you showed up when you did. Those monsters have been everywhere. Thankfully, I think we've killed most of them." A scream comes from inside the nautiloid. It's a woman's. "Oh no! Moira! She's in trouble. Quick! Please! Help me! My wife, Moira, is in trouble. One of those things must have her cornered or something." He darts into the nautiloid. You follow.

There's Moira and one other fisherman standing there. There is a mind flayer corpse at their feet. "Sorry," says Moira as you approach. "I was startled. It's nothing. It's just a dead one of those squiddies." Perception roll is made. You succeed and suddenly notice the third fisherman is sliding up behind you... with a CLUB! He sees that you spotted him and attacks.

All three attack you. You kill one. BAM! "What in the bloody Hells!" Shadowheart cries. "An Intellect Devourer! It sprang out of their head!" You kill another. Same result. You kill the third, same result.

Now, I'm not sure how you'd survive such an encounter against 3 of them at level 1 or 2 with only 1 MC and Shadowheart, because that would be more like a battle for 5 or 6 characters against 3 devourers, but THAT is how they should act and how the scene SHOULD go if done the way intellect devourers are supposed to act. The whole point of them is that they take over people's bodies. You have all these fishermen on the beach that they supposedly killed. Why would they NOT take over ANY of their bodies and try to use them to lure you and others into a trap like they're supposed to?

No. They act like brute thugs, like brain-washed Kuo-Toas. Or they could even just be human and elven and dwarven and halfling and gnomish thralls, like you find on the nautiloid. That would make more sense as a starter fight.

But, don't get me wrong, facing 3 intellect devourers is an awesome concept and I like the encounter. I just think that the execution is done poorly and doesn't fit at all with their MO. They should have taken over fishermen, they should try to lure you into a trap, and then they should try to kill you, first using the bodies of the fishermen, and then in their true forms. Sure, they could be weakened because there was a huge fight and crash, but then they should only have maybe 2 or 3 HP each, because at level 1 or 2, your characters will still have a hard time killing an intellect devourer with only 2 or 3 HP, because most of your attacks are going to be with Resistance, taking only half damage. And if they can take each character down in a single round, you're pretty much screwed if you roll poorly and they roll well, especially if they ambush you at close range, like they should.

This, again, is why a party of 6 max makes the most sense for the encounters that are presented in the game. Even if three devourers attack your party at close range, you still have a few that might escape to a distance and peg wounded devourers off until they die. A single mage might be able to kill all three with magic, making the mage more special because some enemies are more easily killed by mages as opposed to fighters and rogues. That is, again, WHY distinct classes are so vital to the game. Mages, right now, have very little meaning or purpose because there are no enemies that only mages are truly effective against.

The intellect devourer fight should be grunt fighter and rogue trying to distract the devourers while the mage pounds them even with his/her cantrip Firebolt spell. 1d10 damage each time the mage hits is much more effective because no resistance exists against the mage, while the fighter and rogue are trying their hardest to barely chip away at the beasts with piercing and slashing weapons. The mage suddenly becomes the star of that battle because the devourer isn't resistant to the mage.

Later, the cleric is special because his/her radiant damage and turn undead is super effective against the undead scribes and the undead in the Necromancer's lair. Ah! The purpose of the cleric is not just to heal, but to help destroy undead easier. The undead might overwhelm the party without a cleric, but because they had the cleric, the battle was actually not that hard at all.

Later, during the fight against a horde of goblins at the camp, the fighter and rogue are suddenly the stars. The fighter and rogue, working together in tandem, wipe the floor with the hordes because the fighter has higher attack and defense in melee and the enemy keeps trying to take the fighter down, but they can't hit or do much damage. The rogue is popping in and out of the shadows using sneak attack and pulverizing their numbers while they are focusing on trying to kill the fighter. The mage is using all his/her defense spells just to keep the enemies at bay during this fight, and is attempting to support where they can. The cleric is healing everyone as much as possible and supporting with buffs. But ultimately, it is the fighter who shines during this horde battle because each time the fighter hits, he/she is hacking a goblin's head off because they are mob fighters, and the fighter at level 4 is a brutal force to be reckoned with.

The rogue shines as well when sneaking and breaking and entering and stealing vital things from enemies and SETTING TRAPS!!! Where is the rogue setting traps thing? We can't even really find traps in the game that we can have the rogue use. The rogue should be able to sneak around the entire dang goblin lair and set traps and then the party lures Minthara and Ragzlin and such into said traps and BOOM! or SNAP! Ugh! 10-15 HP lost for Minthara or Ragzlin because the rogue set a trap that he/she walked right into.

THESE are the D&D elements that are truly missing. THESE are the things that make D&D what D&D is supposed to be. Unique classes. Unique monsters with unique special abilities and combat strategies that you, the player, must learn and must figure out how to overcome. THAT is the true fun of the game. You, the player, don't always know every monster and how they are supposed to behave and act, but you learn real quick when they utilize their special abilities and such against you in combat. It is, then, the DM's job to teach you these things through combat experience without killing you.

And here, again, we return to the max party size of 6. This is so vitally important because it is much easier for a DM to accidentally wipe out an entire party of 4 than an entire party of 6. Even in the intellect devourer ambush scenario, a party of 5 or 6 would have at least a few members who were able to escape the ambush and fall back using disengage to put some distance between them and the intellect devourers. Then they could peg the devourers from a distance and keep their distance so that the devourers can't get up close enough to kill them. If you only have 4 party members at the most, or if it was really just 1 MC and Shadowheart, the ambush scene is in no way possible. 3 Devourers would easily wipe out 1 MC and Shadowheart. Thus, the game's ability to present you, the player, with really cool encounters like this one is completely limited because it doesn't take much for 3 devourers to wipe 1 MC and Shadowheart, not if you keep them true to their characters.

So, again, I say the game needs a party of 4 to start, whether in single player or multiplayer, the base starting number of characters should be 4. Then you can add up to 2 more, or switch some of the 4 in and out with some of the other origin characters as you proceed through the game for a total max party size of 6. Why? Because then Larian could truly present players with more awesome combat scenarios like 3 intellect devourers ambushing them in the form of fishermen up close and personal, and the player would still not be totally wiped out at the very start of the game.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 07:06 PM
A team of four is standard in multiplayer games.
There is a fairly simple reason for this, it's hard to find more players.
Another thing is that a lot of arenas are completely not adapted to more characters and will end up being extremely tight. Of course, if you increase the number of characters, you must also increase the number of enemies.

As for the intellect devourer they had to be weakened, I can't imagine fighting them on level 1 if they had instant kill ability (instant kill abilities is a bad project).
Intellect devourers are quite famous monsters that are associated with mind flayers, so putting them in the prologue makes perfect sense.
Changing opponents to match the campaign you want to launch is not unusual or even wrong.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/11/21 08:04 PM
Clarification: 4 players, max party of 6 (2 NPCs). That is the suggestion.

And the point is that every encounter in the game right now works with party of 5 or 6 if you use proper stats and abilities. The reason encounters are severely nerfed is because they tried building it for party of 4 or less max. Thus, they severely hinder the game and limit encounters to fit the 4 or less party max mold.

The game would benefit therefore from a party size 6 so they could actually legitimately have players face what they designed the game for them to face instead of stripping monsters of abilities and behaviors that make them what they are.
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/11/21 02:17 AM
This discussion reminds me of the debates about what happens when great books are made into movies. Ultimately no matter how good the movie there are always debates about the screenplay (which is the adaptation of book to movie) and whether or not it has done justice to the book.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/11/21 01:32 PM
That's nice, but that's not what this is. This is a suggestion to Larian about changing elements of the game to make it better because they asked for feedback while developing the game.

So, it's more like having a prescreening and then asking the viewers what they thought and how they should tweak the movie to make it better. I'm telling them to make it more like the book if they don't want fans to be disappointed.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/11/21 03:00 PM
I on the other hand cant help the feelin that Ranxerox hit the nail. laugh
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/11/21 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I on the other hand cant help the feelin that Ranxerox hit the nail. laugh
Well no - jump from written to visual medium is far bigger change, then from a game to a game. I suppose a more apt comparison would be a stage play to a film.

And while it can be amusing to overanalyse as to why an adaptation is bad by comparing it to the original, ignoring the source material existence doesn't magically lift the adaptation.
Posted By: timebean Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 12:44 AM
Not to detract…but there is the other side of this coin (the movie analogy) to consider. My pals will NEVER read Dune. They do not understand my frustration with how the new film butchered the source material. They have no idea what a mentat is, or who Pieter De Vries is. They never will.

The sure as shit liked that movie tho. It had spaceships and sand and monsters and hawt Chani…woohoo!

My point - I wanted a faithful adaptation. They wanted a good time. I think a faithful adaptation would be a much better time. They are oblivious to what they are missing.

I kinda feel like this is Larian’s approach with BG3. No it is not a faithful adaptation to 5E. But their audience liked DOS2 and will probably like this too.

All to say…I feel ur pain GM4him. But alas…you are likely yelling into the void…or into the mouth of a CGI sandworm.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 01:18 AM
Lol. Probably, but I'm doing it anyway because it's still in development and there's time to give the people what they don't know their missing. 😁

Love the Dune reference, too, btw.
Posted By: timebean Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 05:27 AM
Keep yelling dude. Maybe something will get thru! 😊
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 06:50 AM
Just fought phase spiders again. Ugh. It bugs me a lot. They are probably one of the biggest ones, them and intellect devourers.

It's insane.

Here's how the Whispering Depths should go:

You enter. You roam up to Eliette's old lab. It's dark because, you know, spiders don't need lights, so why is it lit as if someone's been there recently burning torches. You maybe light some torches and such. You read things. You start exploring more.

Bam! Phase spiders pop out of the Ethereal Plan and attack you up close and personal. Surprise Round. They attack you. Next round. If they go before you, they attack again and vanish back into the Ethereal Plane. If you get to go first, you may get a hit on them before they attack again and vanish. Battle ends.

You roam some more, now a bit more cautiously. You run into the Ettercaps. During the fight, the same two phase spiders suddenly pop out of the Ethereal Plane and attack you. Same tactic except now you have two Ettercaps to face as well. During the fight, they bounce in and out of the Ethereal Plane but this time they stay in the battle.

You kill them all. You maybe even rest. You continue. You find the heart of the lair. There's the keygem. You make your way down to it.

Bam!

Matriarch and her two phase spider minions attack. Debuff her because 125 HP is WAY too many HP, and take away her Supreme Misty Step so she doesn't teleport across the board everywhere. The three gang up on your party near the keygem and attack at melee range. Maybe Matriarch has 60-80 HP and like +7 attack bonus and multiattack and her bite does 1d extra damage because she's special.

Tactics: Just like the other Phase Spiders. They attack and phase. Phase then attack. All at melee range. Spider matriarch using arachnomancy to hatch her young is fine. That makes sense. She is an arachnomancer after all. They could even have her use some sort of spellcasting or even the teleporting thing because she's a spellcaster. Just not her minions and babies.

And please put back the skeleton fight in the Necromancer's lair. That was a good fight. Hard, but good. Now, two skeletons? That's super weak. I loved how they used to pop out of one casket, run to another and free a second. Run to another and free a third. Man! There were like maybe 6 of them by the time it was done, and it was hard, but it wasn't too hard. Made a good fight and it made a lot more sense with the journal that says if the zulkirs show up they'll have to face his guardians.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 08:29 AM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Well no - jump from written to visual medium is far bigger change, then from a game to a game. I suppose a more apt comparison would be a stage play to a film.
Its not about size of change ...
Its about that as long as there are any changes, or any cuts ... *some* people (usualy called Hardcore fans) will be mad about it. laugh

Originally Posted by timebean
My pals will NEVER read Dune. They do not understand my frustration with how the new film butchered the source material.
I can feel your pain ...
This is how i felt, when i watched Warcraft movie ...

Its even worse since it was also made by Blizzard, yet Blizzard didnt manage to keep Blizzard Lore intact. laugh
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 08:32 AM
GM4Him, I completely relate and understand your frustration...
But no point OF THIS FORUM anymore for serious RPG fans. All hardcore D&D5th, RPG, and Baldurs gate fans are LONG gone. LOL.

All that is left are PG13 Larian cow love and fluffy pen pal love worshipers. FACT.
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 08:37 AM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
All that is left are PG13 Larian cow love and fluffy pen pal love worshipers. FACT.
Quite the opposite, yet both simultaneously, I'd say.

The majority of threads and replies are about criticism / requests for changes or improvements, and most replies tend to be critical rather than plain praise. Those that remain, are in large portions the highly critical ones, that probably love the idea of the game it could become / they hope it'll become, that care enough to at least try. The alternative is being haters, so I choose to believe underneath the criticism and bickering are people that care and mean well.
Posted By: fylimar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
GM4Him, I completely relate and understand your frustration...
But no point OF THIS FORUM anymore for serious RPG fans. All hardcore D&D5th, RPG, and Baldurs gate fans are LONG gone. LOL.

All that is left are PG13 Larian cow love and fluffy pen pal love worshipers. FACT.


I don't know, how you can say that - look at all the threads that want changes - more 5e rules, less Larianism (me included). People are constantly talking about better implimentation of the rules, change of paryt size, combat etc. And a lot of them (again, me included with more than 20 years experience) are coming from tabletop rpg and grew up with the old BG games.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 09:18 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Just fought phase spiders again. Ugh. It bugs me a lot. They are probably one of the biggest ones, them and intellect devourers.

It's insane.

Here's how the Whispering Depths should go:

You enter. You roam up to Eliette's old lab. It's dark because, you know, spiders don't need lights, so why is it lit as if someone's been there recently burning torches. You maybe light some torches and such. You read things. You start exploring more.

Bam! Phase spiders pop out of the Ethereal Plan and attack you up close and personal. Surprise Round. They attack you. Next round. If they go before you, they attack again and vanish back into the Ethereal Plane. If you get to go first, you may get a hit on them before they attack again and vanish. Battle ends.

You roam some more, now a bit more cautiously. You run into the Ettercaps. During the fight, the same two phase spiders suddenly pop out of the Ethereal Plane and attack you. Same tactic except now you have two Ettercaps to face as well. During the fight, they bounce in and out of the Ethereal Plane but this time they stay in the battle.

You kill them all. You maybe even rest. You continue. You find the heart of the lair. There's the keygem. You make your way down to it.

Bam!

Matriarch and her two phase spider minions attack. Debuff her because 125 HP is WAY too many HP, and take away her Supreme Misty Step so she doesn't teleport across the board everywhere. The three gang up on your party near the keygem and attack at melee range. Maybe Matriarch has 60-80 HP and like +7 attack bonus and multiattack and her bite does 1d extra damage because she's special.

Tactics: Just like the other Phase Spiders. They attack and phase. Phase then attack. All at melee range. Spider matriarch using arachnomancy to hatch her young is fine. That makes sense. She is an arachnomancer after all. They could even have her use some sort of spellcasting or even the teleporting thing because she's a spellcaster. Just not her minions and babies.

And please put back the skeleton fight in the Necromancer's lair. That was a good fight. Hard, but good. Now, two skeletons? That's super weak. I loved how they used to pop out of one casket, run to another and free a second. Run to another and free a third. Man! There were like maybe 6 of them by the time it was done, and it was hard, but it wasn't too hard. Made a good fight and it made a lot more sense with the journal that says if the zulkirs show up they'll have to face his guardians.

Matriarch doesn't have too much hp. This monster does not exist in the official 5e rules, but we have a Giant Spider Matriarch which by default has 97hp (12d10 + 36hp), but if you roll hp it can have much more.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 12:29 PM
We do?
I thought even giant spider matriarch is homebrewed
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 01:13 PM
Phase Spider, Standard = 32 HP. That's a CR rating of 3.

That means, a party of 4 level 3 characters will have a moderate difficulty defeating 1.

Add another, so you have 2 phase spiders. Now add a homebrew version with 4 times the HP?

But you can only be level 4 at max right now and likely WILL only be level 3 or 4 by the time you do this encounter.

Hmmm... She might be too OP UNLESS you nerf her other stats and unless you severely nerf her minions.

When I first played this game, she was not nerfed. Neither were her minions. I was at level 4. Had to reload the game over a dozen times trying to beat her.

So, they nerfed her in other ways as well as her minions. If you unnerf her minions and such, you'll need to reduce her HP. Otherwise, sure. Don't use proper stats and leave her HP where it is.

Let's put it in another way. A young white dragon is CR 6 with 133 HP. Stat-wise, that's the closest monster I can find to the matriarch. You encounter the spider matriarch in Blighted Village which you could face at level 3.

No one should ever face a monster with 125 HP at level 3 or 4. She alone should be CR 5 or 6 meaning if you were to face her by herself with a party of 4, you shouldn't face her until you're at least level 5 or 6... And that's by herself. Throw in a couple of standard phase spiders and you should be level 6 or 7 before facing something with HP 125.
Posted By: JandK Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 03:36 PM
I think the Matriarch is somewhat nerfed because of situational considerations, namely the fact that you can destroy the web beneath her feet, causing her to fall and take substantial damage.

This effectively makes her hit point total *seem* higher than it is for practical purposes.

Now, in fairness, some people might not like the idea of "gimmicky" fights, but I think it's basically baked into the challenge rating of the encounter by design.
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by timebean
Not to detract…but there is the other side of this coin (the movie analogy) to consider. My pals will NEVER read Dune. They do not understand my frustration with how the new film butchered the source material. They have no idea what a mentat is, or who Pieter De Vries is. They never will.

The sure as shit liked that movie tho. It had spaceships and sand and monsters and hawt Chani…woohoo!

My point - I wanted a faithful adaptation. They wanted a good time. I think a faithful adaptation would be a much better time. They are oblivious to what they are missing.

I kinda feel like this is Larian’s approach with BG3. No it is not a faithful adaptation to 5E. But their audience liked DOS2 and will probably like this too.

All to say…I feel ur pain GM4him. But alas…you are likely yelling into the void…or into the mouth of a CGI sandworm.

This was pretty much the point I was making and in fact Dune was one of the very books I had in mind.

Larian are creative artists in the entertainment business. They are literally putting their careers and personal fortunes on the line every time they take on a new project. Just like the creators of the various Dune projects they are going to take creative license and put their spin on things. That's something they've earned the right to do as a result of their success, and specifically the agreement they have with WoC in regards to BG3.

Its clear they listen to feedback as some changes have been made but in the end they are striving for their version of a fun game based on 5e. It's only natural there is a DOS II feel to the game as #1 that is what they know best, and #2 it was a very successful product. No doubt they will continue to make changes in response to feedback but other things they will leave for the modding community to fine tune, something they supported enthusiastically with DOS II.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by JandK
I think the Matriarch is somewhat nerfed because of situational considerations, namely the fact that you can destroy the web beneath her feet, causing her to fall and take substantial damage.

This effectively makes her hit point total *seem* higher than it is for practical purposes.

Now, in fairness, some people might not like the idea of "gimmicky" fights, but I think it's basically baked into the challenge rating of the encounter by design.

Yeah, speaking of that gimmick, I also don't approve. Even IF a spider took fall damage, it shouldn't be substantial. It's what? 30-50 feet? She's a giant spider. Real spiders can fall huge distances relative to their size and still scramble away as if unharmed. I just have a hard time with that gimmick which wouldn't be necessary with more appropriate stats and combat tactics.
Posted By: JandK Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by JandK
I think the Matriarch is somewhat nerfed because of situational considerations, namely the fact that you can destroy the web beneath her feet, causing her to fall and take substantial damage.

This effectively makes her hit point total *seem* higher than it is for practical purposes.

Now, in fairness, some people might not like the idea of "gimmicky" fights, but I think it's basically baked into the challenge rating of the encounter by design.

Yeah, speaking of that gimmick, I also don't approve. Even IF a spider took fall damage, it shouldn't be substantial. It's what? 30-50 feet? She's a giant spider. Real spiders can fall huge distances relative to their size and still scramble away as if unharmed. I just have a hard time with that gimmick which wouldn't be necessary with more appropriate stats and combat tactics.

I just wanted to point out that the challenge rating isn't as off as it seems because that gimmick lowers the difficulty.

In regards to not liking the gimmick itself, that's a fair argument. I don't disagree, not necessarily. (I'm not sure the same fall damage holds true when you change a creatures size, though. For instance, if you make an ant bigger, it doesn't keep being able to lift 5,000 times its body weight. Things like that change with scale.)

Anyway. I think from Larian's point of view, they figured it would be fun to let the player break the web and drop the spider, making the fight more dynamic by allowing interactivity with the environment.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 05:39 PM
Yeah, real spiders can fall and survive because they are tiny and weightless. Giant spiders would be squish under their own weight.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by JandK
I think the Matriarch is somewhat nerfed because of situational considerations, namely the fact that you can destroy the web beneath her feet, causing her to fall and take substantial damage.

This effectively makes her hit point total *seem* higher than it is for practical purposes.

Now, in fairness, some people might not like the idea of "gimmicky" fights, but I think it's basically baked into the challenge rating of the encounter by design.

Yeah, speaking of that gimmick, I also don't approve. Even IF a spider took fall damage, it shouldn't be substantial. It's what? 30-50 feet? She's a giant spider. Real spiders can fall huge distances relative to their size and still scramble away as if unharmed. I just have a hard time with that gimmick which wouldn't be necessary with more appropriate stats and combat tactics.

well. I understand what you mean. But that actually doesn't go for all spiders. The larger species, like the tarantula, are actually quite fragile, and can have its exoskeleton shatter when dropped only a few feet. And you know the old phrase, the bigger they are, the harder they fall...
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/11/21 05:59 PM
Ok. I'll buy that. Still, one fall then makes sense. Making it a main gimmick to killing her does not. She's supposed to be an intelligent Arachnomancer. I could see her get surprised that anyone would think to drop her on her head, but more than once is stupid.

Which again means 125 HP is too much IF you use proper stats and tactics for her minions.
Posted By: Endlessdescent Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 02:23 AM
I agree with all the points made by the OP. There is definitely something weird about playing BG3 set in a D&D setting but getting most of the distinctly D&D flavor wrong.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho. wink

Then this game shouldn't have been called "Baldur's Gate 3" since that is moreso what BG 1 & 2 were with some exceptions.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 02:55 AM
Raggy just doesn't want the game to change at all. He doesn't get that it's EA and we're supposed to suggest how to make the game better. 😏

And what do I know about DMing? I've only been doing it for like 30 years. I don't know anything about encounter building or nothing.

And I also don't know RPG video games neither. Been only playing them since the Commodore 64 days. Pshah!
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 02:41 PM
Suggested Encounters for BG3:

First, don't cater to such a wide spread party size. Make a decision and base encounters on that decision. If this was just a single player game, basing encounters on one player character would be fine, but since they are making this game with multiplayer in mind, to make the game well balanced, encounters from the beginning should be based on five characters. The game should allow you to create four custom characters with default character designs so that if the player only wants to create one character, they can do so and just accept default custom characters. Then, before the first encounter, you add Lae'zel to the party for a total of 5. Us should be a severely nerfed intellect devourer so that it is more of a companion newborn and not carrying the party as a full blown intellect devourer.

With this in mind, here is how the combat encounters should be. Note, the intent here is to create appropriate encounters based on level and standard party size while providing a variety of monsters to add more flavor to the game. If you, the player, don't want to play the game based on a standard party size, that should still be an option, allowing the player to choose to not have any other characters in their party if they want. In other words, if they want a challenge and want to solo the game, they should have the option to not even have a party of 4 to begin with. But again, the encounters would be based on a party size 4+ from the beginning. Also, using standard 5e stats.


First encounter = 8 Manes, AC 9, HP 9, +2 to hit

Second encounter = 1 wounded imp with 4 HP and 2 Manes. This would be an optional fight on the top deck.

Third encounter = intellect devourer with 2 HP and 3 thralls with 3 HP and 10 AC and + 2 to hit. This would also be an optional fight on the top deck.

Fourth encounter = 3 thralls same stats. Optional fight only if you press the wrong button on the machine near Shadowheart.

Fifth Encounter = intellect devourer by itself with 4 HP. Optional fight if you ticked off the collective by fighting with the previous intellect devourer or you killed Us.

First helm encounter (based on Shadowheart now being in the party as well, since it is likely that many will not just leave her. If they do, one less character shouldn't affect the balance too drastically) = 1 wounded imp with 2 HP, 1 hellshog, and 4 Manes with 3-5 HP each.

Second helm encounter (this should be like a final boss fight and should be more challenging. It should be almost like a capture the flag fight instead of a last man standing fight. In other words, your objective is to just get someone to the helm. It is NOT to kill everything. As it already is in the game, Lae'zel and the mind flayer urge you to just focus on that objective so you know killing everything is obviously not your goal. If you do, kudos, but the encounter should be built with this objective in mind. Simple AI attacks whoever is closest to the helm) = 2 imps at full health, 1 dretch with AC 11 and 9 HP because wounded, 1 hellshog and 8 Manes with 4-9 HP.

Beach Nautiloid Fight = 1 wounded intellect devourer HP 5, 8 Neogi Hatchlings AC 11 and HP 1-7. Fight assumes 4 PCs + Shadowheart. Shadowheart tips you off to stay at a distance from the intellect devourer. Again, simple AI. Attack closest.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 06:44 PM
Fast forward, because most of the in-between battles would be fine: The Fishermen, Gimblebock, Marli and Barton's Mercs, etc.

Dank Crypt Encounter = 6 skeletons. 2 should be level 1 mages. 4 should be typical skeletons. I think it's totally fine to be able to disarm them first. Makes sense and if you go with that strategy, it would then make the fight easier. Either way, you should not face 4 magic using skeletons. 1 or 2 is good with 4 grunts. That's a solid encounter.

Grove Entrance First Encounter (based on story, the number of enemies should be greater because they make such a big deal about you being a hero who saved the grove from this raiding goblin band, and by this time you should have at least a party of 6) = 2 goblin bosses, 1 bugbear, 1 bugbear chief, 2 worgs, 6 goblins, 2 goblin booyahgs, 2 ogres who toss goblins up to the walls.

This fight seems huge, but it doesn't have to be. The goblins think they are going to overpower the grove and slaughter everyone, especially Aradin and his two party members. So, instead, you show up and ambush them. The AI could be built in such a way so that once you attack, one of the two goblin bosses panics and calls for a retreat. They don't know who's attacking them or how many, and they believe it's an ambush; a trap. "It's a trap!" one cries, and then he calls for a retreat. Then you can choose to either chase them while they are trying to flee, shooting them in the back, or you can let them go.

This would then explain why Zevlor is so upset that Aradin led the goblins to the grove. He knows they've gotten away, and so he's upset because he knows they'll be back. So, now they have to start packing because they'll need to risk leaving before the goblins return... unless YOU do something to save them. NOW you're a great big hero who's going to save them from certain doom because you not only chased off the raiding party but you're agreeing to do something to stop the goblins from returning in greater numbers.

Not every fight has to be a slaughter everything fest. Therefore, not every fight has to be so dramatically long when you have huge numbers. Let the enemies get routed and flee. That's more realistic anyway. Most enemies don't fight you to the death. They fight you until they perceive that they aren't going to win. Then they retreat.

As for the Sazza situation, if the goblin raiders escape, well then it's not as important that Sazza tells Minthara where the grove is. However, they could change her dialogue lines so that instead of saying, "I know where the grove is," she could say, "I know of a secret entrance into the grove, Boss-Lady. There's these tunnels that me and some o' the others snuck into before I got caught. There's statues there, and such, but it's a way in we could use. Some explosives would make short work o' them statues and we'd be able to gain easy access into the grove."

Now, rescuing Sazza and telling Minthara about the secret tunnels would make for a different avenue that the game could go, a battle in the secret tunnels as opposed to on the walls. Now, Minthara's forces that she brings could have more of a chance of success, for the tunnels would be harder for the tielfings and druids to defend than the wall, thus making Sazza's rescue valuable from an evil perspective, and quite detrimental from a good playthrough perspective.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by Endlessdescent
Then this game shouldn't have been called "Baldur's Gate 3" since that is moreso what BG 1 & 2 were with some exceptions.
There is many things that BG 1 & 2 had and BG-3 dont ...
And vice versa.

Its not necesarily a bad sign tho.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Raggy just doesn't want the game to change at all. He doesn't get that it's EA and we're supposed to suggest how to make the game better. 😏
On the contrary ...
He would like you to change your attitude ... in best, go back to ignoring me, those were sweet times. -_-

I believe it was Composer (not sure tho, since i cant search it) who said multiple times around here that if you dont have anything to say to topic, and just want to coment other people, you should not post at all ... think about it, if you are able to ...
Posted By: The Composer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 08:49 PM
It was me who said that, yes.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
think about it, if you are able to ...

That's equally uncalled for. No need to comment on other people, even with passive aggressive taunts.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/11/21 08:59 PM
I am blocking RagnarokCzD again, Ignoring him.

Maybe that'll help. Him and I just don't see eye-to-eye, and I can't take it anymore.

Sorry, RagnarokCzD, but I'm throwing in the towel. I've tried to make these chats work, but you and I seriously can't get along. Best to just not try anymore. I'll ignore you. You ignore me. Everyone's happy.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 18/11/21 04:20 AM
Owlbear Cave

You have a party of 6 + Brynna and Andrick

Mama, Papa and Baby Bear fight

Imagine. You are making your way in, but the cave is much darker. It's a cave! Ever visit one? They're really really dark.

You're about halfway in. Ominous creature noises.

THEN Big Mama comes out of the darkness into your light. It starts by you seeing her eyes first, reflected in your torchlight. Then her silhouette. She is wounded from her fight with Ed, so she has 30 HP. Scene plays out like now.

If you fight her, baby comes out of the darkness. Then, unexpectedly, here comes Papa. He has 70 HP.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/11/21 11:11 PM
Originally Posted by Endlessdescent
I agree with all the points made by the OP. There is definitely something weird about playing BG3 set in a D&D setting but getting most of the distinctly D&D flavor wrong.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
This game was never suppose to be litteral transcript of tabletop rules, as Swen told us multiple times in countless occasions ...
Some people still presumed it will be. :-/ I feel for them, but that will be probably all. :-/

I hope someone will create proper DnD mod fo you tho. wink

Then this game shouldn't have been called "Baldur's Gate 3" since that is moreso what BG 1 & 2 were with some exceptions.
So you endorse those exceptions, but take exception to them here. Which begs the question, were they really all that close, or is it the rose colored glasses phenomena? I mean, there's a Red Dragon in BG 1, with a max character level of 7. Should be lunch time for the dragon every time, right? How many GMs were giving away explosive arrows to a level 1 party? I don't even remember if they were actually in TT for 2e, not that that means anything, all things considered on my end, since I can't even remember what, or if, I had dinner last night.

What I do know is that the game we're playing in EA now isn't the same as the game we played when EA launched, and I expect that there will be more changes before we get close, and even more changes afterwards. This based on what happened, anecdotally, with DOS 2's EA.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 09:51 AM
You are mistaken, there's no dragon in BG1
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
You are mistaken, there's no dragon in BG1
His name is Firekraag, or something similar. Edit: My bad, this was in Baldur's Gate 2. If we're going to "trip" over the difference between wyvern and dragon, the definition of wyvern says:

wyvern
[ˈwīvərn]
NOUN
heraldry
a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

Source
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
You are mistaken, there's no dragon in BG1

Have to agree with robertthebard here. Wyverns are classified as large dragons in the monster manual.

Sure, they don't have the challenge rating or stats compared to an adult true dragon(6 vs 13) but technically, they are still dragons smile
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 04:01 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
If we're going to "trip" over the difference between wyvern and dragon, the definition of wyvern says:

wyvern
[ˈwīvərn]
NOUN
heraldry
a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

Source
Yes, from what I understand Wyvern is a dragon-type enemy for lower level parties. Your point being...?
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by robertthebard
If we're going to "trip" over the difference between wyvern and dragon, the definition of wyvern says:

wyvern
[ˈwīvərn]
NOUN
heraldry
a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

Source
Yes, from what I understand Wyvern is a dragon-type enemy for lower level parties. Your point being...?
That's the problem with snipping posts, you remove context. Since the context has already been clarified, in the post you almost quoted here, I'll let you figure it out for yourself.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Dexai
You are mistaken, there's no dragon in BG1
His name is Firekraag, or something similar. Edit: My bad, this was in Baldur's Gate 2. If we're going to "trip" over the difference between wyvern and dragon, the definition of wyvern says:

wyvern
[ˈwīvərn]
NOUN
heraldry
a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

Source

The dictionary definition is irrelevant. In any other context I would agree with you about wyverns being dragons, but not today. You know full well you weren't thinking of the wyverns when you wrote that there was a "red dragon" in BG1 and that was what I responded to when I said "no dragons". You even said you were thinking about Firkraag from BG2 yourself. Wyverns are not interchangeable to dragons in context of dnd -- where saying "dragon" assumes you are talking about "true dragons" and not any other kind of synonym-for-dragon-in-the-dictionary such as drake, lindworm, serpent or python -- and much more level appropriate to BG1s level range than a red dragon would be.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/11/21 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Dexai
You are mistaken, there's no dragon in BG1
His name is Firekraag, or something similar. Edit: My bad, this was in Baldur's Gate 2. If we're going to "trip" over the difference between wyvern and dragon, the definition of wyvern says:

wyvern
[ˈwīvərn]
NOUN
heraldry
a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

Source

The dictionary definition is irrelevant. In any other context I would agree with you about wyverns being dragons, but not today. You know full well you weren't thinking of the wyverns when you wrote that there was a "red dragon" in BG1 and that was what I responded to when I said "no dragons". You even said you were thinking about Firkraag from BG2 yourself. Wyverns are not interchangeable to dragons in context of dnd -- where saying "dragon" assumes you are talking about "true dragons" and not any other kind of synonym-for-dragon-in-the-dictionary such as drake, lindworm, serpent or python -- and much more level appropriate to BG1s level range than a red dragon would be.
...and, as you can see by the edit in the middle of the post, I owned up to my mistake. I just didn't delete the post because I was wrong. I have no problem acknowledging when I make a mistake.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 30/11/21 03:00 PM
Bringing this one back to life with a Raise Dead spell that only a cleric can cast.

Why I want more D&D 5e rules:

What makes D&D truly D&D? What is at the heart of D&D? What was its original design, and what makes it a classic that has withstood the test of time? 5 editions later, why is it still the best RPG out there?

Party-based. It was meant to be a party-based game where the players work together as a team, co-op, to adventure together and defeat enemies. It was never meant to be played solo. How does one make the game party-based? By making unique classes. Each character has a specific role that they fulfill. Clerics are healers and status buffers. Mages are heavy damage wielders and crowd controllers, but they are weak and squishy if not protected. Fighters are the front line troops who keep enemies from the clerics and mages. They are the meat shields. Rogues are the scouts and spies and are versatile, able to deal heavy damage under certain circumstances like Sneak Attack, but they are in no way tanks or super damage wielders. They are the skilled ones who pick locks and pockets and hit and fade from the shadows. Each has a role and a purpose, and their skills and special abilities are unique so that they are special and so that they can feel rewarded for playing their part effectively and that they are needed in the party for it to succeed.

Currently, BG3 undermines this completely. Items negate the need for classes altogether. Drink a potion as a bonus action or toss it at an ally and they are healed or hasted or whatever. No need for a cleric or wizard. You've got potions and/or scrolls that everyone can use. So, you don't need a cleric to cast Revivify. You've got a fighter who can do that with a scroll. You don't need a cleric because a fighter can throw a potion and heal everyone. Likewise, you don't need a fighter because you've got weapons that provide you with special combat maneuvers. Now everyone can cleave or knock someone silly using the pommel of a dagger, or whatever. Who cares about the Battlemaster's Trip? You've got a quarterstaff with Topple.

Over and over again, the uniqueness of EVERYTHING is being stripped from it in D&D. That is why it is feeling less and less like D&D altogether. It is set in a D&D world, and it is called D&D, but it is nothing like D&D because with all the homebrew, there is a muddled mire and mess and chaos of abilities that completely strips the entire foundation of D&D from it.

Again, I love this game, I really do, but the fact remains, this is not really a D&D game. I know a lot of non-D&D fans could care less because they either don't like D&D or they've never played it and don't know what they're missing, but the bottom line is, you might as well just make the game completely like DOS and skip the D&D elements altogether because it is in no way a D&D game. EVERY class is virtually pointless. EVERYONE wins a medal and can fill the role of every other character. This is not a party game at all. This is a Lone Wolf game where a single player can do it all.

Except wizards are now the underdogs altogether because they are soft and squishy and can't take many hits. So there is really nothing good about a mage. The fighter can cast spells via scrolls, so it is better to be a fighter. Fighters can heal, wear the best armor, use the best weapons, cast spells via scrolls or just throw potions, they can heal themselves with potions and scrolls, they get extra combat maneuvers, they can pick locks just as good as rogues, etc. etc. etc. So why be anything but a fighter. GG easy playthrough. Be a fighter and use all the homebrew to cast spells and heal. You can even sneak and snipe just like a rogue too. There's literally no down side that I've found. Fighter rules BG3. Hands down.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 30/11/21 03:53 PM
Well said (the above post). As I keep saying, why bother making BG3 if their intention was to just gut the established ruleset and liberally flavour it with their home-brew/DOS imports?
Posted By: dukeisaac Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 30/11/21 05:07 PM
+1 to all feedback asking for a closer alignment with the D&D 5e ruleset.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 30/11/21 05:09 PM
Unfortunately, the folks at Larian seem to think that diluting the classes into jacks-of-all-trades and allowing unlimited Long Rests is a good thing. I think they fundamentally struggle to understand what is so great about D&D's classes. DOS games have no classes even though they pretend they do in character creation, which is just extra confusing. So perhaps the class-based system hate runs deep over there. The limitations on what classes can't do is what makes them cool and unique. DOS characters feel really bland and lacking identity no matter how you build them. They're all just characters with a completely random set of skills.

The party based "teamwork" in DOS2 was also incredibly badly designed. My Wizard was chipping away at the enemy's Magic Armor while my Archer friend was chipping away at the Physical Armor of the same enemy. Anyone who makes a design like this has no clue what teamwork should be like. It was absolutely counter-productive for magic and warrior classes characters to try to work together.

I still hope they will understand this during development before it's too late. And revert class-identity nullifying stuff like the absurd potion throwing, liberal scroll-use and constant power-shoving into using D&D rules.
Posted By: mystakai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 12:19 AM
+1 to the call for DnD. I played dos2 for 1200 hours. Its a fun game. It's also an unbalanced mess which is easily exploited with several spell effects that are not as effective as advertised. The optimal strategy boils down to using your biggest damage cooldowns in an MMO rotation and stunlockinh the enemy. DnD is a different game and should feel different. The limited resource component forces players to he conservative with control and damage spells. Positioning and identification of an enemy's weak saving throws should be the most important elements of DnD combat.

Unlimited long rests from anywhere subvert all risk management and resource management. A lich's Grimoire full of scrolls useable by any class and an alchemists stockpile of potions which can be thrown for greater effect than spells further overrude the resource based gameplay and undermine class identity.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 02:20 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Bringing this one back to life with a Raise Dead spell that only a cleric can cast.

Why I want more D&D 5e rules:

What makes D&D truly D&D? What is at the heart of D&D? What was its original design, and what makes it a classic that has withstood the test of time? 5 editions later, why is it still the best RPG out there?

Party-based. It was meant to be a party-based game where the players work together as a team, co-op, to adventure together and defeat enemies. It was never meant to be played solo. How does one make the game party-based? By making unique classes. Each character has a specific role that they fulfill. Clerics are healers and status buffers. Mages are heavy damage wielders and crowd controllers, but they are weak and squishy if not protected. Fighters are the front line troops who keep enemies from the clerics and mages. They are the meat shields. Rogues are the scouts and spies and are versatile, able to deal heavy damage under certain circumstances like Sneak Attack, but they are in no way tanks or super damage wielders. They are the skilled ones who pick locks and pockets and hit and fade from the shadows. Each has a role and a purpose, and their skills and special abilities are unique so that they are special and so that they can feel rewarded for playing their part effectively and that they are needed in the party for it to succeed.

Currently, BG3 undermines this completely. Items negate the need for classes altogether. Drink a potion as a bonus action or toss it at an ally and they are healed or hasted or whatever. No need for a cleric or wizard. You've got potions and/or scrolls that everyone can use. So, you don't need a cleric to cast Revivify. You've got a fighter who can do that with a scroll. You don't need a cleric because a fighter can throw a potion and heal everyone. Likewise, you don't need a fighter because you've got weapons that provide you with special combat maneuvers. Now everyone can cleave or knock someone silly using the pommel of a dagger, or whatever. Who cares about the Battlemaster's Trip? You've got a quarterstaff with Topple.

Over and over again, the uniqueness of EVERYTHING is being stripped from it in D&D. That is why it is feeling less and less like D&D altogether. It is set in a D&D world, and it is called D&D, but it is nothing like D&D because with all the homebrew, there is a muddled mire and mess and chaos of abilities that completely strips the entire foundation of D&D from it.

Again, I love this game, I really do, but the fact remains, this is not really a D&D game. I know a lot of non-D&D fans could care less because they either don't like D&D or they've never played it and don't know what they're missing, but the bottom line is, you might as well just make the game completely like DOS and skip the D&D elements altogether because it is in no way a D&D game. EVERY class is virtually pointless. EVERYONE wins a medal and can fill the role of every other character. This is not a party game at all. This is a Lone Wolf game where a single player can do it all.

Except wizards are now the underdogs altogether because they are soft and squishy and can't take many hits. So there is really nothing good about a mage. The fighter can cast spells via scrolls, so it is better to be a fighter. Fighters can heal, wear the best armor, use the best weapons, cast spells via scrolls or just throw potions, they can heal themselves with potions and scrolls, they get extra combat maneuvers, they can pick locks just as good as rogues, etc. etc. etc. So why be anything but a fighter. GG easy playthrough. Be a fighter and use all the homebrew to cast spells and heal. You can even sneak and snipe just like a rogue too. There's literally no down side that I've found. Fighter rules BG3. Hands down.

+1000
Posted By: Flooter Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 09:18 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Over and over again, the uniqueness of EVERYTHING is being stripped from it in D&D. [...]
EVERY class is virtually pointless. EVERYONE wins a medal and can fill the role of every other character.

Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.

1) Giving each character more abilities means that every turn is more likely to contain an interesting, meaningful decision. For example, my ranger gets boring just casting hunter's mark and shooting his bow. Sure glad I've got all these scrolls, potions and weapon abilities to play with!

2) Blurring the distinction between classes helps alleviate the RNG inherent in the initiative order. For example, the rogue really needs healing but it's the fighter's turn and the cleric will go after 6 goblins. Sure glad I can throw a healing potion!
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 09:45 AM
Originally Posted by Flooter
Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.

1) Giving each character more abilities means that every turn is more likely to contain an interesting, meaningful decision. For example, my ranger gets boring just casting hunter's mark and shooting his bow. Sure glad I've got all these scrolls, potions and weapon abilities to play with!

2) Blurring the distinction between classes helps alleviate the RNG inherent in the initiative order. For example, the rogue really needs healing but it's the fighter's turn and the cleric will go after 6 goblins. Sure glad I can throw a healing potion!

These are valid points but I can’t agree. It goes against the very essence of D&D; if each class can do everything then there really is no reason to have classes at all. Anyway, since when it was boring doing what you're good at? I think that says more about the player than the system.

I’m not into this homogenisation at all.
Posted By: mystakai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by Flooter
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Over and over again, the uniqueness of EVERYTHING is being stripped from it in D&D. [...]
EVERY class is virtually pointless. EVERYONE wins a medal and can fill the role of every other character.

Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.

1) Giving each character more abilities means that every turn is more likely to contain an interesting, meaningful decision. For example, my ranger gets boring just casting hunter's mark and shooting his bow. Sure glad I've got all these scrolls, potions and weapon abilities to play with!

2) Blurring the distinction between classes helps alleviate the RNG inherent in the initiative order. For example, the rogue really needs healing but it's the fighter's turn and the cleric will go after 6 goblins. Sure glad I can throw a healing potion!



1) if a character has access to all of the tools in the toolbox the puzzle becomes finding the tool which completed the task with the lowest risk in the shortest time. If a character has a limited set of tools, the challenge is to find the way to utilize the limited toolset in a way that is the least risky. With all the tools at your disposal and no constraint on resources the challenge disappears.

2) Removing the fail state of improper positioning and action management does nothing but lower the stakes of combat. With ower stakes comes lower engagement in the tactical decision making process. It is not only ok to have fail states in games, it is beneficial to the players sense of accomplishment for having overcome them.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 10:10 AM
The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.

Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon

Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.

One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 10:41 AM
Originally Posted by Etruscan
if each class can do everything then there really is no reason to have classes at all.
Oh please dont be so melodramatic. -_-
Differences are thiner now, yes ... but to claim that classes have no meaning is pure theatre. :-/

How do you cast Magic Missile level 2 if you dont have caster?
How do you heal effectively (yes, once again level 2 ... plus casting modifier) two different targets without Cleric, or Caster?
How do you cast Shatter, without a caster? (Yes i know about the neck ... that is once per long rest ... and after that?)

You are totally right when you say that in DnD classes are much more important than in BG-3 ...
But you have to realize that in DnD there is no limit for party ... while in BG-3 there is ...

If you would NEED to have Rogue with you, since noone else is able to lockpick, stealth and disarm traps so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Cleric with you, since noone else is able to heal, buff you and debuff enemies so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Wizard with you, since noone else is able to cast spells from scrolls so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Fighter with you, since noone else can jump so far, handle heavy objects etc ...
You allready reached your limit, no Tav for you, sorry. laugh

What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role. laugh
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by Flooter
Devil's advocate : these design decisions have a positive gameplay impact.
Those might depend on what you consider a good gameplay.

Being a team based tactical RPG, in my opinion, BG3 should first and foremost strive to create an enjoyable team tactics experience. And for that to happen each "piece" on the board needs to be limited in what it can do - if not then there is no distinction between them. That's why class systems exist. While holy trinity of tank/DPS/healer might be played out by now, there is a reason why it is so often used - it makes for a good team synergy.

Rangers from what I heard, are known to be the most boring class. I apploud an effort of making them more interesting - but not at the cost of making other classes less distinct.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 12:18 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
If you would NEED to have Rogue with you, since noone else is able to lockpick, stealth and disarm traps so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Cleric with you, since noone else is able to heal, buff you and debuff enemies so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Wizard with you, since noone else is able to cast spells from scrolls so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Fighter with you, since noone else can jump so far, handle heavy objects etc ...
Or you know you could design RPG with actual choice and consequnces. With various valid play styles, different exploration options for different team compositions. I don't need to be able to speak to the Dead or animals if I didn't pick certain classes. I don't needs all my party members to jump like rabbits all over the place. If I pick all melee classes I don't expect them to also double as archmages.

With how much "depth" Larian put in the game, each playthrough feels very samey - and that's because interaction with the world doesn't change.

You also forget that there will be multiclassing - if you want your fighter to also cast weaker spells then dedicated wizard - you will be able to do that.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
You are totally right when you say that in DnD classes are much more important than in BG-3 ...
But you have to realize that in DnD there is no limit for party ... while in BG-3 there is ...

If you would NEED to have Rogue with you, since noone else is able to lockpick, stealth and disarm traps so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Cleric with you, since noone else is able to heal, buff you and debuff enemies so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Wizard with you, since noone else is able to cast spells from scrolls so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Fighter with you, since noone else can jump so far, handle heavy objects etc ...
You allready reached your limit, no Tav for you, sorry. laugh

What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role. laugh
5e isn't as role-limited as you're suggesting here. Almost any party composition is viable which is one of the best things about the edition - the classic Figher+Wizard+Cleric+Rogue (+ Bard if 5 players) adventuring party isn't required.
  • Any class can lockpick in 5e if they take the thieves tools proficiency through a background or feat. Although in BG3 lockpicking is currently based on Sleight of Hand, right? Which is even easier to get. (Plus, I believe the Urban Tracker Ranger in BG3 gives proficiency in thieves tools, for when/if that is implemented). And stealth is even easier - any dexterity class with proficiency in stealth can be sneaky.
  • You can easily replace a cleric with a druid, bard, wizard, and/or paladin. I've had many 5e parties without a cleric; the hit-dice-on-short-rest and full-hp-on-long-rest makes clerics much less necessary compared to previous editions, and these other classes can buff/debuff.
  • You can easily replace a wizard with a sorcerer, bard, druid, warlock, and/or the half casters. These classes can use many scrolls, some even that wizards cannot.
  • You can have a barbarian, paladin, or cleric with high strength and athletics proficiency to jump and lift heavy objects; no Fighter required.

The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Or you know you could design RPG with actual choice and consequnces. With various valid play styles, different exploration options for different team compositions.
I dont think those two options excluding each other.

Originally Posted by Wormerine
I don't need to be able to speak to the Dead or animals if I didn't pick certain classes. I don't needs all my party members to jump like rabbits all over the place. If I pick all melee classes I don't expect them to also double as archmages.
This is good point ...

I have it same, i would totally dont mind at all if i block out whole part of content with some of my decision ... including decision about my race, or class ... i would honestly LOVE if anyone who is offering side quests in groove would refuse to talk with my Drow. laugh
Sadly the game is not done for *just us* is it ...
So Larian will logicaly try please as many people as possible ... wich means allowing them to do as much as possible ... wich means that differences between classes will go thiner, that is just natural effect.

Originally Posted by Wormerine
With how much "depth" Larian put in the game, each playthrough feels very samey - and that's because interaction with the world doesn't change.
I disagree ...
I have 615hours ... and unless i specificaly tryed to follow the same route, i had quite different experience per character. O_o

Sure you can play the things the same ...
But that is just your decision. :-/

Originally Posted by Wormerine
You also forget that there will be multiclassing - if you want your fighter to also cast weaker spells then dedicated wizard - you will be able to do that.
Nah ... i just remember that to do that you need to meet certain ability score numbers ...
So in order to be also "weaker wizard" you have to sacrifice part of your Fighter power.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
5e isn't as role-limited as you're suggesting here.
Yeah, it was never good methaphor ...
I was kinda affraid someone will take it litteraly ... maybe should have write Shadowheart, Laezel, Astarion and Gale ...

Im aware that there are other classes that *could* potentialy fit simmilar role (even tho, i still believe that no healer in the game is ever as effective as Life Cleric, since *healing* is their whole reason of existence laugh but that is just matter of opinion), aswell as hybrid classes (or multiclass) that can fulfill those roles even better ...
But that was not my point ...

Point was, to put it more in general, that if you create 12 classes and every will specialize in something, and also you set 4 member limit ... you will allways miss something, that is inevidable ... in tabletop, people are counting with this, but in PC games that is not as popular way. :-/

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.
I would agree ...
But this is still just personal opinion ... important question is if Larian is feeling that way ... as so far it seems they dont. :-/
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
5e isn't as role-limited as you're suggesting here.
Yeah, it was never good methaphor ...
I was kinda affraid someone will take it litteraly ... maybe should have write Shadowheart, Laezel, Astarion and Gale ...

Im aware that there are other classes that *could* potentialy fit simmilar role (even tho, i still believe that no healer in the game is ever as effective as Life Cleric, since *healing* is their whole reason of existence laugh but that is just matter of opinion), aswell as hybrid classes (or multiclass) that can fulfill those roles even better ...
But that was not my point ...

Point was, to put it more in general, that if you create 12 classes and every will specialize in something, and also you set 4 member limit ... you will allways miss something, that is inevidable ... in tabletop, people are counting with this, but in PC games that is not as popular way. :-/
That's fair. Especially since it's likely we'll be unable to change certain companion subclasses (e.g., make SH a Life instead of Trickery cleric).

Though while we'll certainly be missing (or just be less effective at) something with any given party, hopefully this can be made up for by being able to freely swap out party members. Assuming that Larian lets us keep all of our companions beyond Act 1 of course...
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role. laugh

More or less an example of what Swen meant when he said "...because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions."

PC Games interview June 2019
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
You are totally right when you say that in DnD classes are much more important than in BG-3 ...
But you have to realize that in DnD there is no limit for party ... while in BG-3 there is ...

If you would NEED to have Rogue with you, since noone else is able to lockpick, stealth and disarm traps so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Cleric with you, since noone else is able to heal, buff you and debuff enemies so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Wizard with you, since noone else is able to cast spells from scrolls so effectively ...
if you would NEED to have Fighter with you, since noone else can jump so far, handle heavy objects etc ...
You allready reached your limit, no Tav for you, sorry. laugh

What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role. laugh
5e isn't as role-limited as you're suggesting here. Almost any party composition is viable which is one of the best things about the edition - the classic Figher+Wizard+Cleric+Rogue (+ Bard if 5 players) adventuring party isn't required.
  • Any class can lockpick in 5e if they take the thieves tools proficiency through a background or feat. Although in BG3 lockpicking is currently based on Sleight of Hand, right? Which is even easier to get. (Plus, I believe the Urban Tracker Ranger in BG3 gives proficiency in thieves tools, for when/if that is implemented). And stealth is even easier - any dexterity class with proficiency in stealth can be sneaky.
  • You can easily replace a cleric with a druid, bard, wizard, and/or paladin. I've had many 5e parties without a cleric; the hit-dice-on-short-rest and full-hp-on-long-rest makes clerics much less necessary compared to previous editions, and these other classes can buff/debuff.
  • You can easily replace a wizard with a sorcerer, bard, druid, warlock, and/or the half casters. These classes can use many scrolls, some even that wizards cannot.
  • You can have a barbarian, paladin, or cleric with high strength and athletics proficiency to jump and lift heavy objects; no Fighter required.

The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.
So my takeaway is that these threads are largely melodramatic then.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.

Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon

Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.

One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.

The argument that more options are bad because they slow down fights is awfully stupid. In games based on tactical combat, the number of options the player has is extremely important. It's a turn-based game, after all.
I don't know if mentioning10lvl is a good idea considering that it was supposed to be the original level limit which means that we probably won't reach this level by the end of act 2 / the beginning of act 3.
Also, remember that about 80% of players don't even finish games (especially long ones).
It is enough to see how many people have ever reached Arx in DoS2 (26%) which I would say is much above the other games anyway.
Another example is Kingsmaker where only 18% of people unlocked the kingdom at all (it is about 50% of the game) and not even half of them completed the game.
In the case of WotR, barely 10% reached Treshhold.

What am I going to?
It is important to get players interested from the beginning. It depends on how long they spend in the game. If for the first 10-15 hours (even less than the current EA) the player will be limited to casting boring cantrips or using only AA, he will most likely quickly abandon the game and probably will not even buy another one.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by Ranxerox
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
What im trying to say here is that if Larian refuses to allow us to play with 6, they need to loose rules a little, since otherwise half companions remain unused forewer, since they dont fit to any specialized role. laugh

More or less an example of what Swen meant when he said "...because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions."

PC Games interview June 2019
Yup
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.
So my takeaway is that these threads are largely melodramatic then.
To be fair, yes there is a lot of melodrama and hyperbole. But the fact that the 5e system is flexible doesn't mean that classes should be made even more flexible. Certain classes still excel at certain things and should feel different to play. At some point the line is crossed where classes are more similar than they are different, which removes a core (or classic, if you take issue with "core") aspect of D&D.

The location of this line is an opinion. Bonus action hide/dash being given to everyone instead of rogues? Scrolls usable by everyone instead of the appropriate casters? Thrown potions + scroll usage + Help action making everyone an amazing healer? High ground advantage + shove encouraging every class to play a similar style (ranged attacks + shove)? I wouldn't say any one of the above is sufficient, but all?

And "classes should be distinct" is just one of many arguments for More D&D 5e Rules. E.g., there's also the Balance Argument: Quicken/Haste allowing you to cast a two fully leveled spell is really powerful, Shove OHKOs, changes to enemy HP and AC but not STs nerfs ST spells, surfaces causing auto-damage has cascading effects, the whac-a-mole system of healing downed characters, etc.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.

Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon

Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.

One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.

The argument that more options are bad because they slow down fights is awfully stupid. In games based on tactical combat, the number of options the player has is extremely important. It's a turn-based game, after all.
I don't know if mentioning10lvl is a good idea considering that it was supposed to be the original level limit which means that we probably won't reach this level by the end of act 2 / the beginning of act 3.
Also, remember that about 80% of players don't even finish games (especially long ones).
It is enough to see how many people have ever reached Arx in DoS2 (26%) which I would say is much above the other games anyway.
Another example is Kingsmaker where only 18% of people unlocked the kingdom at all (it is about 50% of the game) and not even half of them completed the game.
In the case of WotR, barely 10% reached Treshhold.

What am I going to?
It is important to get players interested from the beginning. It depends on how long they spend in the game. If for the first 10-15 hours (even less than the current EA) the player will be limited to casting boring cantrips or using only AA, he will most likely quickly abandon the game and probably will not even buy another one.

NO YOUR STUPID!!!! lol.

Come on now. Was that really called for? It is not stupid. The point is that in the beginning, when you're level 1, you are not supposed to have a gazillion options and choices. As you level up, you gain more and more choices and options in combat. As your character grows, you as a player grow, learning more and more about what each ability does and how it can best be used. The point is that if you start with a gazillion options and then you add a gazillion more, you eventually get to the place where you don't know what half of your moves do and you're completely overwhelmed by choices. Multiply that by 4 because you aren't just controlling one character but 4, and you have a WHOLE LOT of options every round.

Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.

Now, take BG3. You're a Level 1 Fighter. You have Move and attack and Pommel and Lacerate and I think one or two other moves. Add to that Action Surge at Level 2 and Second Wind. Add to that the ability to cast any spells via scrolls or toss potions to heal and/or cause damage and/or poison enemies and/or put them to sleep and/or cast haste upon an ally or whatever. At Level 2, instead of only having maybe two or three options per round, you have like ten to fifteen because you have all these potions and scrolls you could use and special maneuvers that your weapons can use.

So, in the typical D&D 5e scenario, how much quicker is combat going to be for the Fighter who has maybe two or three options during combat versus the Fighter who has ten to fifteen options who sits there pondering which would be the most effective: Throwing an Alchemst Fire?... Healing their companion by throwing a Potion?... Throwing a sleep potion to put a few enemies to sleep?... Casting a spell via a scroll?... Using a special maneuver like Lacerate?... etc. etc. etc.

So yes, combat is slowed down because of too many options, and when we get these characters to higher levels where they naturally have a ton more options, how much slower is the game going to go when you can do a ton more things per round per character? And again, you have 4, so take everything from the Fighter and multiply your option count by 4.

It's too much.
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Bonus action hide/dash being given to everyone instead of rogues?

This is one they should get rid of. Don't see any compelling reason to have it and I can't imagine anyone asked for it.
Posted By: Ranxerox Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.

.


Well said, and I this is the way I what I would like to see them do. I think this makes levelling up much more interesting.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.

Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon

Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.

One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.

The argument that more options are bad because they slow down fights is awfully stupid. In games based on tactical combat, the number of options the player has is extremely important. It's a turn-based game, after all.
I don't know if mentioning10lvl is a good idea considering that it was supposed to be the original level limit which means that we probably won't reach this level by the end of act 2 / the beginning of act 3.
Also, remember that about 80% of players don't even finish games (especially long ones).
It is enough to see how many people have ever reached Arx in DoS2 (26%) which I would say is much above the other games anyway.
Another example is Kingsmaker where only 18% of people unlocked the kingdom at all (it is about 50% of the game) and not even half of them completed the game.
In the case of WotR, barely 10% reached Treshhold.

What am I going to?
It is important to get players interested from the beginning. It depends on how long they spend in the game. If for the first 10-15 hours (even less than the current EA) the player will be limited to casting boring cantrips or using only AA, he will most likely quickly abandon the game and probably will not even buy another one.

NO YOUR STUPID!!!! lol.

Come on now. Was that really called for? It is not stupid. The point is that in the beginning, when you're level 1, you are not supposed to have a gazillion options and choices. As you level up, you gain more and more choices and options in combat. As your character grows, you as a player grow, learning more and more about what each ability does and how it can best be used. The point is that if you start with a gazillion options and then you add a gazillion more, you eventually get to the place where you don't know what half of your moves do and you're completely overwhelmed by choices. Multiply that by 4 because you aren't just controlling one character but 4, and you have a WHOLE LOT of options every round.

Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.

Now, take BG3. You're a Level 1 Fighter. You have Move and attack and Pommel and Lacerate and I think one or two other moves. Add to that Action Surge at Level 2 and Second Wind. Add to that the ability to cast any spells via scrolls or toss potions to heal and/or cause damage and/or poison enemies and/or put them to sleep and/or cast haste upon an ally or whatever. At Level 2, instead of only having maybe two or three options per round, you have like ten to fifteen because you have all these potions and scrolls you could use and special maneuvers that your weapons can use.

So, in the typical D&D 5e scenario, how much quicker is combat going to be for the Fighter who has maybe two or three options during combat versus the Fighter who has ten to fifteen options who sits there pondering which would be the most effective: Throwing an Alchemst Fire?... Healing their companion by throwing a Potion?... Throwing a sleep potion to put a few enemies to sleep?... Casting a spell via a scroll?... Using a special maneuver like Lacerate?... etc. etc. etc.

So yes, combat is slowed down because of too many options, and when we get these characters to higher levels where they naturally have a ton more options, how much slower is the game going to go when you can do a ton more things per round per character? And again, you have 4, so take everything from the Fighter and multiply your option count by 4.

It's too much.

It is definitely not too much. And why is more options wrong?
According to the same logic, we should not change the reaction because they will slow down the fight even more or introduce ready actions.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit with the sarcasm, but I can't completely understand this argument. In this type of games, what makes them good is not the amount of options available to the player?
While the first 5 levels should be unlocked fairly quickly, the later levels will be unlocked rather slowly.
Posted By: mystakai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.

Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon

Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons

The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.

One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.

The argument that more options are bad because they slow down fights is awfully stupid. In games based on tactical combat, the number of options the player has is extremely important. It's a turn-based game, after all.
I don't know if mentioning10lvl is a good idea considering that it was supposed to be the original level limit which means that we probably won't reach this level by the end of act 2 / the beginning of act 3.
Also, remember that about 80% of players don't even finish games (especially long ones).
It is enough to see how many people have ever reached Arx in DoS2 (26%) which I would say is much above the other games anyway.
Another example is Kingsmaker where only 18% of people unlocked the kingdom at all (it is about 50% of the game) and not even half of them completed the game.
In the case of WotR, barely 10% reached Treshhold.

What am I going to?
It is important to get players interested from the beginning. It depends on how long they spend in the game. If for the first 10-15 hours (even less than the current EA) the player will be limited to casting boring cantrips or using only AA, he will most likely quickly abandon the game and probably will not even buy another one.

NO YOUR STUPID!!!! lol.

Come on now. Was that really called for? It is not stupid. The point is that in the beginning, when you're level 1, you are not supposed to have a gazillion options and choices. As you level up, you gain more and more choices and options in combat. As your character grows, you as a player grow, learning more and more about what each ability does and how it can best be used. The point is that if you start with a gazillion options and then you add a gazillion more, you eventually get to the place where you don't know what half of your moves do and you're completely overwhelmed by choices. Multiply that by 4 because you aren't just controlling one character but 4, and you have a WHOLE LOT of options every round.

Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.

Now, take BG3. You're a Level 1 Fighter. You have Move and attack and Pommel and Lacerate and I think one or two other moves. Add to that Action Surge at Level 2 and Second Wind. Add to that the ability to cast any spells via scrolls or toss potions to heal and/or cause damage and/or poison enemies and/or put them to sleep and/or cast haste upon an ally or whatever. At Level 2, instead of only having maybe two or three options per round, you have like ten to fifteen because you have all these potions and scrolls you could use and special maneuvers that your weapons can use.

So, in the typical D&D 5e scenario, how much quicker is combat going to be for the Fighter who has maybe two or three options during combat versus the Fighter who has ten to fifteen options who sits there pondering which would be the most effective: Throwing an Alchemst Fire?... Healing their companion by throwing a Potion?... Throwing a sleep potion to put a few enemies to sleep?... Casting a spell via a scroll?... Using a special maneuver like Lacerate?... etc. etc. etc.

So yes, combat is slowed down because of too many options, and when we get these characters to higher levels where they naturally have a ton more options, how much slower is the game going to go when you can do a ton more things per round per character? And again, you have 4, so take everything from the Fighter and multiply your option count by 4.

It's too much.

It is definitely not too much. And why is more options wrong?
According to the same logic, we should not change the reaction because they will slow down the fight even more or introduce ready actions.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit with the sarcasm, but I can't completely understand this argument. In this type of games, what makes them good is not the amount of options available to the player?
While the first 5 levels should be unlocked fairly quickly, the later levels will be unlocked rather slowly.


More options does not make a better tactical game. The player will simply use the most effective option every time. Constraining options means that the player has to find the most effective way to utilize a limited tool.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 07:37 PM
Think of it like a restaurant and you're at the restaurant with 3 others. The restaurant hands you a menu, and there are two pages of entrees to choose from. There's maybe a dozen total things to choose from, including sides.

Now imagine a restaurant with 5 pages of menu items. So many more entrees to choose from. Now there's maybe 24 to thirty total things to choose from.

Have you ever been out to eat with others at a restaurant with a ton of choices? There is always someone who cant figure out what they want. Narrow the choices, speed up the selection process. Too broad a menu, and you're likely going to have the waiter/waitress come back multiple times asking if you're ready to order yet.

The same is true for an RPG like D&D. If you start the game with a ton of options, and then you add more and more as you level up, multiplying the number of options considerably, before you know it, you're inundated with so many options, making decisions much harder.

When you reach higher levels, wizards alone will have TONS of spells to choose from. Add to that MORE options with scrolls and weapon special abilities and potions you can both drink and throw and shoving options and so on and so forth, and you're going to have players who are just sitting there very round wondering what they want to do, skimming their items and flipping their hotbar menus looking for what abilities they might want to use.

I'm thinking multiplayer in particular here, but single player as well. If I"m controlling 4 characters with a dozen or more options each every round, that's a TON of options to choose from, and the next thing you know, you're constantly skimming options as opposed to making quick decisions.

But aside from all this, having clearly defined and distinct classes, again, makes for a cohesive TEAM based game. Without distinct classes, with everyone having the ability to do everything, then nothing is special and unique. Likewise, if you have a ton of abilities right from the start, as you grow and increase in level, your new "special" abilities are no longer really "special" because everyone has so many "special" abilities immediately. So, what growth did your character really experience? Did they really gain anything truly special per level? Not really, because everyone can do everything.

Take clerics for example. In D&D 5e, only a cleric (paladin, etc.) can use a Revivify scroll. However, it's a Level 3 spell. That means that even a low level cleric might still fail to use a Revivify scroll. They have to make a roll to succeed in using it because it's above their pay grade. This alone makes a cleric a highly valued member of the party. It makes a cleric very special, and when the cleric finally reaches the level to be able to use a Revivify scroll without making a roll, you REALLY feel that they have become a powerful cleric. They've truly grown, and you feel that they've truly grown, because they now can use the scroll without a potential fail. That makes the journey so much more rewarding.

Right now, with BG3, everyone can use a Revivify scroll at level 1. So that completely strips the clerics (and like classes) from this very unique and special ability. No one feels that they've grown at all because they can use the scroll immediately without fail or issue. Everyone can use it. No one really grows or is special at all.

Basically, in BG3 right now, items trump classes altogether. As long as you find the right items, you don't need classes. You don't need spells and you don't need clerics and you don't need anything BUT items. Items give you special abilities and spells and area of effect and everything.

Items reign supreme in BG3. Classes and characters do not. And THAT is my whole point. There is no one who is special and there is no real character growth or development. Any that exist are minor and not very impactful at all. And again, combat is slowed down because you have so many options.

Here's another way to look at it. Current AI is quick, but it is still not super quick. The more options an enemy has per round, the longer the AI takes. We are at level 4 max. By the end of the game, each enemy has more options because they have better weapons and items. A single goblin might have the ability to Dash as a bonus, Disengage, fire a bow, swing a melee, throw a healing potion, throw a bomb, shoot a special arrow versus a normal one, shove, throw an alchemist's fire, some can cast a variety of spells, there are ranger goblins that can cast Hunter's Mark, lacerate, pommel, topple, etc.

So a single AI goblin can have a dozen options to choose from, and the AI has to decide for each goblin which move to make. In D&D 5e, a single goblin would likely have only two options, maybe three. Even if you homebrew a few, you might give them a few spells or maybe an extra move or two tops. You wouldn't give each goblin a dozen moves.

So why does it slow down combat? Not only do you, the player, have a bunch more options to choose from, you also have NPC's with a ton more options to choose from, slowing down the AI.

And it's only going to get worse as you increase in levels and gain more and more and more items.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 08:13 PM
Here's the other issue I have with all this. I have a software program for DMing: Fantasy Grounds Unity. In that, I can use RAW 5e rules and stats and so on and so forth.

However, I can modify it and create homebrew rules and monsters and so forth as well. It is essentially a computer game. I can drop monsters onto a map and player characters as well. I have an initiative tracker, and I can move the monsters while the players can move their characters, etc.

The ONLY thing it can't do is BE the DM.

So, there is absolutely no reason why Larian can't do a full blown 5e video game and have it work really well. They have the non-combat DMing AI etc. down. That's the best part of the game. So, there is no reason why they can't make the full blown 5e rules work in the game. They could literally build it like the Fantasy Grounds elements, with graphics boosts etc. and give enemies AI. Even as in Fantasy Grounds, I can add my own homebrew as well, so they could allow players to implement their own homebrew that they might like.

Do you like potions as BA? Start with potions as Actions but allow players the option to select potions as BA.

Like advantage high ground? Allow players the option to make the a setting in their game.

Like +2 for high ground? Allow players the option to make that their homebrew for their game.

If Fantasy Grounds can do it, and they're SO much less awesome than Larian, why can't Larian provide us with something similar? Give us RAW 5e, and let us have options to tweak it to our own personal homebrew preferences, just like the lesser Solasta and Fantasy Grounds Unity allows.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Think of it like a restaurant and you're at the restaurant with 3 others. The restaurant hands you a menu, and there are two pages of entrees to choose from. There's maybe a dozen total things to choose from, including sides.

Now imagine a restaurant with 5 pages of menu items. So many more entrees to choose from. Now there's maybe 24 to thirty total things to choose from.

Have you ever been out to eat with others at a restaurant with a ton of choices? There is always someone who cant figure out what they want. Narrow the choices, speed up the selection process. Too broad a menu, and you're likely going to have the waiter/waitress come back multiple times asking if you're ready to order yet.

Oh, do I have a pet peeve with this analogy. I mean, I understand it's an example for what you're trying to explain but since we love immersion and realism, lets give a realistic version of the scenario mentioned above: (Only read if you're interested in a completely off-topic rant)


The waiter gives your company the menu and no matter its size, at least one person will immediately lay the menu face down on the table and ask the waiter what dishes there is to choose from. After the waiter, with a forced smile, has patiently listed every single dish the restaurant has, including a short description of the ingredients used in those, the customer will ask if there are any recommendations. The waiter will inquire if the customer has any preference when it comes to protein source and based on that and knowing which ingredients the kitchen wants to use up that day give a couple of suggestions.
The customer will disregard those completely and ask if there isn't something not on the menu or if the chef just simply can't throw something together quick since the customer really wanted sushi but the rest of the company chose an Italian restaurant, but "yeah, I can see here that you have fish, rice and veggies...how hard can it be?". The waiter, still with a forced smile, will stand there dumbfounded, thinking the customer is a bloody idiot and also, as he do every day, regret dropping out of university before he got his bachelor. He will nod towards the customer, say that he will ask the chef, collect the menu's and take orders from the rest of the company. Go to the till, put in the orders, not ask the chef, and then take a smoke before returning to the customer saying, "sorry".
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 08:33 PM
So based on your analogy, what exactly are you saying? Whether Larian creates a larger number of options or limits them more appropriately, you're still always going to have people demanding more options than what's available and thus they will slow the combat down regardless?

Or are you just venting about people at restaurants?
Posted By: mystakai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 08:55 PM
Suppose you make a game with 100 bosses and 100 player abilities. The player can choose one of 10 classes and each class gets access to 10 different abilities. Each boss is designed to be beaten easily by 1 of the 100 abilities. Because you want the player to have the most fun possible, you decide to implement item versions of all the abilities which any class can use. These items are readily available in the game world. You think to yourself, 'aha! What a brilliant game I've made. The players have so many options, they will never be bored!".

Do these 100 options make the gameplay more interesting or challenging? I would argue that they simplify the game and homogenize the tactical experience on multiple playthroughs. Instead of finding a way to utilize their 10 class abilities to overcome the boss encounters, players simply find the items that each boss is vulnerable. These 100 options you have to the player quickly turn into 1 option on each boss.

More options does not make a more interesting tactical experience.
Posted By: PrivateRaccoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So based on your analogy, what exactly are you saying? Whether Larian creates a larger number of options or limits them more appropriately, you're still always going to have people demanding more options than what's available and thus they will slow the combat down regardless?

Or are you just venting about people at restaurants?

Just venting about people at restaurants. The waiter in my scenario is me smile

Your analogy just struck a soft spot. Sorry.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The 5e system is already pretty flexible - additional class flexibility isn't needed even with a 4-person-party restriction.
So my takeaway is that these threads are largely melodramatic then.
To be fair, yes there is a lot of melodrama and hyperbole. But the fact that the 5e system is flexible doesn't mean that classes should be made even more flexible. Certain classes still excel at certain things and should feel different to play. At some point the line is crossed where classes are more similar than they are different, which removes a core (or classic, if you take issue with "core") aspect of D&D.

The location of this line is an opinion. Bonus action hide/dash being given to everyone instead of rogues? Scrolls usable by everyone instead of the appropriate casters? Thrown potions + scroll usage + Help action making everyone an amazing healer? High ground advantage + shove encouraging every class to play a similar style (ranged attacks + shove)? I wouldn't say any one of the above is sufficient, but all?

And "classes should be distinct" is just one of many arguments for More D&D 5e Rules. E.g., there's also the Balance Argument: Quicken/Haste allowing you to cast a two fully leveled spell is really powerful, Shove OHKOs, changes to enemy HP and AC but not STs nerfs ST spells, surfaces causing auto-damage has cascading effects, the whac-a-mole system of healing downed characters, etc.

I'm of a mind that scribing scrolls should be limited to casting classes that can actually cast them. I'm also of a mind that, if I can get a background, or a skill, that allows casting it, it's fine. NWN and DDO both had UMD, Use Magic Device, that enabled one to use a lot of items that they would normally not be able to use, for example. I'm not overly fussed about Hide, in particular, because my rogues, or rouge-like characters will be better at it than someone that's just using the skill. In so far as I'm aware, characters could always attempt to be stealthy, that didn't mean they'd succeed, but they could always try.

But if the "homogenizing" of the classes is coming from actual 5e rules, instead of some "homebrew" thing, then it would seem that it's more "I want more 5e, but only the stuff I like" than "it's not 5e enough". With the caveat that I do, in fact, realize that scribing scrolls is currently broken.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 01/12/21 11:22 PM
There's a difference between scrolls and magic items such as magic rings and wands. Scrolls are only meant to be used by specific classes. Rings and wands and other such magic items could be used by anybody but only have a a limited number of uses. Wands like magic Missile would have maybe 10 uses and then be completely used up. Traditionally, anybody could use them. That's what made them so awesome. But once they were gone, they were gone. Some magic items had limited uses per day, usually one to five. These were like having extra spell slots for just that particular spell. These items also created versatility but were extremely rare or expensive.

What we have in game right now completely destroys classes because anybody can use the scrolls and potions and you find so many of them that their value is diminished. You can even find cantrip spells scrolls. What's the point of that? You can cast cantrips all day long. You don't need extras scrolls. Oh wait! It's so that those who don't even have the ability to cast such spells can cast such spells.

So again, they are making it clear that the purpose of these scrolls and potions is so that everybody can win a trophy. Everybody can cast every spell if they have the right item. Thus nobody is special and you actually don't need anybody in particular in your party.

It's this whole mentality that they are trying to please everybody by making it so that if you don't like a particular character, that's okay. You don't need them. Just kick him out of the party. You're fine without them because there's nothing really all that special about them. And then they wonder why so many people think that the origin characters are shallow and bland. You've made them so that they're not special, and so that we can just dump them at any time. So why should I even care about any of them if there's nothing special about any of them?

Although, I actually do like the characters. But my point is that they're not really special because everybody can do everything. That really cheapens all the characters in the story. If I knew that I was going to have a really hard time continuing the game without Gale, I would definitely make sure that I tried to treat Gale well so that I keep him in my party. But as it stands, he's not really special so if I don't like him no big deal.

You can't please everybody. If you try to please everybody, you please nobody in the end. What I'm afraid is going to happen is that they are going to try to please everybody so much that in the end the game is going to suck. If you're going to make this game like dos, then make it like dos. Tell everyone that's the direction you're going in and if they don't like it tough. If you're going with D&D, then make it D&D, and if people don't like it tough. Otherwise, what we're going to have is a bunch of fans who are just frustrated and upset about the game on both sides because they're trying to blend the two games.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 12:35 AM
Yeah I freaking HATE the fact that they're making noone special by making everyone "special". Stupid as heck.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 11:08 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
There's a difference between scrolls and magic items such as magic rings and wands. Scrolls are only meant to be used by specific classes. Rings and wands and other such magic items could be used by anybody but only have a a limited number of uses. Wands like magic Missile would have maybe 10 uses and then be completely used up. Traditionally, anybody could use them. That's what made them so awesome. But once they were gone, they were gone. Some magic items had limited uses per day, usually one to five. These were like having extra spell slots for just that particular spell. These items also created versatility but were extremely rare or expensive.

What we have in game right now completely destroys classes because anybody can use the scrolls and potions and you find so many of them that their value is diminished. You can even find cantrip spells scrolls. What's the point of that? You can cast cantrips all day long. You don't need extras scrolls. Oh wait! It's so that those who don't even have the ability to cast such spells can cast such spells.

So again, they are making it clear that the purpose of these scrolls and potions is so that everybody can win a trophy. Everybody can cast every spell if they have the right item. Thus nobody is special and you actually don't need anybody in particular in your party.

It's this whole mentality that they are trying to please everybody by making it so that if you don't like a particular character, that's okay. You don't need them. Just kick him out of the party. You're fine without them because there's nothing really all that special about them. And then they wonder why so many people think that the origin characters are shallow and bland. You've made them so that they're not special, and so that we can just dump them at any time. So why should I even care about any of them if there's nothing special about any of them?

Although, I actually do like the characters. But my point is that they're not really special because everybody can do everything. That really cheapens all the characters in the story. If I knew that I was going to have a really hard time continuing the game without Gale, I would definitely make sure that I tried to treat Gale well so that I keep him in my party. But as it stands, he's not really special so if I don't like him no big deal.

You can't please everybody. If you try to please everybody, you please nobody in the end. What I'm afraid is going to happen is that they are going to try to please everybody so much that in the end the game is going to suck. If you're going to make this game like dos, then make it like dos. Tell everyone that's the direction you're going in and if they don't like it tough. If you're going with D&D, then make it D&D, and if people don't like it tough. Otherwise, what we're going to have is a bunch of fans who are just frustrated and upset about the game on both sides because they're trying to blend the two games.

Yes, there is, and historically, scrolls had the lowest UMD requirements, depending on the spell level. Outside of this, or whatever is passing for it in 5e, scribing by wizards, and some random that doesn't have an in lore reason to use them does need to be addressed.

Which would be a good thing for that wizard that chose different cantrips/doesn't have that one prepared. I'm at a disadvantage here, because I don't like to play casters, in DnD or otherwise, so I haven't spent a lot of time on them here, as of yet. However, in one of the "pet" games, Solasta, wizards can't prepare all of the Cantrip spells, so a scroll for one they don't have prepared would, in fact, be useful, by someone that can actually use it.

Yeah, here we go again, with the faux outrage.

You know, I've sat at tables where rogues weren't allowed. I've played in MP sessions of DnD based games, like NWN/DDO, where some classes weren't allowed. It would take a lot of foresight to say "Well, nobody is going to like Astarion, so we need to make everyone rogues". It would have also been wrong, there's some interesting things floating around YouTube about Astarion... Anyway, it's more likely that they're aware of this dislike for specific classes, and built accordingly. These mechanics weren't just tacked on, they had to be built in from the start. You can evermore believe that I've seen the opposite complaint too. If I don't have a rogue in the party, I can't open chests, or locked doors, for example. I remember reading this, a lot, in Dragon Age Origins.

It's obvious, to me, that some things are broken, such as wizards being able to scribe divine scrolls, that need to be fixed. But as I said earlier, a character attempting to Hide? That doesn't bother me at all. It seems like there's a thread or 2 about how stealth is broken here, and maybe it's down to trying to use it on a class that isn't built around it? That would make perfect sense to me. It's not like I haven't seen a fighter in full plate trying to be sneaky. Some of what gets harped on here, however, is, as pointed out earlier, based on what's in 5e, such as lockpicking.

So, when I see things like this thread, I'm not like "yeah that needs to be addressed". The reason is that I see "I don't mind some homebrew, but Phase Spiders can teleport around". I was confused, because I remember that they in fact can, or appear to, so I looked it up for 5e, and it turns out that they in fact can, or do what appears to be teleporting. It gets a bit confusing, for someone on the outside, trying to parse exactly what you're really looking for, because on one hand you're looking for less 5e, phase spiders, sneak, etc. On the other you want more, like larger parties? I'm not sure how that equates to "more like 5e", because in other editions I've played at a table of 3 players, including the DM. Did they make a rule that requires 7 total players to make up your imagined party of 6?
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 12:04 PM
Some quick information points for folks:

- UMD is now exclusively a unique feature of rogues, in 5e.

- In 5e, Wizards do not scribe cantrips into their spell books. Spell books do not contain cantrips. You do not prepare cantrips. You cannot learn more cantrips by scribing them.
- A wizard could, in theory, write a scroll of a cantrip they know, and another wizard, or another character for whom that cantrip was on their spell list, could use the scroll, but formally speaking, a wizard cannot scribe that scroll into their book or learn the cantrip from the scroll. A DM might allow a wizard to study a cantrip scroll of a cantrip that they didn't know, and eventually learn it (provided they didn't actually cast the cantrip from the scroll and destroy it, and kept it for the express purpose of studying it), but it still would not be recorded in their spell book.

I think you might be misunderstanding some of the things that others have said, Robert. When people say stealth is broken, what they mean is that you can be playing a five hundred pound gorilla in a full one-man band outfit and jumping up and down, screaming at the top of your lungs and banging pots together... and still successfully stealth around you enemies and take the easy advantage of attacking them as an unseen attacker, in this game. There's not even a check involved in doing this - it just works, as long as you step out of their sight cones, which you can check at any time. There is no being 'good' at stealth, because literally everyone is universally godly at it with 100% guaranteed success.

The complaint about phase spiders is that they are, in their 5e stat block, melee teleport junkies who hit and run very effectively, and don't leave themselves vulnerable to attack unless baited into it, or unless characters wait for the right moment. In the game currently, they might warp occasionally, but they stay vulnerable the whole time, and they spit and bleed poison as well for some daft reason.

In both cases, the request is that the game ought to be more like 5e and less what it currently is now. Somehow you've gotten the wrong end of the stick there, so hopefully this clears that up a touch ^.^
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 12:17 PM
Magically shifting from the Ethereal Plane to the Material and vice versa is not teleporting. They are parallel dimensions. If a phase spider shifts into the Ethereal Plane, they still have to move up to you physically.

So, as a bonus, they disappear and move up to you. They could sit in the Ethereal for rounds. Then, as a bonus, BAM! They suddenly appear and attack.

THAT is a phase spider. Ninja assassins close range attackers.
Posted By: Flooter Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 12:52 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yeah, here we go again, with the faux outrage.

How dare you, good sir? My outrage is of the highest caliber : finely woven from the purest strands of indignation and thrice dipped in scorn.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Some quick information points for folks:

- UMD is now exclusively a unique feature of rogues, in 5e.

- In 5e, Wizards do not scribe cantrips into their spell books. Spell books do not contain cantrips. You do not prepare cantrips. You cannot learn more cantrips by scribing them.
- A wizard could, in theory, write a scroll of a cantrip they know, and another wizard, or another character for whom that cantrip was on their spell list, could use the scroll, but formally speaking, a wizard cannot scribe that scroll into their book or learn the cantrip from the scroll. A DM might allow a wizard to study a cantrip scroll of a cantrip that they didn't know, and eventually learn it (provided they didn't actually cast the cantrip from the scroll and destroy it, and kept it for the express purpose of studying it), but it still would not be recorded in their spell book.

I think you might be misunderstanding some of the things that others have said, Robert. When people say stealth is broken, what they mean is that you can be playing a five hundred pound gorilla in a full one-man band outfit and jumping up and down, screaming at the top of your lungs and banging pots together... and still successfully stealth around you enemies and take the easy advantage of attacking them as an unseen attacker, in this game. There's not even a check involved in doing this - it just works, as long as you step out of their sight cones, which you can check at any time. There is no being 'good' at stealth, because literally everyone is universally godly at it with 100% guaranteed success.

The complaint about phase spiders is that they are, in their 5e stat block, melee teleport junkies who hit and run very effectively, and don't leave themselves vulnerable to attack unless baited into it, or unless characters wait for the right moment. In the game currently, they might warp occasionally, but they stay vulnerable the whole time, and they spit and bleed poison as well for some daft reason.

In both cases, the request is that the game ought to be more like 5e and less what it currently is now. Somehow you've gotten the wrong end of the stick there, so hopefully this clears that up a touch ^.^

I'm not sure where scribing cantrips came into the equation? Unless it's possible here, as I said, I don't do casters. I listed Solasta, as I had to build all of the characters as they leveled, and noted the inability to prepare all of them per day. So, either Solasta is not as 5e as this forum would lead us to believe, or, the potential for scrolls being used as I laid out, casting a cantrip from a scroll, by an arcane caster, would be useful for one that doesn't know/have prepared that particular cantrip.

The limitation to rogue makes no sense, since it should be a bard thing. Older rule sets, as I said, I haven't played TT since they launched 4e. As an aside w/regard to phase spiders, I'm not sure how much clearer "appears to teleport around" could be? It's a really simple concept, much simpler than interpreting rules from any edition of DnD. I provided both the definition as defined by the site that listed the specs, as well as a link to the actual site in the topic where it came up. I even acknowledged, in that thread, the homebrew spitting. The point then, and now, however, was "but the rules", even when the rules are being respected, to one degree or another. So, I guess I'm left with my initial conclusion, it's all about the drama/melodrama.

Edit: So, I was curious about the "cast cantrips all day" thing, and went and looked, and, as I suspected, you are limited to 4, at character creation. So, for a wizard, cantrip scrolls make a lot of sense, especially if you've got scrolls for cantrips you haven't prepared. It's like people think you can't just log in and check things or something, what's up with that?
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 10:52 PM
On the topic of false indignation...

Quote
So, I was curious about the "cast cantrips all day" thing, and went and looked, and, as I suspected, you are limited to 4, at character creation. So, for a wizard, cantrip scrolls make a lot of sense, especially if you've got scrolls for cantrips you haven't prepared. It's like people think you can't just log in and check things or something, what's up with that?

Like I said, you don't prepare cantrips. No-one prepares cantrips, no-one of any class, ever. You know a set number, which you can cast endlessly and all day if you wish. To say "especially if" implies that they serve a value or use outside of that... so what value or use are you imagining that they serve outside of being scrolls of a one-use cantrip that the caster hasn't learned?

Scribing by wizards came up when you said this:

Quote
[...] Outside of this [referring to UMD], or whatever is passing for it in 5e, scribing by wizards, and some random that doesn't have an in lore reason to use them does need to be addressed. Which would be a good thing for that wizard that chose different cantrips/doesn't have that one prepared.


Your grammar is not great, so I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say, but this reads as though you're suggesting that one good use for cantrip scrolls would be to let wizards scribe cantrips they didn't pick.

No, they are not good for scribing; that small misconception, if indeed you held it, was what I was attempting to explain, that's all ^.^

Beyond that, I've seen exactly one person insisting that lockpicking should be limited to rogue, and most folks were happy to disagree with them and point out that that was in no way a limitation of 5e - wherein it can be attempted by anyone with thieves' tools, and proficiency with said tools can be acquired in a broad-ish range of ways that do not require the rogue class.

You're doing yourself a disservice if you're trying to say that phase spiders are behaving like phase spiders in game right now; they don't and you make yourself look a bit silly trying to argue that they do. In game, right now, they warp to perches and platforms that would otherwise be outside of their movement limit, and they spit poison at players - that's their main behaviour. They are always vulnerable to attack on other creature's turns, and they never skip into the ethereal plane. GM4Him is the one that champions this cause the most though, so I'll leave it at that statement, which honestly should be enough on its own to make the point.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 11:08 PM
Right. So the point here is that limiting things more provides value to classes and the special abilities that are tied to each individual class. If you don't limit things then there really is no value or very limited value placed on classes and their special abilities.

Rogue, for example, should have expertise with thieves tools or a couple of skills, etc. So although anybody can use thieves tools to pick locks, the Rogue should have a better ability to do this, double the proficiency. This makes the Rogue unique so that they are the experts in things like picking locks. Just like in real life, anybody can attempt to pick a lock, so everyone in D&D can attempt to pick a lock, but the Rogue is the expert at it.

Likewise, the fighter is supposed to have all sorts of different combat maneuvers. That's what makes a fighter a fighter. They have all sorts of special unique combat abilities that nobody else has. But now, in bg3, everybody has special combat maneuvers based on whatever weapons they're carrying. So now the fighters special maneuvers are not so special because everybody has special maneuvers. Sure they have some special maneuvers that nobody else has, but the point is that those special maneuvers that fighters have is no longer all that special because everybody has some special maneuvers based on their items.

Everybody can use scrolls of any kind, so clerics and mages are no longer special. Over and over again, they are devaluing the classes and boosting items, making items you find in the game so much more important and special then your characters are.

So that is the main point I was trying to make. I want them to institute more D&D rules and stats and so forth because by doing so they would increase the value of each individual character, making each character more important, and they would lower the value of items so that they are supplements to your characters as opposed to being more important than your characters.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 02/12/21 11:11 PM
And yes, in terms of phase spiders, when you first encounter them in the original games, you are walking through a dark cave system and they suddenly appear around your characters attacking them at point blank range. They hide in the ethereal plane and then pop into the material plane to attack you. While in the material plane, you have maybe an attack or two before they will attack you again and then go back to the Ethereal plane. Then they'll suddenly maneuver behind you and pop back into the material plane and attack you again. Then you get like one round to hit them again before they go back to the Ethereal plane. That is how they are supposed to be. They are hit and fade assassins. They don't Misty Step across the board some 120 ft away from you and then spit poison at you.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 03/12/21 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
On the topic of false indignation...

Quote
So, I was curious about the "cast cantrips all day" thing, and went and looked, and, as I suspected, you are limited to 4, at character creation. So, for a wizard, cantrip scrolls make a lot of sense, especially if you've got scrolls for cantrips you haven't prepared. It's like people think you can't just log in and check things or something, what's up with that?

Like I said, you don't prepare cantrips. No-one prepares cantrips, no-one of any class, ever. You know a set number, which you can cast endlessly and all day if you wish. To say "especially if" implies that they serve a value or use outside of that... so what value or use are you imagining that they serve outside of being scrolls of a one-use cantrip that the caster hasn't learned?

There are a total of 12 Cantrips that a level 1 Wizard has access to, and they can only have four selected. As I said, I logged in, and rolled a wizard to see. Those four that are selected are "prepared", those are the ones you can cast for that LR. If you have this so wrong, what else are you missing?
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 03/12/21 11:54 AM
Robert, you are not understanding the difference between prepared and learned.

You do not prepare your cantrips; You choose which ones you learn at 1st level. You cannot CHANGE them; you just know them. At higher levels you will be able to learn more cantrips, up to 6 (in normal rules).

You prepare spells of 1st level or higher, and you can change them each LR (or in the game, at any time out of combat). You cannot, however, change your cantrips in this manner because they are not prepared.

In the game right now, you can scribe cantrips to learn new ones - this shouldn't be happening, but either way, if you do scribe a new one, again, it's just something you now know, without limitation. You don't have to choose between which cantrips you do or don't have access to on a particular day, because you always have access to every cantrip you know, every day, without preparing them.

I would encourage you to roll a wizard, as you say, and then get to a point where you can rest. Try to change your cantrips to four different ones that you had the option of picking on the character creation screen - you'll see that you cannot.

In more detail, to speak about BG3 specifically:

In character creation, you'll note that there are separate headings for cantrip, then spells, then, below that, prepared spells.

The first section lists the game's wizard cantrips for you - as you noted, there's 12 of them. You can pick 3 at character creation.

The second section presents all 1st level wizard spells - these are different from cantrips, which are functionally 'level 0' spells. You can pick 6 of these to learn at 1st level.

The third section asks you which of your spells you want to prepare. Cantrips are not presented here; you don't prepare them, you just know the ones you picked. This list presents you the 6 1st level spells you just selected above, asking you to choose which 4 of those you want prepared when you start the game.

Once you begin the game, you have the freedom to change your spells at any time when you're not in combat. You can open your spell book by pressing 'k' by default.

Here, you'll see your known spells, arrayed by level. Your 3 cantrips will be at the top, on a line of their own. You might have an additional one if you picked a race that gets a bonus cantrip. Notice how they are lit up, but do not have a selection line around them. This means they're available to use, but aren't counting against your prepared spells limit.

Below that, you'll have your first level spells. There will be 6 of them, and four of them, the four you selected in character creation, will be lit up, and will have white border around them; this means that they are available to cast and are counting against your prepared spells.

At the bottom of the spell book ,you'll see a blue bar that represents you prepared spells - it's showing you that you can prepare up to 4 spells, and that you currently have 4 prepared. If you click one of the spells with the white border, it will unpreapre that spell, letting you select a different one.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 03/12/21 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Magically shifting from the Ethereal Plane to the Material and vice versa is not teleporting. They are parallel dimensions. If a phase spider shifts into the Ethereal Plane, they still have to move up to you physically.

So, as a bonus, they disappear and move up to you. They could sit in the Ethereal for rounds. Then, as a bonus, BAM! They suddenly appear and attack.

THAT is a phase spider. Ninja assassins close range attackers.
And this would add so much more tactical depth to the game than Larian turning Phase Spiders into yet another enemy that jumps or teleports and has added ranged efficiency.

Larians obsession for ultra mobile combat on wide open vertical maps is killing the tactical depth of 5e. What we don't have is Ethereal predators who surprise you in melee range or more confined spaces for battlefields. But we have an endless horde of enemies who have been given teleport abilities and extra ranged and aoe surface attacks.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 03/12/21 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Robert, you are not understanding the difference between prepared and learned.

You do not prepare your cantrips; You choose which ones you learn at 1st level. You cannot CHANGE them; you just know them. At higher levels you will be able to learn more cantrips, up to 6 (in normal rules).

You prepare spells of 1st level or higher, and you can change them each LR (or in the game, at any time out of combat). You cannot, however, change your cantrips in this manner because they are not prepared.

In the game right now, you can scribe cantrips to learn new ones - this shouldn't be happening, but either way, if you do scribe a new one, again, it's just something you now know, without limitation. You don't have to choose between which cantrips you do or don't have access to on a particular day, because you always have access to every cantrip you know, every day, without preparing them.

I would encourage you to roll a wizard, as you say, and then get to a point where you can rest. Try to change your cantrips to four different ones that you had the option of picking on the character creation screen - you'll see that you cannot.

In more detail, to speak about BG3 specifically:

In character creation, you'll note that there are separate headings for cantrip, then spells, then, below that, prepared spells.

The first section lists the game's wizard cantrips for you - as you noted, there's 12 of them. You can pick 3 at character creation.

The second section presents all 1st level wizard spells - these are different from cantrips, which are functionally 'level 0' spells. You can pick 6 of these to learn at 1st level.

The third section asks you which of your spells you want to prepare. Cantrips are not presented here; you don't prepare them, you just know the ones you picked. This list presents you the 6 1st level spells you just selected above, asking you to choose which 4 of those you want prepared when you start the game.

Once you begin the game, you have the freedom to change your spells at any time when you're not in combat. You can open your spell book by pressing 'k' by default.

Here, you'll see your known spells, arrayed by level. Your 3 cantrips will be at the top, on a line of their own. You might have an additional one if you picked a race that gets a bonus cantrip. Notice how they are lit up, but do not have a selection line around them. This means they're available to use, but aren't counting against your prepared spells limit.

Below that, you'll have your first level spells. There will be 6 of them, and four of them, the four you selected in character creation, will be lit up, and will have white border around them; this means that they are available to cast and are counting against your prepared spells.

At the bottom of the spell book ,you'll see a blue bar that represents you prepared spells - it's showing you that you can prepare up to 4 spells, and that you currently have 4 prepared. If you click one of the spells with the white border, it will unpreapre that spell, letting you select a different one.

Given that I did misunderstand what I saw when I checked, then the cantrip scrolls would make even more sense for arcane casters. It would provide them with access to that cantrip, which is what I've been arguing all along. I didn't bring up scribing them. It wasn't something I was even considering. Scribing was referenced in regard to wizards scribing Divine scrolls, which shouldn't be a thing, and I believe I even said that. I believe I did everything I could, except use giant sized font of a different color to say that scribing has some issues.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 03/12/21 11:16 PM
Okay. Let me apologize. I think there was a major misunderstanding about this particular branch of the conversation. Right now you are really focusing on one tiny thing that I said. Meanwhile the overall point is being missed.

Yes, there should be only one use for a cantrip scroll. That use is to allow a mage who does not know that can trip to be able to cast it. That is the only use for such a scroll. The point I was trying to make, is that in the game right now characters who are not mages have yet another item that they can use to make mages obsolete and not needed.

In other words, if my fighter can simply pick up an item and even cast a can trip, then what good is a mage at all? My fighter cannot only take a lot of damage, deal a lot of melee and ranged damage, but he can also use scrolls to cast firebolt or frostbite or whatever the cantrip is. He can also use scrolls to make clerics null and void. So my fighter can cast revive cure wounds, guiding Bolt, etc.

So, again I say, why not just create a fighter, select a background that gives you sleight of hand and stealth, and then rely on potions, scrolls that heal, and so on and so forth? After all, now my fighter can do everything all by himself. He essentially has spell slots in the form of scrolls and potions and other magic items. So he doesn't need any other class at all.

That is my point.
Posted By: Rabbitman Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 03:06 AM
GM4Him, please do not apologize. You had very valid points and folks cherry-picked sentences from it to attack you. Nothing new. Simply put, Larian should never have called this game Baldur's Gate 3...Call it "Forgotten Realms Adventures" or "Tadpole Mania" or anything else. Calling it BG3, for most people that played the originals, sets the bar in a place Larian doesn't seem willing to go to. Keep posting your good points, and I hope Larian pays attention.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 08:19 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
You do not prepare your cantrips; You choose which ones you learn at 1st level. You cannot CHANGE them; you just know them. At higher levels you will be able to learn more cantrips, up to 6 (in normal rules).

You prepare spells of 1st level or higher, and you can change them each LR (or in the game, at any time out of combat). You cannot, however, change your cantrips in this manner because they are not prepared.
Im sorry if i understand the rule incorectly ... but i have to disagree here:

Source: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/wizard
Quote
Cantrip Formulas (Optional)
At 3rd level, you have scribed a set of arcane formulas in your spellbook that you can use to formulate a cantrip in your mind. Whenever you finish a long rest and consult those formulas in your spellbook, you can replace one wizard cantrip you know with another cantrip from the wizard spell list.

I really hope this will be implemented for Wizard in full release, since it gives them yet another versatility compared to other casters. O_o
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Okay. Let me apologize. I think there was a major misunderstanding about this particular branch of the conversation. Right now you are really focusing on one tiny thing that I said. Meanwhile the overall point is being missed.

Yes, there should be only one use for a cantrip scroll. That use is to allow a mage who does not know that can trip to be able to cast it. That is the only use for such a scroll. The point I was trying to make, is that in the game right now characters who are not mages have yet another item that they can use to make mages obsolete and not needed.

In other words, if my fighter can simply pick up an item and even cast a can trip, then what good is a mage at all? My fighter cannot only take a lot of damage, deal a lot of melee and ranged damage, but he can also use scrolls to cast firebolt or frostbite or whatever the cantrip is. He can also use scrolls to make clerics null and void. So my fighter can cast revive cure wounds, guiding Bolt, etc.

So, again I say, why not just create a fighter, select a background that gives you sleight of hand and stealth, and then rely on potions, scrolls that heal, and so on and so forth? After all, now my fighter can do everything all by himself. He essentially has spell slots in the form of scrolls and potions and other magic items. So he doesn't need any other class at all.

That is my point.

For one "tiny thing", you do seem to want to put a lot of emphasis on it, which is why I focused on it. In your rush to defend yourself, you've overlooked the fact that in so far as spell casting/scrolls go, we've been largely in agreement. Other parts of the post I initially quoted were addressed in earlier posts, but this theme keeps coming back, so yes, I did focus on it, because despite largely agreeing with what's been said, I'm being told that I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then so are the people I'm agreeing with, right?

In your fighter scenario, for example, I brought up UMD, which someone pointed out was a rogue thing in 5e. I thought that was dumb, since if it's going to be focused on one class, it should be bard. I didn't see any reason to elaborate on that further, and went on to respond to your "cantrip scrolls serve no purpose other than (insert your fighter scenario here)". My response to that was countered with "no one needs to scribe cantrips", which I never said. Now even you are agreeing that yes, there is a valid use for them. It would seem that I was correct in my assertion, which was simply a response to "there's no other use for them" that you postulated.

So yes, in the absence of UMD, or a background that allows casting of arcane spells/use of arcane scrolls, spell casting, from scrolls or otherwise, should be limited to casters that can actually cast the spells.

I've already said that wizards shouldn't be able to scribe Divine spells
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 01:57 PM
Who's defending? I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from. You seem upset. Don't mean to frustrate you.

I think you're zeroing in on one little thing and missing the big picture.

BG3 = Items rule. Classes drool. Lol. Sign of old age, using such an old phrase.

Bottom line is that the way the game is built currently, SO many class features are messed up, making classes not special at all. The only thing you need is items.

So right now, best build in the game is fighter with background that allows stealth and sleight of hand, and buy scrolls and potions so he/she can cast spells too. You don't need anyone else.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 02:52 PM
Except that, so far, my favorite romp has been on a rogue, that didn't do any of that? Again, I've already stated that some of this needs to be looked at, but again, you're rehashing the same argument, failing to realize that I'm not disagreeing, at least, not with this. I don't have to be upset to point out fallacies in your arguments, especially when you're arguing that I'm missing your point, when clearly, it's you that's missing mine.

So, I'm going to be crystal clear here, because it seems like anything else is wasted time:

1. Given the absence of a skill that allows a character to use a magical item, they should not be able to use it.

2. If you're truly looking for more 5e, then a fighter being able to take a background that allows stealth and sleight of hand shouldn't be something you're arguing about, backgrounds are about as 5e as you can get.

3. Arcane casters should not be able to cast/scribe Divine scrolls.

4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll. Note: Nowhere did I say anything about being able to scribe it, that fallacy came from elsewhere.

Which of your points am I missing, that cantrip scrolls serve no purpose? We've already gotten past that, I thought. Now, what is it you're arguing about?
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 03:52 PM
What points are you missing?

1. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm done arguing over this stuff. I'm just presenting why I think having more RAW 5e would make the game better. To be clear, doesn't have to be absolute RAW 5e. Start with RAW 5e, and make a few modifications as necessary, like cover = +2 to AC and keep high ground as +2 AC/attack, etc. Minor homebrew is fine.

2. The suggestion has to do with too much Homebrew that destroys classes and makes items more important. If you agree. Great. If you don't, great. I'm not there to argue it with anyone.

3. So I'd like them to make rules optional. Set everything to RAW 5e including monster stats etc. With the exception of homebrewed bosses, etc. But keep the homebrew monsters to a minimum, not every monster in the game. Then, make it so players can choose what rules they want to bend/break.

Example: Drink Potion = Action as default. BA as option. This would be an option for the player to set.
Another example: Shove = Action as default. BA as option.
Another example: Items don't have special abilities. Option = items do provide special abilities like lacerate and cleave.

Then make it so you can set your favorite defaults for all play sessions. Maybe you always want Shove = Bonus. Set as default. Never have to tweak it again.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 10:47 PM
I think you're the only one seeing an argument, Robert. I'm definitely not intending to argue - just clarify opinions and support with information. No ill-will is intended here.

The way you wrote and worded something about led me to interpret something you were trying to say incorrectly, and that's fine; you clarified and we're clear on that score now and I didn't see any further need to interject. As long as what you're saying is that the literal only use for cantrip scrolls is or should be a character for whom the cantrip is on their spell list casting it (and destroying the scroll in the process), then we're on the same page.

Here's anther quick piece of clarification:

Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.

Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 04/12/21 11:48 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.
Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.
I dont think he was talking about "spell slots" just "slots" in general ...

Like if you pick Friends, Chill Touch and Dancing Lights ...
Bcs you know that you will find Fire Bolt in first Imp corpse you will loot ... so you will be able to learn it (or simply use it if you will really need to set something ablaze ... and / or you refuse to use the option Larian giving you by allowing to learn every and any cantrip spell you find on scroll). laugh

You are basicaly "saving the cantrip slot" for later level (4 if im not misstaken?), when you will be able to select another cantrip.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 06:17 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
I think you're the only one seeing an argument, Robert. I'm definitely not intending to argue - just clarify opinions and support with information. No ill-will is intended here.

The way you wrote and worded something about led me to interpret something you were trying to say incorrectly, and that's fine; you clarified and we're clear on that score now and I didn't see any further need to interject. As long as what you're saying is that the literal only use for cantrip scrolls is or should be a character for whom the cantrip is on their spell list casting it (and destroying the scroll in the process), then we're on the same page.

Here's anther quick piece of clarification:

Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.

Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.

When you're debating, each position you state is an argument. There's no negative connotation implied or intended. My use of slot in this context was trying to oversimplify what I was trying to say, because just saying it was evidently confusing. So, I did choose my words poorly for that. Even that isn't getting the point across, however. As we can see from the post immediately following my last post. I once again pointed out that a class that doesn't have access to using a specific item should not be using it, and yet, we are being dragged back to that "ultimate fighter build". Even after clearly stating that it shouldn't work, it's being used as a cudgel. It's not the first time, or the first topic, where this has come up.

It's starting to seem like it's the only valid point in the position, and so it has to be hammered on repeatedly to beat others into submission, including those that agree that it shouldn't work that way. Now, I did use some caveats, such as in the absence of a skill, or a background that enables it, but on it's face, I agreed, and yet, here we are. With backgrounds, of which I'm not sure there are any that would enable that "ultimate fighter build", that's about as 5e as one can get. Given that UMD is rogue-centric in 5e, I still think it should be bards, but meh, it would make a skill highly unlikely as well. I'd be willing to bet that a fighter that "splashes" rogue for Arcane Trickster would short circuit GM completely. Assuming, of course, that that's even possible in 5e.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 06:49 AM
Yeah, as I said, I'm not arguing or debating - just adding or clarifying factual information.

No need to be verbose; just clear. For example, if what you're saying is that the only use of cantrip scrolls is (in 5e) or should be (in BG3) for use by casters for whom the spell is in their list but not known by them, then it would have been very simple and clear to just say "Yes, that's what I meant." when the statement was put forward. Simple and clear.

GM4Him has stated her thoughts and opinions on a number of topics, and you've stated yours on a number, several (though not all) of which overlap. It also seems like, of the points you're overlapping your opinions one, you both agree on a large percentage of them, though again, not all. It seems clear enough that you both view certain key things in fairly different lights, so stating your differing opinions and acknowledging each other is probably as far as you're ever likely to get ^.^

Quote
I'd be willing to bet that a fighter that "splashes" rogue for Arcane Trickster would short circuit GM completely. Assuming, of course, that that's even possible in 5e.

I doubt it ^.^ Since that's an investment they have to actually make, after all; they're giving up their fighter progression to take rogue levels instead, and gaining that value, and it's fair - GM4Him's main gripe on this particular score is largely about the dilution of class individuality and blandifying of all classes by way of creating a more extreme power imbalance accessible to any and every character, regardless of their actual investment. Namely, BG3's excessive item utility and access drowning out class features.

It might interest you to know, as an information aside, UMD is not only Rogue restricted, but it's a perk specifically of Thief-rogues (not Arcane-trickster, in fact, surprising as that may seem) in particualr, which is one of their subclasses, and is not accessible to any other subclass of rogue. The perk itself only comes in at 13th level, as well, so it's a powerful boon that really identifies thief rogues specifically, now, rather than being the "everyone needs ranks in this always" skill that it used to be in 3.5.

==

Personally, I like it being tightly restricted, but I don't disagree that it's something that feels like it should go to bard a little more than it does rogue. I'd like at least one bard subclass to get it as well, or a version of it.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 03:59 PM
I cited Arcane Trickster because they get Arcane spells, and thus would be able to cast them off of scrolls. I am unsure of whether or not they could scribe Arcane scrolls, I haven't played one. It was also intended to inject a bit of humor into this, because it seems there's some tension building, even if it's not my own.

I also believe that, initially, UMD was a bard thing. I've slept many times since that came out, so can't be sure. Then there's DDO, where there's a faction of players that believe that every class should have enough UMD, regardless of what they have to sacrifice to get it, to use Raise Dead scrolls. I found that totally ironic, since they also preach "you must be self-sufficient". I can't imagine a scenario where one would be casting Raise Dead on themselves... I never subscribed to that philosophy, and in the TT sessions I played, it wasn't expected.

I also took issue with the "the only build you need" premise. Now, maybe it's just force of habit, since some classes can't use some scrolls elsewhere, but I always pass scrolls to the appropriate classes. Divine scrolls to Shadowheart, Arcane scrolls to the Arcane casters, etc. I did a ranger run, and kept the appropriate scrolls on the ranger, but otherwise I pass them to the classes that they're historically appropriate to. So, I've never run into this "the only build you need". I strongly suspect that there are other players that do exactly the same thing, and some of them may even be aware that they could do otherwise. While I have agreed that it needs to be addressed, it's also something that can be completely ignored by players that aren't interested in exploiting it. I have, even if it's "accidentally", since using it never occurred to me.

It's sort of like the LR abuse, I've missed more content because I don't abuse it than I'd care to admit. To the point where I've even suggested doing what's done in swtor when comps want to talk and putting an icon on their portrait to indicate that. There could even be a variety of icons, for "go to camp, but don't need to rest" and "need a LR to trigger", like Astarion's first camp interaction. That way, players like myself, that aren't actively abusing an exploit in the system don't miss out on anything that could be important later. They can add different rules for different difficulties, right down to hardcore rules once the game releases, or nears release.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 05:58 PM
Part of the problem is that I can exploit the homebrew rules, and more importantly, the monsters DO exploit them. So I might limit myself to as many 5e rules as I can, but the monsters and NPCs will not.

Also, I am a DM. However, even I can't remember who can cast what spell every time. So, in order to even play true to 5e, I have to constantly look things up myself and restrict myself if I want to play true to 5e... Which I do try to do. But sometimes I just say, ah forget it. Because I don't feel like looking it up, I just guess. That's frustrating and annoying.

But regardless, the game doesn't include certain class features and abilities like expertise for rogues which SERIOUSLY diminishes their class. And then there are other homebrew that make class abilities null and void. Those are the ones I have bigger issues with. Stealth and Drink Potion as Bonus makes Rogue Cunning Action and Fast Hands less valuable. I cannot change this or fix this. I just have to accept that the homebrew completely strips the Rogue of their uniqueness.

And Haste being 3 rounds makes Haste potions worthless to me. Instead of using them for boss fights, expecting them to last most of the fight, now I'd better only use them for baby monsters or maybe as a final boost against the bosses when they're almost dead anyway.

All the homebrew throws all previous strats I might know out the window. That is not cool. I know strats for fighting phase spiders, for example, but I got utterly destroyed in BG3 (originally) by them because now they can teleport everywhere. Without Ready Action, the normal strat of wait for them to pop up at melee and get a readied attack is out the window. Same with Readied spells. And I was NOT expecting them to pulverize me from a distance. So many things I'm familiar with tossed in the trash because they changed so much. I go from DM to noob player who doesn't know the game at all, and it's all because they homebrewed SO much.

That said, I still enjoyed the game. I just had to REALLY adjust my way of thinking. Instead of playing with D&D strats and such, I had to learn a WHOLE new game. And at the end of the day, I think the whole new game is too heavily based on items and not based enough on classes and your characters working as more of a team.

When I say, "the only build you need" I mean that with items being so easily acquired, and anyone can use any of them, I can literally create a superior character build as a Fighter. With Fighter, I can use all weapons, all armor, all scrolls and potions, so all spells, including healing and resurrection, I can throw potions, replacing my need of a cleric altogether, talk to animals and undead, and if I pick the background that gives me sleight of hand and stealth, I can do everything just as good as any rogue can too including stealth as Bonus Action and picking locks just as well because Rogues have no expertise. That was my point.
Posted By: Flooter Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
When I say, "the only build you need" I mean that with items being so easily acquired, and anyone can use any of them, I can literally create a superior character build as a Fighter. With Fighter, I can use all weapons, all armor, all scrolls and potions, so all spells, including healing and resurrection, I can throw potions, replacing my need of a cleric altogether, talk to animals and undead, and if I pick the background that gives me sleight of hand and stealth, I can do everything just as good as any rogue can too including stealth as Bonus Action and picking locks just as well because Rogues have no expertise. That was my point.

That’s interesting. I wonder if anyone’s tried an “Oops all fighters” party composition. Is there enough money in the game to meaningfuly load up 4 characters with potions, spells and effective equipment?
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 08:33 PM
I've never tried it, but when I created my Fighter, that's when I realized it's broken. Fighter playthrough, I can do it all. Game is on easy as a Fighter, so I imagine if you created 4 fighters...
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 09:55 PM
As I continue to test early access I've noticed the lack of specialization as well. A good general strategy, in my experience, has been to just support the fighter. The fact that all enemies seem to be capable of shooting and throwing bottles farther than my party can makes me default to finding a choke point (or a room) in the map and putting Lae'zel at the entrance.

The fight with Auntie Ethel is one where the situation greatly benefits from having a magic wielder that can cast Silence. However, with the existence of silence scrolls, any character can cast silence. I feel like the other characters are there so I have more actions during combat and not because they are uniquely equipped to deal with certain enemies in the most optimal way.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 10:09 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Part of the problem is that I can exploit the homebrew rules, and more importantly, the monsters DO exploit them. So I might limit myself to as many 5e rules as I can, but the monsters and NPCs will not.

Also, I am a DM. However, even I can't remember who can cast what spell every time. So, in order to even play true to 5e, I have to constantly look things up myself and restrict myself if I want to play true to 5e... Which I do try to do. But sometimes I just say, ah forget it. Because I don't feel like looking it up, I just guess. That's frustrating and annoying.

So, you don't know who has the ability to cast Divine scrolls, and who can cast Arcane scrolls? Is this what you're saying here? With no context, this is what it appears to be from here.

Quote
But regardless, the game doesn't include certain class features and abilities like expertise for rogues which SERIOUSLY diminishes their class. And then there are other homebrew that make class abilities null and void. Those are the ones I have bigger issues with. Stealth and Drink Potion as Bonus makes Rogue Cunning Action and Fast Hands less valuable. I cannot change this or fix this. I just have to accept that the homebrew completely strips the Rogue of their uniqueness.

And Haste being 3 rounds makes Haste potions worthless to me. Instead of using them for boss fights, expecting them to last most of the fight, now I'd better only use them for baby monsters or maybe as a final boost against the bosses when they're almost dead anyway.

All the homebrew throws all previous strats I might know out the window. That is not cool. I know strats for fighting phase spiders, for example, but I got utterly destroyed in BG3 (originally) by them because now they can teleport everywhere. Without Ready Action, the normal strat of wait for them to pop up at melee and get a readied attack is out the window. Same with Readied spells. And I was NOT expecting them to pulverize me from a distance. So many things I'm familiar with tossed in the trash because they changed so much. I go from DM to noob player who doesn't know the game at all, and it's all because they homebrewed SO much.

That said, I still enjoyed the game. I just had to REALLY adjust my way of thinking. Instead of playing with D&D strats and such, I had to learn a WHOLE new game. And at the end of the day, I think the whole new game is too heavily based on items and not based enough on classes and your characters working as more of a team.

When I say, "the only build you need" I mean that with items being so easily acquired, and anyone can use any of them, I can literally create a superior character build as a Fighter. With Fighter, I can use all weapons, all armor, all scrolls and potions, so all spells, including healing and resurrection, I can throw potions, replacing my need of a cleric altogether, talk to animals and undead, and if I pick the background that gives me sleight of hand and stealth, I can do everything just as good as any rogue can too including stealth as Bonus Action and picking locks just as well because Rogues have no expertise. That was my point.

So, do backgrounds need to be removed now as well? After all, everyone can choose a background that grants thief abilities, and thus they'll homogenize all the classes. After the scroll thing is fixed, all one would need to do to replace your "the only build you need" is roll a bard instead of a fighter, right?
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Part of the problem is that I can exploit the homebrew rules, and more importantly, the monsters DO exploit them. So I might limit myself to as many 5e rules as I can, but the monsters and NPCs will not.

Also, I am a DM. However, even I can't remember who can cast what spell every time. So, in order to even play true to 5e, I have to constantly look things up myself and restrict myself if I want to play true to 5e... Which I do try to do. But sometimes I just say, ah forget it. Because I don't feel like looking it up, I just guess. That's frustrating and annoying.

So, you don't know who has the ability to cast Divine scrolls, and who can cast Arcane scrolls? Is this what you're saying here? With no context, this is what it appears to be from here.
5e spells are more specialized than just "Arcane" and "Divine." Some spells are available to wizards but not sorcerers; some spells are available to clerics but not paladins, etc.

There is ~some logic to who gets what spell, but remembering the class restrictions for every single spell sounds ~impossible.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 05/12/21 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by Flooter
That’s interesting. I wonder if anyone’s tried an “Oops all fighters” party composition. Is there enough money in the game to meaningfuly load up 4 characters with potions, spells and effective equipment?

Since money is infinite and unlimited by means of LR abuse, which also restocks shops in the process, in game currently, yes.

Originally Posted by robertthebard
I am unsure of whether or not they could scribe Arcane scrolls, I haven't played one.

In core rules, Arcane Tricksters use the Wizard spell list - so they could natively use wizard spell scrolls. They can't scribe, however - that perk is the purview solely of wizards alone.

If I'm recalling correctly, in 3/3.5 UMD was a universal skill (some classes had it as a class skill, but everyone could take ranks in it), and to a certain extent it was considered a necessity to have it ranked up as much as you could, regardless of who or what you were. Before that, 2nd edition, Bard was essentially a Rogue subclass, or 2e's equivalent to that - not a class on its own, and in 1st, Bard wasn't a base character class at all, but was accessible through some exceptionally demanding prestige-like requirements (including a race requirement, I think) - it wasn't really something that players got. Bard has been through a lot of changes over the editions ^.^ More than most. I don't specifically recall if udm or an equivalent skill was written into 2nd ed or earlier, to be honest, so I can't help with that one.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 01:12 AM
Right. So, what I was trying to say was that it's not always easy to know which spell can be cast by which class.

Take Detect Thoughts. Is it Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer... Who should be able to cast it?

If I want to play true 5e, I have to look it up.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 01:30 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Right. So, what I was trying to say was that it's not always easy to know which spell can be cast by which class.

Take Detect Thoughts. Is it Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer... Who should be able to cast it?

If I want to play true 5e, I have to look it up.

For clerics, druids and sorcs, it would be pretty easy to figure out, check their spell list. Wizards are trickier, unless you check what spells they have available per level at level up, because they can get spells through scribing.

Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Flooter
That’s interesting. I wonder if anyone’s tried an “Oops all fighters” party composition. Is there enough money in the game to meaningfuly load up 4 characters with potions, spells and effective equipment?

Since money is infinite and unlimited by means of LR abuse, which also restocks shops in the process, in game currently, yes.

Originally Posted by robertthebard
I am unsure of whether or not they could scribe Arcane scrolls, I haven't played one.

In core rules, Arcane Tricksters use the Wizard spell list - so they could natively use wizard spell scrolls. They can't scribe, however - that perk is the purview solely of wizards alone.

If I'm recalling correctly, in 3/3.5 UMD was a universal skill (some classes had it as a class skill, but everyone could take ranks in it), and to a certain extent it was considered a necessity to have it ranked up as much as you could, regardless of who or what you were. Before that, 2nd edition, Bard was essentially a Rogue subclass, or 2e's equivalent to that - not a class on its own, and in 1st, Bard wasn't a base character class at all, but was accessible through some exceptionally demanding prestige-like requirements (including a race requirement, I think) - it wasn't really something that players got. Bard has been through a lot of changes over the editions ^.^ More than most. I don't specifically recall if udm or an equivalent skill was written into 2nd ed or earlier, to be honest, so I can't help with that one.

I can't be sure either. Neverwinter Nights, by BioWare, is where I found the most OP build in DnD, Bard/Assassin/Arcane Archer. High magic worlds, low magic worlds, it didn't matter, that build rocked everything, especially since Assassinate had a ranged attack version. It took some patience to reach the power zone, but once you did, it was infinitely rewarding.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 01:57 AM
In core rules, wizards can't scribe outside their class, so it's the same for them (in terms of 'can I use this spell scroll') as for anyone else. The complaint is that, unless you meticulously memorise each class's individual spell list (because even wizard and sorcerer differ in 5e), you still have to take time out to look it up, if you're trying to play by the rules - which is time out of the game space that one shouldn't really have to be taking, in an ideal situation, and which one wouldn't have to if the rules had been placed into the game properly.

The good news is that this is most likely going to be fixed (everyone casting and wizards omni-scribing) with the major magic and casting update that is confirmed to be happening at some unspecified point in the future. This is something that they are aware of and are (at last comment, subject to change) intending to bring into line with formal 5e.
Posted By: Flooter Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 08:35 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Flooter
Is there enough money in the game to meaningfuly load up 4 [fighters] with potions, spells and effective equipment?

Since money is infinite and unlimited by means of LR abuse, which also restocks shops in the process, in game currently, yes.

Is it literally or figuratively infinite? I tried selling every last fork and cup to vendors and then killing them to recuperate the loot. I got 25 000 gold, thirty-ish scrolls and had every item slot equipped by the end of EA (patch 5).

That’s a lot of gold, but scrolls are kind of expensive, especially if you’re using them in a carefree fashion. Also, this method removes vendors from the game, limiting access to scrolls and potions.

Am I missing something? Is there an exploit I don’t know about?
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 09:12 AM
Literally:

Vendors restock every long rest, including gold. Even if all you do is sell junk to vendors with maximum affinity, you'll have over 40k gold by the time you're in the mostly through the underdark, and that's WITHOUT farming crystals to sell.

If that still isn't enough, you can just steal from vendors to loot them of their gold at no risk and no repercussions, endlessly, resting in between emptying them out to create an infinite amount of gold.

Also, don't kill vendors, it's wasteful ^.^

Edit: Even if you get caught stealing, just bribe them (for less than you stole), and then pay them some money back free to return their affinity to maximum... then steal it again. There's simply no consequence to this and no fail state.
Posted By: Flooter Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 09:23 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Literally
Thanks! Man, is this game broken... In that case, fighters über alles.

Originally Posted by Niara
Also, don't kill vendors, it's wasteful ^.^
I must've missed that episode of Captain Planet.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 12:14 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
In core rules, wizards can't scribe outside their class, so it's the same for them (in terms of 'can I use this spell scroll') as for anyone else. The complaint is that, unless you meticulously memorise each class's individual spell list (because even wizard and sorcerer differ in 5e), you still have to take time out to look it up, if you're trying to play by the rules - which is time out of the game space that one shouldn't really have to be taking, in an ideal situation, and which one wouldn't have to if the rules had been placed into the game properly.

The good news is that this is most likely going to be fixed (everyone casting and wizards omni-scribing) with the major magic and casting update that is confirmed to be happening at some unspecified point in the future. This is something that they are aware of and are (at last comment, subject to change) intending to bring into line with formal 5e.

So, if one is looking to avoid exploiting the current meta for scrolls, one has to do what one would have to do in a TT session, and look it up? Either one of the players, or the GM would do this, or, would have already have done this, in the case of the GM. It's what happened around every table I ever played where the GM wasn't as forthcoming with information as others were. Another solution would be to add "For (insert class(es) here) only" to the meta description of the scrolls. This is not to say that it doesn't need to be fixed, but that it would provide a way for those that are unsure, or are unwilling to do the footwork, to keep the scrolls in the proper place. It serves the same purpose as making it have a red background if the character examining it can't use it.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 02:21 PM
First, let me assure you I'm not arguing or debating. Just sharing my POV.

As a DM, I look for any tools I can use to speed up my game sessions. One tool is an app called 5e Companion. I also just started using the computer app Fantasy Grounds. With the 5e Companion, the spell list is quick to access and it lets me know what spells are for what class. Also, character sheets on the app pre-filter spells so if I want to know if a certain character can use a spell scroll, the players can pull up their personal pre-filtered spell list. They can tell me if a spell is on their list. Super quick.

Fantasy Grounds is even better. Because it is an official licensed software, it has all the rules and so forth built into the software. It just makes it a whole lot easier when the computer software lets you know so you don't have to look it up, when a particular character can or cannot cast a particular spell.

This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for in bg3. I want them to make it so that I don't have to remember the rules or the proper class restrictions etc and have to try to restrict myself in order to have a true D&D experience. That sucks. Being a DM, a video game like this is the only chance I really get to be a player. So I want my DM to manage the rules so that I don't have to. I don't want to have to look things up so much. I just want to be a player and enjoy the ride. Otherwise, I'll just go back to my tabletop sessions and be the DM like normal because I've got software programs that can pretty closely simulate what's in a video game and I can make it exactly how I want it to be. But see, it's nice to be a player sometimes. And that's why I want this to be an authentic D&D experience. And so that I, a DM, can actually be a player for once and still feel like I'm playing an authentic D&D game.

Besides, seeing D&D with such incredible graphics is like a dream come true for me. So I want the game to be an authentic D&D experience for that as well. I want to see D&D really brought to life in a video game. I feel like past video games have done okay with it but still constantly missed the mark in one way or another. I was so looking forward to this game being a true authentic table top turn based D&D experience. It can be done. Modern software proves you can translate D&D combat into a video game flawlessly. The problem is, nobody seems willing to stay true to the rules. I get that they need to market it to a broader audience. Still, I feel like nobody really has the guts to just make it a total D&D 5e experience and see how people like it.

With D&D being so popular these days you'd think that they'd be a little bit more bold and just say here's the raw D&D 5e rules and stats. Since it is early access, it would have been a perfect time to test how people really felt about a raw 5e experience. Give everyone the raw 5e and then get the feedback and tweak it from there based on the feedback instead of giving people an absolute Homebrew experience and then asking for feedback and not really giving the authentic raw experience at all. That's the part I don't get. The only reason I can think of that they did this was that it was easier to just take the dos game and make it bg3 and then say that the 5e rules just don't work. See that's where I'm kind of struggling. I don't know if I believe that they truly tried to do 5e and found that it just wasn't working. It seems more like they just went dos with it and give it a smattering of 5e just so they could say that it was based on 5e. Sure, some DM probably crafted all of the encounters via table top design and gave them ideas of what encounters they should incorporate in the game, but I really don't think that they literally put the rules in the game to begin with and then found that it didn't work.

Anyway, at this point all I'm hoping for is that they give us some settings so that we can enable a raw 5e experience with the options to tweak those rules so that if there are certain 5e rules that we don't like we can easily change them. I'm hoping it's not too much to ask.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 04:46 PM
Except players do have to manage the rules. They have to know what spells they can and can't use going in. They learn this from their Player Handbooks, and other resources that are available. It's not like a rules lawyer is limited to a subclass of GM. This isn't just 5e, it's DnD in a nutshell. It's amazing to me that you have access to all these resources, and yet, don't use them to enhance your DnD experience on the PC? I have none of that, and still manage to not fall into the "the only build you need" trap.

One of the main reasons I don't play spellcasters, as a general rule, is because of all the micro-management that goes along with it, including what spells I can and can't use, and when I should and shouldn't use them. When I'm leveling my party, I look at spells that they could take, and if I have scrolls for those, they get them. If it can go to multiples, I pick which would make the most sense for my party configuration. Maybe my Druid, for example, is more combat focused, so I'd pass them Cure scrolls to supplement, instead of passing them to the cleric. Or maybe I have a few, and I spread them out. I've been doing this since BG 1, I'm not sure why it's suddenly so confusing, given that the current meta does need to be addressed. Especially if I had access to a resource that I could put on my second monitor.

However, I don't need a rule book to tell me that a wizard doesn't have Eldritch Blast. Not that I've seen a scroll for that. I also know that Prismatic Orb, despite how it was originally tooled, is a sorc thing here. All I had to do was read the basic information that is provided by the game for that. How it actually functions is questionable, but who can use it is plainly laid out. Yes, it requires that I read the provided information, and retain it, but that's not any different from TT. When there is confusion, resources are pulled up, either through a book, or one of your programs in your case, and it's resolved. But it's amazing to me that you seem to believe that players don't have to know the rules in order to play.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Except players do have to manage the rules. They have to know what spells they can and can't use going in. They learn this from their Player Handbooks, and other resources that are available. It's not like a rules lawyer is limited to a subclass of GM. This isn't just 5e, it's DnD in a nutshell. It's amazing to me that you have access to all these resources, and yet, don't use them to enhance your DnD experience on the PC?

The point is that they want the game to set these rules for them, the same way it sets any other number of rules, so they don't have to look it up themselves. The game could easily be written to automate that.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 11:18 PM
First, "the only build you need" trap is not a 5e thing that I was referring to. It is an example of how bg3 is broken, not 5e. In bg3, I can create a fighter who has everything because nothing is restricted. So he can be a wizard, cleric, a rogue, a druid, a fighter, and even a warlock as long as I have the right scrolls and potions and items. That's what my whole point is.

But yeah, all I'm saying about spells and scrolls and such is that they restrict them to their proper classes so that I don't have to. I shouldn't have to try to restrict myself or limit myself on this. It should be like in Solasta. If I try to use a revivalify scroll in Solasta, and I'm not a cleric, it literally will not let me and it will tell me I don't have the right class.

All I'm asking for with this is the option in the settings to make it so that I can have proper class restrictions, and so that if I hover over a particular scroll or examine it it'll tell me what class can cast that scroll. At least if it tells me, I don't have to look it up.

See, what you're talking about with looking it up in the players guide, that's old school. We know him computer programs and apps that can tell us these things without us having to flip through books and find it. In a video game, it is expected that I shouldn't have to pull out a player's guide or a spell book or a monster manual or anything in order to know basics about something in the game.

Shoot, I'd love for them to do something even where they make it so that if you examine an enemy, your character will make a nature role or something similar. If you succeed, the game will even tell you the enemies basic stats and abilities because your character knows enough about them that they are able to know those details. If you fail the role, you don't get to know those stats and everything is just a health bar, and you don't know what armor and weapons they're carrying, and their special abilities. That would really make certain knowledge skills so much more valuable, and it would add an extra challenge to the game if you didn't know or have the ability to know your enemies stats.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 06/12/21 11:24 PM
And another thing, you mentioned that one of the reasons why you don't like to play spellcasters is because it's too much management. That is actually more of what my whole point is. This is a video game, so the game should help me manage all my character stats and abilities regardless of whether they're a spellcaster or not so that it's fun to play any class. The more they automate for me and the less work I have to do, the more fun it is.

That's part of why I have a problem with the hot bar. When the game Auto adds things to your hot bar, it jumbles around spells and scrolls and special abilities and potions so it's hard to find anything. When we get into higher level, it's going to be a nightmare to manage for this very reason. That's partially why I'm making such a big deal out of it. If I have to try to restrict myself with scrolls and so forth right now because they're not doing it for me, it's going to be really bad once my character's level six or seven or eight.

And that goes for all classes. People out here keep arguing that us who want a more 5e experience should just play it that way. Restrict yourself. But when you get into higher levels with all sorts of different abilities and spells and so forth, it's going to make the game no fun if I have to try to remember all the rules and nuances and then restrict myself.

And this now brings us back to the primary topic. This is why I want them to implement a true 5e rule set and stats and so forth with options to tweak it for Homebrew if we want to. If they don't do this for us, then those of us who want a true D&D experience aren't going to get it.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 01:12 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
And another thing, you mentioned that one of the reasons why you don't like to play spellcasters is because it's too much management. That is actually more of what my whole point is. This is a video game, so the game should help me manage all my character stats and abilities regardless of whether they're a spellcaster or not so that it's fun to play any class. The more they automate for me and the less work I have to do, the more fun it is.

That's part of why I have a problem with the hot bar. When the game Auto adds things to your hot bar, it jumbles around spells and scrolls and special abilities and potions so it's hard to find anything. When we get into higher level, it's going to be a nightmare to manage for this very reason. That's partially why I'm making such a big deal out of it. If I have to try to restrict myself with scrolls and so forth right now because they're not doing it for me, it's going to be really bad once my character's level six or seven or eight.

And that goes for all classes. People out here keep arguing that us who want a more 5e experience should just play it that way. Restrict yourself. But when you get into higher levels with all sorts of different abilities and spells and so forth, it's going to make the game no fun if I have to try to remember all the rules and nuances and then restrict myself.

And this now brings us back to the primary topic. This is why I want them to implement a true 5e rule set and stats and so forth with options to tweak it for Homebrew if we want to. If they don't do this for us, then those of us who want a true D&D experience aren't going to get it.

You are aware that you can turn off the auto add function in Options, UI, right? Scroll down on it, I think it's close to the bottom, and there's a few checkboxes to hit, and no more losing stuff on the hotbars.

I am aware of your build, and what it means. I have acknowledged countless times that that scenario is broken, and yet, again, here you are, beating me over the head with it. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about it. I'm to the point where I'm starting to wonder how many people are posting on your account.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 01:42 AM
I, for one, hope that hotbar management changes. Locking the hotbar (and unchecking stuff in a separate menu) can work for a while. As the characters progress there are more things to choose from and it would be great to have the ability to expand the narrow hotbar in order to organize things. Perhaps it could be given it's own UI page...

Otherwise, locking the hotbar is good until it isn't. Since the game isn't capable of knowing when I want it locked and when I don't there should be more features to it. Being able to "freeze" certain rows (or maybe just single squares), for example, would make things easier. I leave the bar unlocked because, early on in the game, I want stuff added automatically but as I get more stuff I notice that things in the hotbar start shifting around. "Freezing" squares is a good way to have locked and unlocked at the same time.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 02:23 AM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by GM4Him
And another thing, you mentioned that one of the reasons why you don't like to play spellcasters is because it's too much management. That is actually more of what my whole point is. This is a video game, so the game should help me manage all my character stats and abilities regardless of whether they're a spellcaster or not so that it's fun to play any class. The more they automate for me and the less work I have to do, the more fun it is.

That's part of why I have a problem with the hot bar. When the game Auto adds things to your hot bar, it jumbles around spells and scrolls and special abilities and potions so it's hard to find anything. When we get into higher level, it's going to be a nightmare to manage for this very reason. That's partially why I'm making such a big deal out of it. If I have to try to restrict myself with scrolls and so forth right now because they're not doing it for me, it's going to be really bad once my character's level six or seven or eight.

And that goes for all classes. People out here keep arguing that us who want a more 5e experience should just play it that way. Restrict yourself. But when you get into higher levels with all sorts of different abilities and spells and so forth, it's going to make the game no fun if I have to try to remember all the rules and nuances and then restrict myself.

And this now brings us back to the primary topic. This is why I want them to implement a true 5e rule set and stats and so forth with options to tweak it for Homebrew if we want to. If they don't do this for us, then those of us who want a true D&D experience aren't going to get it.

You are aware that you can turn off the auto add function in Options, UI, right? Scroll down on it, I think it's close to the bottom, and there's a few checkboxes to hit, and no more losing stuff on the hotbars.

I am aware of your build, and what it means. I have acknowledged countless times that that scenario is broken, and yet, again, here you are, beating me over the head with it. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about it. I'm to the point where I'm starting to wonder how many people are posting on your account.

Yes. I am aware. Still doesn't work real well, but I do turn it off. Have you tried unchecking all those boxes? It's better, but it still will auto-arrange things on you if you switch weapons or do different certain things.

As for the build, we must just be not understanding each other then because to me it seemed you were not understanding what I was trying to say. So maybe we'll just drop that.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 10:44 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by GM4Him
That's part of why I have a problem with the hot bar. When the game Auto adds things to your hot bar, it jumbles around spells and scrolls and special abilities and potions so it's hard to find anything. When we get into higher level, it's going to be a nightmare to manage for this very reason.
You are aware that you can turn off the auto add function in Options, UI, right? Scroll down on it, I think it's close to the bottom, and there's a few checkboxes to hit, and no more losing stuff on the hotbars.
Still doesn't work real well, but I do turn it off. Have you tried unchecking all those boxes? It's better, but it still will auto-arrange things on you if you switch weapons or do different certain things.
I believe you have found the core of your problem ...
You are not suppose to switch your weapons too often. O_o And even if you do, all you need to do is place up to 3 icons ... that doesnt sounds like "too much" to me. O_o

Its exactly the same as when you were complaining that party UI is tedious and iritating, since if you want to send one party member somewhere else, you have to degroup all other companions and then regroup them back ... instead of simply degrouping the one who you want to sent off. laugh
If you scratch left cheek using your right hand by stretching it over your head, its not really comfortable ... but question here is ... is that misstake of hand, or yours? laugh

Its just the same here ...
You allowed your bar to become a mess, and then you are complaining it it a mess. laugh

Note that i dont say that there arent things that could (and should) be done better ...
There is certainly room for improvements ... but to claim that system we have "is a mess" is quite exaggerated ... it can be a mess witout a doubt, if you let it, but that is entirely different story. :P

Recast spells is my personal favourite topic in this matter.
Instead of giving us new icon that will be placed on first aviable position (and yes, im aware that if you know this, you can adjust your actionbar so you know where it will appear ... that is what i do btw) it would be MUCH, MUCH and once more MUCH better, if this new "recast" spell would simply replace the spell icon, or join its upcast in popup window) ...
I mean just concider it, if Warlock is lucky enough he will cast Hex litteraly once per Long Rest ... why so vaguely used spell is suppose to take precious place on our bar? Especialy now since it was reduced.
It would be much better if the Hex would become Recast-Hex if aviable ... that way the spell we want to use is still on the same place no matter what and it never takes more than single position.

Same story goes with others ... produce flame, witch bolt, speak with dead and many many many others.
Posted By: Flooter Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Recast spells is my personal favourite topic in this matter.
Instead of giving us new icon that will be placed on first aviable position (and yes, im aware that if you know this, you can adjust your actionbar so you know where it will appear ... that is what i do btw) it would be MUCH, MUCH and once more MUCH better, if this new "recast" spell would simply replace the spell icon, or join its upcast in popup window)

Yes! Absolutely! Playing icon hide and seek is a pain, as is recasting a spell with the wrong button. I'm aware of the empty slot trick, but the slot gets used up if you add anything to the hotbar, such as a newly prepared spell, the ability from a new item, etc...
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 01:03 PM
Originally Posted by Flooter
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Recast spells is my personal favourite topic in this matter.
Instead of giving us new icon that will be placed on first aviable position (and yes, im aware that if you know this, you can adjust your actionbar so you know where it will appear ... that is what i do btw) it would be MUCH, MUCH and once more MUCH better, if this new "recast" spell would simply replace the spell icon, or join its upcast in popup window)

Yes! Absolutely! Playing icon hide and seek is a pain, as is recasting a spell with the wrong button. I'm aware of the empty slot trick, but the slot gets used up if you add anything to the hotbar, such as a newly prepared spell, the ability from a new item, etc...

Or, you know what would be even easier? If we had a single spell button that pulled up a pre-organized window of prepared spells listing them in order based on spell level and alphabetical, and yeah, if you need to recast, it replaced cast. Instead of tossing everything on a hotbar in random order... Ah... order!

But this is distracting from the original post. The only reason I mentioned it was because once we get higher levels, this game is gonna be a mess of issues if they don't implement more 5e. Scrolls will become even more confusing as to which scroll should be available for which class.

Limitations bring balance and order. Homebrew brings more chaos and imbalance. In a game like D&D, the more homebrew, as you get to higher levels especially, the greater the mess.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
a pre-organized window of prepared spells listing them in order based on spell level and alphabetical
And once your own imagination of corect order of spells will be different than Larians you are screwed. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 01:36 PM
Nope. Any organization is better than random chaos I have to play with constantly. At least if there is a method, I can learn it and adapt to it.

But, I will say, correct organization is standardly alphanumeric. So, what makes the most sense? First organize by number, aka spell level, then by alphabet, A-Z. Simple. Basic. Universal organization system.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So, what makes the most sense?
Allow people to enforce their own order, if they want to. laugh

Personaly im sorting spells by the usage ... first damage, then crowd control, then debuffs, then buffs, then heal, and finaly utility. smile
See? No levels, nor alphabet was used >> therefore its not "universal" wink
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 07/12/21 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So, what makes the most sense?
Allow people to enforce their own order, if they want to. laugh

Personaly im sorting spells by the usage ... first damage, then crowd control, then debuffs, then buffs, then heal, and finaly utility. smile
See? No levels, nor alphabet was used >> therefore its not "universal" wink

Hmmm. That could work. At least that's some semblance of order I could work with.

You know, I'm not saying to get rid of the hot bar completely. I'm saying to provide some level of organization outside the hot bar and leave the hot bar for users to be able to use it to put their most used abilities on the hot bar however they want.

But again, that's a whole different topic. This thread is about making things a bit more true D&D 5e. So let's not get sidetracked the whole hot bar issue.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/12/21 06:44 PM
Here's another analogy to explain how I feel about playing this game with such a loose rules:

One kid walks up to another kid with a ball and hands them the ball. He says, "Let's play football." The kid who handed the ball to the other is American. The second kid is British.

The American kid wants to play American football while the British kid wants to play British football which is soccer to Americans. As soon as the game starts, the British kid starts playing British football and starts kicking the ball around. The American kid then starts getting upset with the British kid because he's not playing football right. The American kid was expecting to play American football. The British kid was expecting to play British football.

An adult comes by and sees the two kids arguing about which kind of football they should be playing. The adult says, "You play it your way and you play it your way."

But American football and British football have two totally different rule sets. You can't really play both with one ball. Either you're going to play American football or you're going to play British football. If you actually try to blend the two, or you have each one trying to play football the way they think football should be played, the result is going to be a huge mess with neither party knowing the rules and both of them fighting over it. In the end neither is happy.

This is how I feel about bg3. It's like Larian is the adult in the story and they are just telling everyone to play the game however they want to play the game. Then they are blending both D&D and dos into some sort of weird mesh of rules. In the end, you get neither a D&D game or a dos game but some sort of weird mess in between. Larian is trying to solve the problem by keeping the rules more loose and less restrictive and then saying just play at the way you want to play it, as if that's going to solve the problem.

In the end, there's going to be a lot of unhappy people unless Larian makes the game so that it is either D&D or DOS. Either that, or they need to make it so that there are options for players to pick either D&D rules or dos rules. It's just like with the football scenario, either you have to play American football or British football or you need to provide both kids with their own ball and their own separate group of players.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/12/21 07:40 PM
Feel free to corect me since i never played american footbal ...
But when you say "You can't really play both with one ball." ... i cant help the feeling that you also cant play both with the same (type of?) ball, even if you dont want to play both simultaneously. O_o
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/12/21 11:16 PM
Exactly. Now you get where I'm coming from. Both are called the same thing, but they are two totally different games. You can't really mesh them. They both have different rules and balls and are completely different styles of games. You can't really kick an American football around a field. It is an oblong ball. Both are sports and both have the same name, but they are so very different. They both have a totally different feel and experience because they have totally different rules.

This is how I feel about D&D and bg3. They call bg3 D&D 5e, but it does not play like D&D 5e. There are too many rules that are different and too many elements that are not the same for it to be called D&D 5e. It feels and looks more like dos. So just like American football versus European football, so is D&D versus Baldur's Gate 3. You can call it D&D 5e all you want, but the rules are two different and the stats are too different and the creatures don't act like they're supposed to. Therefore, is it really D&D 5e, or is it just some fantasy game based on the Forgotten Realms world?
Posted By: Umbra Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 08/12/21 11:48 PM
The British kids a bit thick if he's trying to play round ball with an oval ball. But, we Brits have more than one game...

Rugby now, that'd almost work. American football evolved out of a number of European games, including rugby. So a rugby-playing British kid can play with an American kid who plays football, with both able to learn something from the other. Rugby players often play AF because it adds variety to their training. And both could play Aussie rules or Gaelic football too, maybe not as well as their own sport but they could still have fun togther.

Maybe that is what BG3 will become. Not quite either, but appealing to more because of it.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 01:46 AM
Ah, but here's the problem. I don't like soccer so much. I also don't like rugby. I came to play good ol' fashioned American football. And you know what? I'm not alone.

A lot of us bought the game thinking we were getting good ol' fashioned D&D with super awesome graphics and story. What we're getting is more like DOS because the rules aren't so D&D.

It's like the American kid coming to play American football, and the British kid and the adult are like "Tough. We like European football. Either play it our way or go home.". Or flip it. It's like the British kid wanting to play British football coming to the field because he was told he's going to play football, and the American kid is trying to force American football on him instead.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
A lot of us bought the game thinking we were getting good ol' fashioned D&D

Would you agree, then, that the root of the problem is in Larian's marketing of the game and they should say that BG3 is only "inspired by D&D"?


From the BG3 page on Steam:

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


I think "based on the D&D 5e ruleset" sounds to me like I should expect them to implement the D&D 5e ruleset. I can imagine myself feeling upset by this; tricked, even, if I was familiar with the 5e ruleset.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 04:04 AM
Originally Posted by heuron
Originally Posted by GM4Him
A lot of us bought the game thinking we were getting good ol' fashioned D&D

Would you agree, then, that the root of the problem is in Larian's marketing of the game and they should say that BG3 is only "inspired by D&D"?


From the BG3 page on Steam:

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


I think "based on the D&D 5e ruleset" sounds to me like I should expect them to implement the D&D 5e ruleset. I can imagine myself feeling upset by this; tricked, even, if I was familiar with the 5e ruleset.

Why? Did you see the LotR movies? Did you like them? Have you read the books? The movies are based on the books, but they are not a 1 to 1 translation. Stuff was left out, stuff was added, stuff was swapped around, but they were still wildly successful.

As hands on as Hasbro/WotC are with this IP, if they weren't happy with how it was being translated to a video game, they'd be calling for corrections. They were being sued by the original creators of the Dragonlance series for breach of contract because of their hands on approach. If "well, you're not staying close enough to the rules" was how they felt about it, they could easily pull the plug.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 05:00 AM
In short, you are saying that the marketing is fine but some people have misconstrued the meaning behind the presentation, correct? This sounds like a valid argument.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 08:57 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Exactly. Now you get where I'm coming from. Both are called the same thing, but they are two totally different games. You can't really mesh them. They both have different rules and balls and are completely different styles of games.
Oh i think we bith understand this the whole time ...
The only difference is perspective.

I see it like:
Larian yelled LETS PLAY FOOTBALL!
And you were like HELLS YEAH and run towards them to play ... now you get there and find out that field is different, the ball is round, people are not wearing any protection, etc. (i dont know all the obvious differences) ... and then you realized that Larian said they want to play football ... but they mean Europian one.
But you wanted to play American one ... so you started to ask for that ... and while you are certainly not alone with such wish ... there is still the other group who want to play Europian one ... and they have few advantages over you: ball, field, judge, and enough people to play.

You tryed to play with them and since you are still here i dare to say you at least kinda enjoyed it ...

//Edit:
I wish to believe that by now you understand that you were never actualy promised American one and it was just your hopes and dreams ... at best you were told that americans play this one aswell but nothing more.

Yet you stay trying to persuate them to submit and play American fotbal with you, bcs you sincerely believe it would be more fun for everyone ... while using argument that while you have round ball you are unable to play American fotbal properly. O_o
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by heuron
In short, you are saying that the marketing is fine but some people have misconstrued the meaning behind the presentation, correct? This sounds like a valid argument.
I think what robertthebardis trying to say is that "based on" is purposely vague phrase ...
I mean i could easily make pokenom engine game (or more like old Final Fantasy) were you will be in Faerun instead of pokemon and will be fighting monsters instead ... and still call is "based on DnD" ...
Bcs there is same world, same races, same classes, same lore and SOME mechanics ...

Will that piss some people off? Certainly.
But was it false advertising? Not at all.

Its just not what people expect ... but as long as i as a Developer ... and Wizards of the Coast as owner of trademark ... are okey with final product no matter how many people dislikes it that game IS "based on DnD".

//Edit:
Let's take another example the Star Wars sequel trilogy.
Many people hates it some even say that this is not actually Star Wars it breaks My Rules which were set in universe ...
We dislike it.
We hate it.
We refuse to call it Star Wars.

And yet Star Wars it is because Disney owner of trademark said so.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 12:04 PM
In context with the post I responded to, based on and inspired by mean the same thing. In either case, you can take some creative liberties with the source material to produce something else. What we have here is something else. I mentioned "rules lawyer" earlier in the thread, and I sincerely believe that this is what is at play here.

Quote
A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.[1] The term is commonly used in wargaming and tabletop role-playing game communities,[2] often pejoratively, as the "rules lawyer" is seen as an impediment to moving the game forward.[3] The habit of players to argue in a legal fashion over rule implementation was noted early on in the history of Dungeons & Dragons.[4][5] Rules lawyers are one of the "player styles" covered in Dungeon Master for Dummies.[6] The rules of the game Munchkin include various parodies of rules lawyer behavior.

Source.

As I said earlier, it's not limited to a sub-class of the GM class. Despite claims made in this thread, players do have to know the basic rules, at the very least. Now, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are parts of this game that are broken in so far as mechanics go, such as "anyone can use scrolls". That takes creative license a bit too far, and needs to be corrected, the same with wizards being able to scribe any scroll, even for spells they shouldn't be able to learn. These need to be fixed, and likely will be. With these exceptions, we're pretty much getting what Larian promised, a game based on 5e DnD.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 01:47 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Exactly. Now you get where I'm coming from. Both are called the same thing, but they are two totally different games. You can't really mesh them. They both have different rules and balls and are completely different styles of games.
Oh i think we bith understand this the whole time ...
The only difference is perspective.

I see it like:
Larian yelled LETS PLAY FOOTBALL!
And you were like HELLS YEAH and run towards them to play ... now you get there and find out that field is different, the ball is round, people are not wearing any protection, etc. (i dont know all the obvious differences) ... and then you realized that Larian said they want to play football ... but they mean Europian one.
But you wanted to play American one ... so you started to ask for that ... and while you are certainly not alone with such wish ... there is still the other group who want to play Europian one ... and they have few advantages over you: ball, field, judge, and enough people to play.

You tryed to play with them and since you are still here i dare to say you at least kinda enjoyed it ...

//Edit:
I wish to believe that by now you understand that you were never actualy promised American one and it was just your hopes and dreams ... at best you were told that americans play this one aswell but nothing more.

Yet you stay trying to persuate them to submit and play American fotbal with you, bcs you sincerely believe it would be more fun for everyone ... while using argument that while you have round ball you are unable to play American fotbal properly. O_o

One problem with your scenario.

Larian yelled, "Let's play American football!". I came running expecting American football. Instead, I got European football.

See, Larian said the game would be based on D&D 5e. That means the rules, the setting, everything should start with D&D 5e. You might tweak the rules a bit because, well, everyone does if it's not the pros. Based on the field you're playing on, etc, you might need to adjust the rules to fit.

But I showed up and the whole game is based on DOS mechanics with a smattering of 5e. So, it's like I showed up to the field and they had a round ball and said, "We'll adjust soccer rules a bit to make it more like football. Um. You can throw the ball with your hands and tackle people. How's that? What? We said football. Didn't you know we meant European football?"

"No you said American football. The game would be based on American football."

"We said based on. See? You can pick up and throw the ball just like an American football. Therefore, we didn't lie. It is based on American football. We're still going to use a round ball, we're still going to kick into goals, and the game is still pretty much going to go by the rules of European football, but we're giving you a few American football rules so that technically we can say that it's based on American football."

The game still feels very much like European football and abides by more of the rules of European football, but because it has a few American football rules, they're saying that it's based on American football.

If you tell someone that you're basing a game off of D&D 5e, there should be more D&D 5e rules and stats and so forth then there are Homebrew rules and stats and so forth. If the Homebrew out weighs the base rules you are no longer playing a game based on the base rules. That is my point.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 02:01 PM
100% agreed with the post above.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 02:27 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
If you tell someone that you're basing a game off of D&D 5e, there should be more D&D 5e rules and stats and so forth then there are Homebrew rules and stats and so forth. If the Homebrew out weighs the base rules you are no longer playing a game based on the base rules. That is my point.

This point is invalid. It can be shown to be invalid by the fact that the DnD logo is still present in the marketing. What you feel about the way it's developed, barring some items that we have agreed are in fact broken does not dictate what something is, or isn't. You can rest assured that, if Hasbro or WotC thought they were deviating too much from the source material, they'd pull the plug. It wouldn't be the first time. This is what's going on with the Dragonlance series right now, or maybe it's already been settled, since the original creators of Dragonlance were suing Hasbro/WotC for breach of contract over content in the new Dragonlance books not being up to the agenda Hasbro/WotC wanted to push, and Hasbro/WotC pulled the plug on it. Surely, if they'll pull the plug over their agenda, they'd pull the plug over violating the spirit of the IP.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 02:54 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
One problem with your scenario.

Larian yelled, "Let's play American football!". I came running expecting American football. Instead, I got European football.

Where?
And i mean it litteraly ... please show me at least single interview, promotion video, show, ... ANYTHING ... that would support this claim please. laugh
Meanwhile i repeat to you few examples that supports otherwise:

Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from last month
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from November 2020
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.

To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If you tell someone that you're basing a game off of D&D 5e, there should be more D&D 5e rules and stats and so forth then there are Homebrew rules and stats and so forth. If the Homebrew out weighs the base rules you are no longer playing a game based on the base rules. That is my point.
Nah ...
That is just your opinion ... dont get me wrong, im aware that this part of forum litteraly exists so we can express our wishes ...
But that is all it will ever be. :-/ Just your wish, ask, demand, w/e ...

No matter how hard you will repeat it, no matter how other topics you start, no matter how many other inacurate examples you bring ...
The problem is still the same you *want* something you didnt get, nothing more. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 03:37 PM
Please don't tell me my opinion is invalid. I could easily say yours is invalid. It's like saying, "You're stupid." We could sit here all day long and call each other stupid.

Dark Alliance also has the D&D logo on it. However, I know the game for what it is. It is a D&D hack/slash game that is in no way based even remotely on D&D 5e. They tell you that pretty much up front. There is no misconception about this. It may have D&D logo on it, but I don't expect it to be anything like 5e because they said so from the beginning and made it quite clear what type of game it is.

And just because WotC and whoever put their stamp of approval on it, that doesn't mean that it is the same game that they said it was going to be. Steam clearly says that BG3 is "based on D&D 5e." If I said, "This sport that we're playing is based on American Football," most people should expect that it will be nothing like European Football, which is soccer in America. If someone said, "We're going to play a game, and it's based on American Football," and I showed up to the field and found a bunch of people with a round ball and soccer shoes on with shorts and t-shirts and goal posts, I'd be like, "What the heck is this? I thought we were going to play some American football." If they respond with, "We said it would be based on American Football. We didn't say it WAS American Football," that would be totally misleading and would be upsetting, especially if I showed up in my heavy American Football gear complete with armored shoulder pads, helmet, mouthpiece, breastplate, groin cup, etc. Those European Football players are going to be a whole lot faster on their feet than I would in my heavy gear. I'd be very ill equipped or prepared to play their version of football.

Again, that's how I feel about Baldur's Gate 3. I bought it and showed up expecting a 5e experience with maybe a few tweaks because, naturally, it's a video game. I was prepared to fight monsters with proper D&D 5e stats and using their abilities like they normally would based on established lore and behaviors. Instead, I was completely thrown off because what was communicated was that the game would be "based on D&D 5e." They did not say, "This game is based on DOS mechanics blended with D&D 5e."

If they had told me that, then I'd have no issue whatsoever with this game. If up front they had said, "this is a blending of DOS and D&D 5e," I'd have been like, "Hmmm... Do I want to buy this game? What is DOS anyway because I've never played it? Should I try DOS first and see if I like it?"

And you can quote all those interviews all you like. That's not what they put on the descriptions of the game and not what all the media was advertising. I didn't watch all their interviews. Never had the time. I trusted the descriptions of the game provided by Steam and different media articles that were written to promote the game. Everyone everywhere was saying, "based on D&D 5e" and "At last, a true video game interpretation of D&D 5e."

And, finally, the point I'm trying to make is that this game in no way feels like D&D, yet that was even what Swen said they were trying to create. "We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling." This does not feel like D&D. That's the point.

I also do not want them to slavishly obey every single D&D 5e rule. If it doesn't make sense, don't use it. Fine. I'm good with that. But, again, when the homebrew steers so much from the original rules that you are no longer playing a game even closely resembling the original rules, THAT is what I have an issue with.

Classes are stripped of just about any purpose. Monsters are stripped of their typical abilities and stats. Items reign supreme, and surfaces. The game looks like D&D, and the story is Forgotten Realms, but it in NO way FEELS like D&D. It feels like something else entirely.

You know what game FEELS like D&D? Pathfinder. Solasta. Those FEEL like D&D. I want BG3 to FEEL like D&D also, and I'm saying that until they start really implementing more true 5e rules and stats and so forth, it will never FEEL like D&D just like American Football will never feel like American Football if you don't play with an oblong ball and have an offensive team and defensive team with linebackers and tight ends and wide receivers, and the quarterback passes the ball to his teammates who then try to get it to the endzone to score a touchdown.
Posted By: Umbra Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 04:19 PM
So you went to a soccer game all dressed up in your burden of expections. You don't have to strip it off and have fun with the other boys and girls.

It's EA, and it's already changed a lot. Of course it's still got a DOS feel to it, DOS is the house that Larian built. They're remodelling, but you don't pull your house down around your ears just because you want your staircase built to a different rule. I'm looking forward to more changes, and hoping that some things in particular are changed too (yes, classes and monsters. But, I'd be suprised if a lot of what we don't like doesn't turn out to have been placeholder after all).
But there's at least another year for a lot to change in.

By the way, I've still not read a review of Pathfinder or Solasta that convinces me to buy either. Because, once I've read past the drooling over the rules, the reviews aren't that great.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 04:45 PM
These 2 comments succinctly describe this forum, to me:

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
No matter how hard you will repeat it, no matter how other topics you start, no matter how many other inacurate examples you bring ...
The problem is still the same you *want* something you didnt get, nothing more. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Please don't tell me my opinion is invalid. I could easily say yours is invalid. It's like saying, "You're stupid." We could sit here all day long and call each other stupid.

The following isn't directed at anyone in particular:
I am here to share ideas and acquire more perspective. I say tell me more about how the game (or the program) can be better. If there is something I don't agree with I'll ignore the thread or comment. If you think people are complaining too much on the forum start a thread where you can complain about people complaining on this forum (or point me to it so I can read, please smile ).

With that out of the way...

I think "inspired by" has a different connotation than "based on" (this is from the perspective of a speaker of American English, to be precise). Regardless, had I discovered that my description of a product was not accurate I know that I would try to correct it because I wouldn't want to mislead people. Maybe Larian Studios shares my way of thinking and appreciates that people bring it up so they can do something about it. Maybe Larian Studios doesn't agree and, you know, it is what it is. I can get over it. The fact that it comes up in discussion, however, is enough to show that it is worth discussing, no?
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 05:11 PM
Woah deja vu.

I want more D&D rules because I believe the gameplay - combat, exploration, class balance, immersion - will be improved over Larian homebrew in many of the cases and make BG3 a better game. Furthermore, it will more easily allow for people to play their favorite PnP characters in BG3 & vice versa, as well as enabling custom D&D 5e campaigns to be created using any possible BG3 editor.

The discussion on Larian's (original or more recent) advertising of BG3 is somewhat relevant to the topic of "Is more D&D rules good?", as people could be (and are, as expressed by various posters) disappointed at the lack of 5e rules which might affect enjoyment. But more 5e rules doesn't necessarily make a better game, so it's best to make arguments as to why/how rule X would improve BG3.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Please don't tell me my opinion is invalid. I could easily say yours is invalid. It's like saying, "You're stupid." We could sit here all day long and call each other stupid.

Dark Alliance also has the D&D logo on it. However, I know the game for what it is. It is a D&D hack/slash game that is in no way based even remotely on D&D 5e. They tell you that pretty much up front. There is no misconception about this. It may have D&D logo on it, but I don't expect it to be anything like 5e because they said so from the beginning and made it quite clear what type of game it is.

And just because WotC and whoever put their stamp of approval on it, that doesn't mean that it is the same game that they said it was going to be. Steam clearly says that BG3 is "based on D&D 5e." If I said, "This sport that we're playing is based on American Football," most people should expect that it will be nothing like European Football, which is soccer in America. If someone said, "We're going to play a game, and it's based on American Football," and I showed up to the field and found a bunch of people with a round ball and soccer shoes on with shorts and t-shirts and goal posts, I'd be like, "What the heck is this? I thought we were going to play some American football." If they respond with, "We said it would be based on American Football. We didn't say it WAS American Football," that would be totally misleading and would be upsetting, especially if I showed up in my heavy American Football gear complete with armored shoulder pads, helmet, mouthpiece, breastplate, groin cup, etc. Those European Football players are going to be a whole lot faster on their feet than I would in my heavy gear. I'd be very ill equipped or prepared to play their version of football.

Again, that's how I feel about Baldur's Gate 3. I bought it and showed up expecting a 5e experience with maybe a few tweaks because, naturally, it's a video game. I was prepared to fight monsters with proper D&D 5e stats and using their abilities like they normally would based on established lore and behaviors. Instead, I was completely thrown off because what was communicated was that the game would be "based on D&D 5e." They did not say, "This game is based on DOS mechanics blended with D&D 5e."

If they had told me that, then I'd have no issue whatsoever with this game. If up front they had said, "this is a blending of DOS and D&D 5e," I'd have been like, "Hmmm... Do I want to buy this game? What is DOS anyway because I've never played it? Should I try DOS first and see if I like it?"

And you can quote all those interviews all you like. That's not what they put on the descriptions of the game and not what all the media was advertising. I didn't watch all their interviews. Never had the time. I trusted the descriptions of the game provided by Steam and different media articles that were written to promote the game. Everyone everywhere was saying, "based on D&D 5e" and "At last, a true video game interpretation of D&D 5e."

And, finally, the point I'm trying to make is that this game in no way feels like D&D, yet that was even what Swen said they were trying to create. "We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling." This does not feel like D&D. That's the point.

I also do not want them to slavishly obey every single D&D 5e rule. If it doesn't make sense, don't use it. Fine. I'm good with that. But, again, when the homebrew steers so much from the original rules that you are no longer playing a game even closely resembling the original rules, THAT is what I have an issue with.

Classes are stripped of just about any purpose. Monsters are stripped of their typical abilities and stats. Items reign supreme, and surfaces. The game looks like D&D, and the story is Forgotten Realms, but it in NO way FEELS like D&D. It feels like something else entirely.

You know what game FEELS like D&D? Pathfinder. Solasta. Those FEEL like D&D. I want BG3 to FEEL like D&D also, and I'm saying that until they start really implementing more true 5e rules and stats and so forth, it will never FEEL like D&D just like American Football will never feel like American Football if you don't play with an oblong ball and have an offensive team and defensive team with linebackers and tight ends and wide receivers, and the quarterback passes the ball to his teammates who then try to get it to the endzone to score a touchdown.

It doesn't have anything to do with being insulting, it's a statement of fact. If Hasbro or WotC weren't happy with the direction the game is heading in, they would insist on changes, or pull the plug. Your dissatisfaction does not mean we're playing soccer, instead of American football, it just means that your expectations weren't met. Of course, we're who knows how long from release, with who knows how many difficulty levels to accommodate most people's requests, so a lot of this is premature, to say the least. However, trying to claim that you bought apples, and got oranges is demonstrably false. This is what I'm referring to. You can wish that the game was anything you like, and post as such. But when you try to advance your narrative with false statements, you're not helping anyone want to support it.

That's great, did either of those games advise you to skip their purchases if you were looking for a polished experience?
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Please don't tell me my opinion is invalid.
I didnt, i was just pointing out that it is only an opinion.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
And just because WotC and whoever put their stamp of approval on it, that doesn't mean that it is the same game that they said it was going to be.
That is exactly the thing ... they didnt.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Steam clearly says that BG3 is "based on D&D 5e."
Exactly ... "based" ... that is important word here.

Also Steam is completely different company, they only care about you buying stuff from there ... they dont care what kind of stuff it is, or if they are advertising properly, as long as you pay and dont refund. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If someone said, "We're going to play a game, and it's based on American Football," and I showed up to the field and found a bunch of people with a round ball and soccer shoes on with shorts and t-shirts and goal posts, I'd be like, "What the heck is this? I thought we were going to play some American football."
Maybe ...
And then they would probably say something like "this is what we play, take it or leave it" ... world can be harsh. O_o

The problem is that quote i posted earlier ...
No matter how much you dislike it, they made it pretty clear ... its not their fault you didnt listen. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If they respond with, "We said it would be based on American Football. We didn't say it WAS American Football," that would be totally misleading and would be upsetting
And also totally true.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
especially if I showed up in my heavy American Football gear complete with armored shoulder pads, helmet, mouthpiece, breastplate, groin cup, etc. Those European Football players are going to be a whole lot faster on their feet than I would in my heavy gear. I'd be very ill equipped or prepared to play their version of football.
And you are trying to say what exactly here?

That its their fault, that you run for all your gear while they were explaining all those things you "never had the time to listen"? O_o
Or that they all have to submit to what YOU wanna play? Gosh imagine such world. :-/ Horrible.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If they had told me that, then I'd have no issue whatsoever with this game.
Oh then you would have time to listen? laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If up front they had said, "this is a blending of DOS and D&D 5e,"
But it isnt ...
So that would be the lie you are acusing them from ... thats really fascinating btw.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
And you can quote all those interviews all you like. That's not what they put on the descriptions of the game and not what all the media was advertising.
And what those interviews were, if not advertising? laugh
I would really want to know.

I mean if you refuse to listen to actual developer team leader, and you are listening to some 3rd side companies who just want to sell you some product and dont care at all (on the contrary to that developer) if the product will be satisfying or sucessfull for you ...
I think i have just found the core of your problem and once again, its not Larian fault. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I didn't watch all their interviews. Never had the time.
Well, bad luck for you i gues that you buyed something without knowing what it is ...
Funny fact: You didnt have to watch "all" of them ... "any" of them would be enough, since Swen keeps repeating it since their AMA on Reddit.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I trusted the descriptions of the game provided by Steam and different media articles that were written to promote the game. Everyone everywhere was saying, "based on D&D 5e" and "At last, a true video game interpretation of D&D 5e."
"Everyone everywhere" ... while nobody (except you) never seen any of them ... and nobory (including you) was ever able to show here at least one of them?
I must admit i would expect it to be a little more known if there was so much of them. frown

Try not blame me ...
But its hard to believe you, since you are unable to support your opinion with anything else than "i thought this mean" ... yes you thought, and you thought wrong ... that happens even if its (how is the expression? hard pill to swallow i believe).

Originally Posted by GM4Him
And, finally, the point I'm trying to make is that this game in no way feels like D&D, yet that was even what Swen said they were trying to create. "We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling." This does not feel like D&D. That's the point.
This is first sentence i kinda like in this post ... except seems like reasonable feedback.

Except i have seen in other topic (and posts) what would you like to change to achieve that and it seems to me like sumarize it with single word would be: Everything.
Im affraid that is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I also do not want them to slavishly obey every single D&D 5e rule. If it doesn't make sense, don't use it. Fine. I'm good with that.
Serious question: "doesn't make sense" to whom?
And how is he going to decide that?

Originally Posted by GM4Him
But, again, when the homebrew steers so much from the original rules that you are no longer playing a game even closely resembling the original rules, THAT is what I have an issue with.
But are you able to draw a line?
So far i didnt seen it ...

Speaking for myself on THIS particular topic ...
- I would certainly not change spells they should stay as RAW as possible. (Chromatic orb, Elemental Arrows, Cantrips, but also reactions)
- I would certainly not incerase HP of creatures manualy, instead if i find combat too easy i would simply add another creature. (Githyanki patrol, Halsin, ...)
- I would certainly not allow everyone to use everything (not just scrolls, but also weapons and throwable items ...)
- And finaly i would certanly not strip certain classes from stuff they are suppose to know.

But abowe that? Most things seems quite fine to me. laugh Or at least i cant think off anything else.
So claiming that game that would need so little changes "dont feels like DnD at all" seems quite harsh to me ... not like actualy objective criticism, more like upset complaining, while blood is still hot and person is just kicking around without true purpose. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Classes are stripped of just about any purpose.
And back to angry kicking ...
They are not "stripped of just about any purpose" ... the differences between classes are a little more blurry right now, that is true ... but there still are differences, sometimes big sometimes smaller ...

But if you wish to claim to me that you are able to create single class that is able to do everything the other class can do without any special threatment ... please tell me your example.
I will then show you where you are wrong. smile

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Monsters are stripped of their typical abilities and stats.
You mean litteraly two monsters?
Imps and Phase Spiders?

While Imps were purposely nerfed by Larian bcs they find out of their gathered data that Imps were too strong for tutorial?
Now you demand to return them back to their strong version to achieve ... what exactly? Except pleasing you specificaly.

And Phase Spiders ...
Yes i know you are upset they are spiting poison, yes i agree they would be much better enemies if they would attack with bite instead ... but where is difference between them misty step towards you ... and them dissapearing to another plane of existence and then reappear next to you?
Also note that might easily be just placeholder, we dont know.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Items reign supreme, and surfaces.
Yeah surfaces are kinda Larian thing, we all know that by now ...
It could be done better, true ... i myself posted few suggestions while i still believe that toggable button, just like metamagic would be the best.
But they are not giving up on them completely.

About items ...
I just have to ask: How is the fact that items are superimportant "nod DnD" ? O_o

Originally Posted by GM4Him
The game looks like D&D, and the story is Forgotten Realms, but it in NO way FEELS like D&D.
Yup ... yup ... nope ... sory. smile

Originally Posted by GM4Him
It feels like something else entirely.
Cant say it does to me. O_o

Originally Posted by GM4Him
You know what game FEELS like D&D? Pathfinder. Solasta. Those FEEL like D&D.
Yup ... and we allready have them. :-/

Personaly i dont need another Solasta i allready have it ... now i want BG-3 ... not Solasta 2 made by Larian. O_o
I thought you also want BG-3 and not DoS-3 ... so you should understand this.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
I want BG3 to FEEL like D&D also, and I'm saying that until they start really implementing more true 5e rules
This is fine in my eyes ... that is what this forum is for ...
Claiming that they lied to you is not ... especialy since they didnt and you should know that.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 06:45 PM
For reference, the following description is on both Steam and GOG (2 separate companies that are not Larian) which suggests that Larian approved of the description in these places where the game can be purchased:

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

For reference, the following is a snippet of the description for Solasta on GOG:

True to the Tabletop
Wizards of the Coast granted Tactical Adventures a license to use the Dungeons and Dragons SRD 5.1 Ruleset, further anchoring our will to make the most faithful video game adaptation with the Tabletop Ruleset and craft the game you are hoping for!


Those snippets are just to save people some time.



Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
But, again, when the homebrew steers so much from the original rules that you are no longer playing a game even closely resembling the original rules, THAT is what I have an issue with.
But are you able to draw a line?

This is an interesting question. How much change is too much? When is it no longer "based on". And how do you define "based on" is important to understand as well. To me, based on means there will be little derivation; if any. That is only my interpretation.

As a customer I can say that I, personally, did not go looking for all the interviews. I read what was on GOG and paid for the game. I also am not familiar with D&D 5e so my point is only that some people just read the description presented at the store. I believe it can also be argued, however, that a person should do their due diligence and research before they buy. That would be fair to say, right?
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 07:13 PM
Ah whatever. Your arguments are invalid and inaccurate, and that's a statement of fact. I know you are but what am I.

Come on. Cut it out.

Look. Like it or not. My opinion: The game would be better, feel more like D&D, which was what Swen stated was the goal, if they implemented more D&D 5e.

I've already stated specific examples of things I'm referring to:

Monster stats and abilities more closely aligned with actual 5e stats and abilities so monsters act like they should according to established lore.

More class distinctions based on 5e so that classes are more appropriately defined and special, as opposed to items ruling the entire game and making classes virtually pointless.

More 5e rules actually followed because when you don't follow them you quickly deteriorate the entire game mechanics that were built in a balanced fashion, like Rogue Expertise making Rogues better at certain things than other classes, thus making them valuable, and only clerics being able to use revive scrolls and such (other classes as well, but just making a point), and on and on and on and on like I've said for the last 16 pages.

This isn't about me not getting what I want. The whole point of the football analogy was that the names of the games are the same. Football. But the rules are vastly different. As a result, if you play one version of football, you get something TOTALLY different from the other version. It's still called football. It just doesn't feel like the other type of football at all.

You guys are so adverse to D&D 5e rules. I've said on more than a thousand occasions, all I'm asking for is that they give us D&D players the OPTION to play actual D&D 5e rules with proper stats, etc. Give all of you the OPTION to still play the game however you want with all your DOS-like rules and gimicks with classes all jacked up and so forth, but at least give us who like D&D the ability to play the game that we were told we were going to be playing; D&D 5e. Some D&D players don't like all the rules. That's fine. Like Fantasy Grounds, give us options to tweak the rules.

Basically, I came to play some American Football. You came to play European Football. Fine. Give me an oblong ball and let me and my friends play American Football over here while you and your friends play European Football over there. Blending the two is not going to work. In the end, one side or both is going to be unhappy, and it's going to be bad for the game.

I love this game's story and premise and characters and so forth. What I don't like is the rules they are using. It's D&D-ish if you stretch yourself real hard, but it isn't really D&D.

So, I'm asking for them to create the OPTION to allow players to have the rules set to their preference. Things like this:

High Ground = +2 by default to AC and Attack. Option to make it Advantage. Option to turn it off. (Notice, this provides players the ability to decide whether they like a homebrew for high ground at all. I kinda like it, even though it's not RAW 5e. So might turn it on.)

Cover = No benefit by default. Option to make it +2 to AC. Option to provide Advantage. (Again, notice, by default, cover should have no benefit based on 5e. So currently, it is RAW 5e. However, I might like a homebrew for it because I think it makes sense. Still, what I'm asking for is that they at least give us the OPTION to choose to play full blown RAW 5e if that's what we really want.)

Long Rest = Unlimited by default. Option to make it Restricted. Can only Long Rest at certain Rest Areas like Emerald Grove. (You might say this isn't a RAW 5e rule. However, no DM would allow players to just randomly long rest whenever they want wherever they want without some sort of consequence or restriction at all. "Say, Mr. DM. We just killed a goblin leader. Hmmm. But we're pretty banged up. Can we Long Rest right now inside their goblin base?" "No! Are you insane?" says the DM. "There're goblins all around you, and they're super pissed. Get out and then I'll maybe let you find a safe place to rest.")

Drink Potion = Bonus Action by default. Option to make it Action like the 5e rules state. This makes the Rogue's Fast Hands special ability meaningful and more beneficial. Otherwise, why really take Fast Hands... oh... well... unless you homebrew like they currently have. So, the ask is to give us the option to set Drink Potion to Action so that Fast Hands doesn't need a homebrew but can be used mostly as it should. Also, drinking potions as a a Bonus Action makes clerics even less valuable to the party, because anyone can still attack AND heal themselves with the plethora of potions in the game without any real consequences.

Shove = Bonus action by default. Option to make it an Action like the 5e rules state. Why? Because I can literally shove someone off a cliff and kill them and then run up to another enemy and attack them with my sword and kill them; effectively killing two enemies in one round. Oh, and btw, the enemies can do that to you too BEFORE you can even act. This very seemingly small thing completely throws off combat, making it more volatile especially as you gain higher levels. 3 out of 4 times when I start the Githyanki Patrol fight, they are attacking twice AND still doing things like shoving my characters around; 3 actions, basically, in one round, and since they are standardly fast, that means they are usually having at least one or two go first, seriously beating the snot out of my characters even before I get a chance to go once. Cutting down on these kinds of homebrews limits both players and enemies more, thus stabilizing combat better and balancing it out better. But, again, I'm only asking for the option so I can play a more stable, realistic combat without enemies making two or three attacks per turn (shove also being an attack whether you call it an attack or not).

Scrolls = Unrestricted by default. Option to make them restricted by class per 5e rules. Again, this adds value to the different types of casters. Clerics being the only ones who are able to use healing scrolls, especially revives, makes them SO much more valuable to the party. If you even have a cleric sitting at camp and you didn't bring them with, but you know you can go get them and bring them to a dead companion to rez them, that cleric is still a very valuable member of the party to have around. If anyone can rez, clerics are less valuable.

Attunement of Items = Unrestricted by default. Option to make it so that you have to attune per standard 5e rules in order to use certain items effectively. This prevents characters from just combing through their inventory and selecting any old item whenever they might need it to use in a particular fight. You have to be more strategic about which items you attune your characters to so that you aren't just willy-nilly grabbing the flaming sword to use against an enemy who is weak to fire and then in the next couple of rounds pulling out your ice sword and using it because you're now fighting an ice vulnerable monster. You might have to strategically spread your items out around your party, making sure at least someone has an item that is of fire and someone has an item of ice and so on and so forth so that you are working as a team instead of just solo-ing everything in the game because you can switch to just the right item whenever you need it. (Again, though, just asking for the option.)

Jump = Crazy Larian jumping 30 feet distances over people's heads by default. Option to make it so that my characters jump actual normal distances per 5e rules so they aren't jumping over people's heads like super heroes, and their distances align with movement speed, not allowing to add additional distance beyond normal movement speed.

Shoving distance = Able to shove someone 300+ feet down a pit in certain areas by default. Option to only allow characters to shove characters 5 feet, like in the 5e rules. Also, ability to shove prone, or both combined. Why? Because ridiculously unrealistic shove distances make the game more volatile. I was literally tossed 300 or more feet by a drow in the Underdark and still somehow my character survived with 1 HP. I was a good 10-15 feet from the edge, but the drow still shoved me off the edge and I continued to soar further away and down to a lower level. That character was SO far from the battle, she never got back into it by the time it was over, all because of the ridiculous shove distances. You all might like that, but I'd like some realistic 5 feet distances please (monsters and characters with greater strength naturally receiving some additional distance since it makes sense that they are stronger and could therefore throw someone further.)

Item special abilities = Allowing players to use special abilities like cleave and lacerate based on weapon choice by default. Option to turn these off because they make the fighter's special maneuvers no longer as special and unique, since now every class can equip certain items and gain special combat maneuvers.

Shall I go on? Over and over again, Larian has stretch or changed the rules. The game barely even seems like D&D because of it.

Seriously. I could go on if you want. I could give you more and more and more rules that are either broken or stretched or changed to exhibit just how much NOT like D&D 5e this game is.

Medicine checks are not there for stabilizing fallen companions. I'd like the option to add this please because by making it so anyone can, Medicine is far less of a valuable skill. Why even bother having it for just those few random dialogue options you get?

Stealth and Perception are broken. Sight cones make it so that Stealth isn't even a thing, AND BY THE NINE HELLS, why can't Astarion or any of my rogue characters maintain Stealth ever when they do accidentally waltz into a sight cone? EVER. I know the enemy gets advantage and all when in line of sight, but I can't think of a time it has ever happened that my rogue or Astarion were able to succeed in a Stealth check when they accidentally stepped into a sight cone. Oh! Wait! Expertise might help with that.

Intellect Devourers have no resistance, no Body Thief or Devour Intellect.

Phase Spiders spit poison and don't Ethereal Jaunt, they have Super Misty Step instead.

The hag's abilities are supremely more powerful than any standard hag. Now, granted, she's a boss. So homebrew is okay, but dang! Why not make the encounter with the hag be that she has some banderhobbs or redcaps to help her and make her slightly less powerful, like a normal hag might be... with maybe a few little surprises as opposed to some arcane bad-butt who can create 3 or more versions of herself that aren't illusions but actual versions of herself that can cast spells as well and blast all of you to pieces each round because they can, like the homebrew phase spiders, teleport across hundreds of feet far enough away from you that you can't get to them before they pummel you to death.

Wood Woads don't act like wood woads and don't have their abilities and stats, and neither do mud mephits.

Imps don't have sting and resistances and the ability to turn invisible.

Oh... right. No one asked me to go on. I should stop now because I can STILL go on and on about how different this game is from D&D 5e.

So, again, I ask... are we really playing a game based on D&D 5e? Hmmm. I guess in the sense that it is called D&D 5e with D&D 5e monster names and appearances and characters are called clerics and rogues and fighters and druids, but the point is that there are so many differences that we are not really playing D&D 5e. Are we?
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Ah whatever. Your arguments are invalid and inaccurate, and that's a statement of fact. I know you are but what am I.

Come on. Cut it out.

Look. Like it or not. My opinion: The game would be better, feel more like D&D, which was what Swen stated was the goal, if they implemented more D&D 5e.

Hey, I could get all over believing this, if quotes hadn't been provided just a few posts up saying something completely different from what you're claiming here.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Please don't tell me my opinion is invalid.
Originally Posted by GM4Him, just few hours later
Your arguments are invalid and inaccurate, and that's a statement of fact.
Dont you just love the irony? laugh
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by heuron
For reference, the following description is on both Steam and GOG (2 separate companies that are not Larian) which suggests that Larian approved of the description in these places where the game can be purchased:

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

For reference, the following is a snippet of the description for Solasta on GOG:

True to the Tabletop
Wizards of the Coast granted Tactical Adventures a license to use the Dungeons and Dragons SRD 5.1 Ruleset, further anchoring our will to make the most faithful video game adaptation with the Tabletop Ruleset and craft the game you are hoping for!


Those snippets are just to save people some time.



Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
But, again, when the homebrew steers so much from the original rules that you are no longer playing a game even closely resembling the original rules, THAT is what I have an issue with.
But are you able to draw a line?

This is an interesting question. How much change is too much? When is it no longer "based on". And how do you define "based on" is important to understand as well. To me, based on means there will be little derivation; if any. That is only my interpretation.

As a customer I can say that I, personally, did not go looking for all the interviews. I read what was on GOG and paid for the game. I also am not familiar with D&D 5e so my point is only that some people just read the description presented at the store. I believe it can also be argued, however, that a person should do their due diligence and research before they buy. That would be fair to say, right?

I've got a question for you, are you aware of the myriad of books that are based on DnD? Perhaps you've even read some of them, like the Dragonlance Chronicles series, or any of the Salvatore books? They are intertwined into the lore, and based solidly around their respective franchises, but none of them follow any rules whatsoever. Based on does not mean 1 to 1 representation, it means that it's tied to the source material. It could be through rules, as modules and campaigns for TT are, or that they are set within the setting(s), such as the novels I've referenced. A video game can fall anywhere in between, and still be based on the setting, just as a movie can be, or a cartoon.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Please don't tell me my opinion is invalid.
Originally Posted by GM4Him, just few hours later
Your arguments are invalid and inaccurate, and that's a statement of fact.
Dont you just love the irony? laugh

The full quote, to be fair, was:
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Ah whatever. Your arguments are invalid and inaccurate, and that's a statement of fact. I know you are but what am I.

It appears to be sarcastic. The last part is a common thing kids might say (American perspective).
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 07:53 PM
My memory sucks (specifically recall vs recognition). I know that name: Salvatore...

I think the real argument we're getting at here is "based on" vs "adapted from" vs whatever else. I am more familiar with the phrase "...that movie is adapted from the book..." but I also hear people say "based on". Ultimately, it comes down to how you interpret the words, right? If someone misinterprets the description of the game then that's on them and I will blame myself whenever I do. I still am interested in hearing people's suggestions for how they think the game, or program (I am a programmer so I also have this perspective), can be better. If I don't agree, know enough about, or care about the suggestion then I won't try to contribute to the discussion.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 09/12/21 08:09 PM
Look. You and Raggy both like to debate. I'm not here to argue or debate. I'm here to provide suggestions. If you want, you can be the winner. You have proven me wrong or something. My point is totally stupid and invalid or whatever you want to call it. You're the winner of the BG3 Debate about whether Larian misrepresented everything or whatever. I could really care less about that.

Bottom line = Me and others like me, lots of us on various forums across various gameplay systems, were under the impression this game was going to be based on D&D 5e. We bought the game partially for that reason and partially because it was BG3, a sequel to a very good series of games. We were told they were trying to make the game feel like D&D 5e. So, we expected something closer to D&D 5e.

So all I'm saying is that I am hoping Larian will please please please at least give us some settings so that we can set the game to play more like a true D&D 5e game. I'm not even asking them to strip the game of all of its homebrews that you guys are so fond of that you don't want them to ever change them. Just at least give me and others like me the option to set the defaults to D&D 5e so that we can play the game the way we want to.

If they don't, that's fine. I'll probably still like the game. Will I buy another game from Larian. Probably not. Call me what you want. Say I'm a baby and throwing a tantrum if you'd like. Doesn't matter. The bottom line is, if you, the seller, don't give your customer what they thought they were buying, and then you don't try to do what you can to fix it, and you don't give them a refund either, there's going to be one unhappy customer who is likely never going to trust you again as a seller or buy anything from you again.

I'm asking them to try to give us D&D players some true D&D experience, and if they don't deliver, because they're too stuck on their quasi-DOS/D&D whatever it is that they're going for, then fine. They'll probably just have a lot of unhappy customers who never want to buy another game from them. If they can live with that, fine. Good for them. I wish them all the success in the world.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
See, Larian said the game would be based on D&D 5e.
This phrase threw me off too and I wish they had never said it, because for a lot of us we interpret it as being as close to the original as possible but adding some things. This is not what was done here, and I know I would not have certain expectations of the game if this phrase had never been used.

Most movies/books/whatever that say "based on a true story" mean that the true story is shown as much as possible but blanks may be filled and some events slightly modified depending on the audience. A recipe "based on grandma's cooking" usually means that the old recipe has some tweaks to it but is mostly the same.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 01:00 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by GM4Him
See, Larian said the game would be based on D&D 5e.
This phrase threw me off too and I wish they had never said it, because for a lot of us we interpret it as being as close to the original as possible but adding some things. This is not what was done here, and I know I would not have certain expectations of the game if this phrase had never been used.

Most movies/books/whatever that say "based on a true story" mean that the true story is shown as much as possible but blanks may be filled and some events slightly modified depending on the audience. A recipe "based on grandma's cooking" usually means that the old recipe has some tweaks to it but is mostly the same.

Exactly. Dark Alliance is set in D&D, but it is not 5e. No problem with it because no one ever said it would be based on 5e. Neverwinter Online too. Pathfinder says it is based on 3.5e, so guess what, when I play on Core rules setting, I get a game that is truly close to 3.5e. it isn't perfect TT, but close.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 01:06 AM
Remember also that in their initial advertising Larian said they'd be utilising the 5e ruleset "as faithfully as possible".

This was a poorly chosen set of words for them to use at that time, and didn't communicate their actual intention - they probably should not have said that in the first place, when describing what they were doing; it would have saved a lot of bad blood from people who were pulled in specifically because of that description.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 08:02 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Remember also that in their initial advertising Larian said they'd be utilising the 5e ruleset "as faithfully as possible".
Thats the thing .. people keep saying this around here but are unable to support such claim with any link or other proof ...
On the other hand there is MANY sourced materials where Swen say exact oposite. :-/

That really forces me to being sceptical about its autenticity ...
So far the best explanation seems to be that those words are either cut out of very important context ... like: "we would like to utilise 5e as faithfull as ppssible BUT some things just dont trnslate well into videogame and our first and most important goal is to make fun game." Or that they were actualy never spoken at all and its just someone own interpretation. :-/
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 08:53 AM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
people keep saying this around here but are unable to support such claim with any link or other proof ...
On the other hand there is MANY sourced materials where Swen say exact oposite. :-/

Turnabout is fair, Rag: Where are your sources and citations. Prove those "Many" examples you've repeatedly alluded to, please.

Yes, the original statement was that they would be making the game using the 5e system as faithfully as possible. The sentence that followed that was, indeed, a version of "but there are some things that don't translate well, so we'll be making tweaks", which is a non-statement when discussing a PnP to Video Game conversion, because not one single person ever expected that it would be 100% rules faithful, or ever wanted it to be. No-one has ever adopted that stance, Rag. No-one. Of course there will be translation tweaks! That's a GIVEN! Everyone KNOWS that's a given... so people took the actually meaningful part of that statement which was the "we're doing 5e as faithfully as possible" part, and got interested, because even other games that are far, far more authentically faithful to their D&D source never made a statement that strong... so folks were hopeful and intrigued.

Here's some more:

Quote
As only the second game (after Sword Coast Legends) to employ the 5th Edition ruleset, Baldur's Gate 3 has the opportunity to open up a new era of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying games.

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

[one paragraph down, the quote continues]

"Whatever is not in the book [a player character] will say, 'Well, I'll do this,' and the Dungeon Master says 'Sure!' And then he'll think about what type of check he's going to make you do, and then that's going to be what you're going to roll with, and the entire party will work with that," Vincke said. "In a video game, you don't have that, so in a video game you have to make systems that allow you to do this. And so, coming up with those systems has been a lot of fun, and making them link to ruleset as it is has been the interesting bit about that."

A different interview:

Quote
"We’re still experimenting, but a lot of rules translated really well," says Vincke. "We had to make a few tweaks and modifications to make them work with a video game, but things like having an action, movement and bonus action in a combat phase worked well.

"Of course there are the finer details, like how specific spells and actions work, and we hit a few limitations with the D&D ruleset where we had to make tweaks."

The strong tone of this is that it's being done majority faithful, with just a few necessary tweaks for small minutia-grade things that needed to be adapted due to the medium change. It's a misleading comment.

Another:

Quote
It has been more than a decade ever since the last near 1:1 Dungeons and Dragons game has been released (Neverwinter Nights 2). That very well means it's about time we get a new and faithful Dungeons and Dragons game given the popularity of Fifth Edition (5e). Thankfully, Larian Studios has heard the collection lamentations of Baldur's Gate fans and is now hard at work in Baldur's Gate 3.

Like its predecessors, Baldur's Gate 3 is a video game adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons complete with the ruleset and the systems mostly intact. Now, which particular tabletop rules will Larian port over to the game? It appears they're targeting all of them,

Again, strong implication of a reasonably faithful implementation.

Another:

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


There would not be so many news articles using the phrasing if it wasn't something that many, many people latched onto when it was first spoken.

As I recall you were also watching the thread when Sadurian linked the specific original interview from which the quote was taken... so casting suspicion on its authenticity now ill-becomes you and is deeply dishonest of you.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 11:17 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Turnabout is fair, Rag: Where are your sources and citations. Prove those "Many" examples you've repeatedly alluded to, please.
I believe i did on previous page ...
So here it is once again:
Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from last month
We want to have that Dungeons & Dragons feeling, not slavishly following every single one rule, but really getting the feeling of playing this tabletop experience but everything is being done for me, this dungeon master is doing everything automatically, I'm just having a good time.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from October 2020
So what you can expect in BG3 is us giving you more tools to fool around with based on fifth edition rules and on some of the things that make the fifth edition so cool and accessible.

Originally Posted by Swen Vincke - Source from November 2020
Baldur’s Gate was the definitive D&D game of it’s generation, and that’s what we’re trying to create, but we’re also trying to make a good video game first and foremost, rather than a strict D&D adaptation.

To put it in D&D terms, we’re your dungeon master and this is our campaign that we’re running, so there will be our own flavour and house rules. We’re bringing you one particular visualisation of this world, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be others.
This ...
Plus practicaly any panel from hells ...
And ask me anything event from reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/fhk8iw/the_official_larian_ama_is_live/
(search for 5e and you will be able to find few answers from larian talking about alternations from original rules)

Seems like enough examples to me. O_o

Originally Posted by Niara
The sentence that followed that was, indeed, a version of "but there are some things that don't translate well, so we'll be making tweaks"
Look at my surprised face :I
I really dont know what else to say, this is quite significant context in my eyes to left out. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
because not one single person ever expected that it would be 100% rules faithful, or ever wanted it to be. No-one has ever adopted that stance, Rag. No-one.
I would not be so sure, but lets say you somehow know mindset of millions of people ... for the sake of discusion.

As i asked in previous page, the important question here is where to draw a line?

What is good deviation from the rules and what is bad?
What is cool and what is too much?
And most importanly ... what exactly do you wish to achieve with those changes ...

I mean GM4HIM often mentions Imps ...
Imps in the tutorial never had all their DnD abilities (in EA at least), that is true ... and yet some people managed to loose against them and die.
Therefore Larian tweaked them even more ... and created some "even lesser than lesser version" of themselves ... that was change based on acutal experience.
Now GM4HIM wants them to give Imps their power back and in fact make them a lot more powerfull than they ever were. O_o
What would be purpose of such change?
Yes, we would have "perfectly fiting 5e monster" ... wich would be as perfectly unfiting this particular seting as it even can ... and? I really want to see at least single benefit, since i cant find any. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
Of course there will be translation tweaks! That's a GIVEN! Everyone KNOWS that's a given...
And yet here we are. O_o
Yet another topic talking about how was bad and evil Liarian ( laugh ) promising faithful transmision of 5e rules and didnt deliver ...

Forgive me for being sceptical. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
so people took the actually meaningful part of that statement which was the "we're doing 5e as faithfully as possible" part, and got interested, because even other games that are far, far more authentically faithful to their D&D source never made a statement that strong... so folks were hopeful and intrigued.
Exactly what im saying ...
People pick the part they wanted to hear and give it much biger value than it ever had ... not Larian fault tho ...

I would never ever expect myself to quote Tuco but as he said:
There is nobody as deaf as the one who refuses to listen. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
Quote
As only the second game (after Sword Coast Legends) to employ the 5th Edition ruleset, Baldur's Gate 3 has the opportunity to open up a new era of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying games.

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

[one paragraph down, the quote continues]

"Whatever is not in the book [a player character] will say, 'Well, I'll do this,' and the Dungeon Master says 'Sure!' And then he'll think about what type of check he's going to make you do, and then that's going to be what you're going to roll with, and the entire party will work with that," Vincke said. "In a video game, you don't have that, so in a video game you have to make systems that allow you to do this. And so, coming up with those systems has been a lot of fun, and making them link to ruleset as it is has been the interesting bit about that."
First of all (and feel free to aply this to all quotes you posted) ...
Usualy people add source link, since this way is still just something you claim Larian said ...

Then, while this might be my poor english ...
I dont see here anything contradicting curent situation ...

I mean the first paragraph is about what they "started" with, meaning probably from times even before EA, and allready there Swen litteraly said "as we could" ... meaning they allready started to change things for some reasons ...
Also as we know, development a game is work in progress ... you implement rule, it doesnt work ... you change it.

Perfect example would be those imps in tutorial:
At first they had more HP and Resistances ... people were dying there ...
> Reduced HP > people were dying there
> Remove resistances > people are no longer dying there
From this perspective we could easily presume that they might have even poison sting and invisibility at first ... but Larian quite fast find out that facing such enemy is suicide on level 1. laugh
Therefore it was "as faithfully as we could at the begining" just as he said ...

Second paragraph, wich is aproximately 3,5 times longer, is whole about changes ...
How did you managed to get feeling from this that this part is about insignificant minor feats it beyond me. O_o

Originally Posted by Niara
Quote
"We’re still experimenting, but a lot of rules translated really well," says Vincke. "We had to make a few tweaks and modifications to make them work with a video game, but things like having an action, movement and bonus action in a combat phase worked well.

"Of course there are the finer details, like how specific spells and actions work, and we hit a few limitations with the D&D ruleset where we had to make tweaks."

The strong tone of this is that it's being done majority faithful, with just a few necessary tweaks for small minutia-grade things that needed to be adapted due to the medium change. It's a misleading comment.
Im sory but i dont see any word about majority ...
I mean yes, im aware that Swen used word "a lot" ... but 1 000 is also "a lot" but out of 1 000 000 its certainly not majority. O_o

Dont get me wrong, this time i see where this gets from ...
I totally understand that as someone who WANTED faithful translation, you wanted this sentence to be told the way you explain it ...
But its simply not said that way ... so once again, that is just your own interpretation. :-/

Its the same as when we were talking about voiced protagonist ...
Most people i know is able to say the word "Hello" in at least 10 different ways from wich every have different meaning ... sadly, when written there is only one.
And this is the same case ... words are there, but everything else you add youreself. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
Quote
It has been more than a decade ever since the last near 1:1 Dungeons and Dragons game has been released (Neverwinter Nights 2). That very well means it's about time we get a new and faithful Dungeons and Dragons game given the popularity of Fifth Edition (5e). Thankfully, Larian Studios has heard the collection lamentations of Baldur's Gate fans and is now hard at work in Baldur's Gate 3.

Like its predecessors, Baldur's Gate 3 is a video game adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons complete with the ruleset and the systems mostly intact. Now, which particular tabletop rules will Larian port over to the game? It appears they're targeting all of them,

Again, strong implication of a reasonably faithful implementation.
In this particular case i totally agree with you, this indeed it a strong implication ...

Yet the autor, whoever it is ... is talking about Larian in third person ... so i dare to presume its just some redactor own opinion (quite unprofesional if you ask me btw)
And therefore i dare to say that this certainly isnt Larian fault, but that person who witten that article ...

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


There would not be so many news articles using the phrasing if it wasn't something that many, many people latched onto when it was first spoken.

Same problem as abowe ...
This is how Gossip is made ... one came to conclusion and pass it on as a fact ... another come to conclusion based on that and pass it on as a fact ...

We have expression in my country:
You fart at one side of village ... and people will tell you shit yourself on the other end. wink

Originally Posted by Niara
As I recall you were also watching the thread when Sadurian linked the specific original interview from which the quote was taken... so casting suspicion on its authenticity now ill-becomes you and is deeply dishonest of you.
I watch many threats ... i dont even know who Sadurian is right now. :-/

I am suspicious about everything that is not sourced so i can check its autenticity ... that is why i keep quoting that post from Composer, since i have no doubt about its autenticity and anyone who does can easily click the link and check it for himself.

Dunno what is dishonesting about not thrusting someone i dont even know, i would call it being carefull ...
And im especialy carefull when someone claims something that is in direct contradiction with something i have seen and heared from valued and trusted source (Swen himself).
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 12:11 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
people keep saying this around here but are unable to support such claim with any link or other proof ...
On the other hand there is MANY sourced materials where Swen say exact oposite. :-/

Turnabout is fair, Rag: Where are your sources and citations. Prove those "Many" examples you've repeatedly alluded to, please.

Yes, the original statement was that they would be making the game using the 5e system as faithfully as possible. The sentence that followed that was, indeed, a version of "but there are some things that don't translate well, so we'll be making tweaks", which is a non-statement when discussing a PnP to Video Game conversion, because not one single person ever expected that it would be 100% rules faithful, or ever wanted it to be. No-one has ever adopted that stance, Rag. No-one. Of course there will be translation tweaks! That's a GIVEN! Everyone KNOWS that's a given... so people took the actually meaningful part of that statement which was the "we're doing 5e as faithfully as possible" part, and got interested, because even other games that are far, far more authentically faithful to their D&D source never made a statement that strong... so folks were hopeful and intrigued.

Here's some more:

Quote
As only the second game (after Sword Coast Legends) to employ the 5th Edition ruleset, Baldur's Gate 3 has the opportunity to open up a new era of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying games.

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

[one paragraph down, the quote continues]

"Whatever is not in the book [a player character] will say, 'Well, I'll do this,' and the Dungeon Master says 'Sure!' And then he'll think about what type of check he's going to make you do, and then that's going to be what you're going to roll with, and the entire party will work with that," Vincke said. "In a video game, you don't have that, so in a video game you have to make systems that allow you to do this. And so, coming up with those systems has been a lot of fun, and making them link to ruleset as it is has been the interesting bit about that."

A different interview:

Quote
"We’re still experimenting, but a lot of rules translated really well," says Vincke. "We had to make a few tweaks and modifications to make them work with a video game, but things like having an action, movement and bonus action in a combat phase worked well.

"Of course there are the finer details, like how specific spells and actions work, and we hit a few limitations with the D&D ruleset where we had to make tweaks."

The strong tone of this is that it's being done majority faithful, with just a few necessary tweaks for small minutia-grade things that needed to be adapted due to the medium change. It's a misleading comment.

Another:

Quote
It has been more than a decade ever since the last near 1:1 Dungeons and Dragons game has been released (Neverwinter Nights 2). That very well means it's about time we get a new and faithful Dungeons and Dragons game given the popularity of Fifth Edition (5e). Thankfully, Larian Studios has heard the collection lamentations of Baldur's Gate fans and is now hard at work in Baldur's Gate 3.

Like its predecessors, Baldur's Gate 3 is a video game adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons complete with the ruleset and the systems mostly intact. Now, which particular tabletop rules will Larian port over to the game? It appears they're targeting all of them,

Again, strong implication of a reasonably faithful implementation.

Another:

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


There would not be so many news articles using the phrasing if it wasn't something that many, many people latched onto when it was first spoken.

As I recall you were also watching the thread when Sadurian linked the specific original interview from which the quote was taken... so casting suspicion on its authenticity now ill-becomes you and is deeply dishonest of you.

So I'm with Rag here, who wrote that article? When Sven talks about what Larian's doing, it's "We", not in the third person. So, someone made some assumptions, published an article to get some clicks, and all of a sudden it's "But Larian said". In short, the last two quotes are meaningless, because despite the premise of the post, they're not quoting Larian, they're making assumptions based on what they want, much as you did, when you cited them as "proof" of Larian promising something they didn't.

What this tells me is that a lot of people are basing what they expected this game to be off of misleading information from a game journalist, and some of them are now finding fault with any and everything Larian does based on that. I provided a map of Faerun to demonstrate just how far off base GM was in their thread about a "missing village". Based on that thread, 99.99% of Faerun is problematic, because we can't travel there, because apparently the SE corner of the map is the limit of the world, instead of the limit of that area.
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 12:43 PM
You're right, my mistake - it was Composer, not Sadurian. Wrong mod, sorry.
Yes, I should have cited the articles. It was a grab bag of various news and game-reporting journals drawn from a quick search of BG3 articles from the first half of last year. I didn't save the addresses, and I should have; my mistake.

Either way - the phrase in question has been direct linked in a thread you've actively participating in. You know, unequivocally, that it was said, so it was wrong of you to cast aspersions on its authenticity.

That is the only point worth discussing in this particular diatribe, especially since you're also now misrepresenting the speakers in the other topics you're bringing up in your post. You like to pick apart irrelevant minutia and happily 'forget' information given or points conceded in previous discussions as it suites you; I'm not playing today, Rag.

==

There are, were and continue to be a very great number of people across many platforms who are criticising their translation of the system, and generally feeling misled, deceived or lied to. They didn't all make this up as some kind of mass hallucination; it is a simple truth that for this great volume of plaintiffs, the information as presented in the news they consumed, be that interviews, news articles, live streams or any other, left them feeling like a particular thing was being delivered, and that expectation was contra to the company and the game's actual design goals. You can split the hairs as much as you like, and you can point to the logic of variable interpretation if you want, that's fine - it doesn't change the fact that there is a large volume of voices who received the information that way, and that did not happen by chance, or by mass-selective-hearing. When even media and news articles were throwing around the same phrase in their headings and descriptive openings, you cannot claim that it was just one or two people selectively hearing what they wanted. This was a problem in the advertising itself - certainly many people didn't and don't care... they would not have cared if the advertising had been handled differently as well, so the are not the relevant group to consider here.

Regardless, blame me for interpreting incorrectly if you want to; that's fine. Truth is - I read news articles, saw interviews, and read reports from a small variety of sources, and what I saw, before ever looking at the game, was a whole lot of talk about us finally getting our first really solid 5e video game, as true to the system as it could reasonably be, and I was excited by the prospect, because - and here's the thing I want to impress upon you - We didn't have one. 5e has been out for many years now, and we didn't have one, at all. So if you're wandering why so many people seem to have jumped at that suggestion, that's part of the reason. That's what I saw; The phrases about changes were always "a few tweaks" "some little things" and other phrases like that. They never, not once, implied that there would be any large-scale, substantial departures from,the system. They always caged talk of deviation in 'small' language. Always. And we all know that a to-video-game translation will necessarily have some elements that either can't translate or that can benefit from QoL tweaks, and so on. So I believed them when they said 'as faithfully as possible' and I believed them when they said 'small tweaks' and 'a few little changes', and then I got to grips with the game itself, and saw that it was not at all what all the discussion and news articles and interviews had led me to believe, and I was disappointed.

And every time I see Larian reps talking about the things they are doing, and exercising their art of smoke and mirrors, I see more and more elements of their generally deceptive advertising practice that oversells, under-delivers, misrepresents and always makes everything out to be more and better than it is... when not outright lying.

I'd really like a nice looking D&d game that runs on 5e rules, ported as faithfully as is reasonably feasible for a video game.
I really wanted BG3 to be that game.
It looks as though it was never going to be in the first place. Was never intended to be.

Perhaps I should just listen to you, accept that I'm to blame for hoping for this, and for wanting this in the first place, and just give up.

You put so much work, and time and effort into defending the game's design choices, and nay-saying people who put their own time and effort into highlighting where the game diverts needlessly from the system it claims to be emulating. You do a lot of other things too, of course, but you put a lot of time and effort into this. Would it make you happy if I stopped?

I've put so much time and effort into bug testing, reporting and analysing this game; doing break-downs of systems and features as implemented, examining how they differ from core, and examining whether the changes are good for the game or not, and the issues that the changes cause, or will cause later, in the hopes of being seen and nudging the game towards what I was hoping it would be... Even you might be a little horrified by the amount of time and otherwise-employable work I've put into this over the past year. I've worked with 5e itself for years, and my skills at analysing game systems and assessing balance are something that I've done, and been compensated for doing, for longer... I don't like to make arguments from authority and I avoid doing so when I can, but generally speaking, I know what I'm on about when I do these things... but it may be that I've done as much as I can, and no-one is listening any more.

I've tried hard to keep the forums here a positive space, and friendly and constructive, no matter what side of a debate different people may be on, but even that isn't working out so well any more, and it seems like every week there are one or two new faces that just come here to pick fights, argue, or condescend abrasively at one another, over topics that have already been discussed into oblivion many times before, in different threads that are long buried - and they keep getting discussed because the issues that make people discuss them are still there...

Maybe I've done all I can. Maybe it's time I gave up and moved on - and turned back to the "no nice-looking, character-driven, reasonably faithful 5e game" space and hope that something else will come along to fill it one day instead. What do you think, Rag? Would it make you feel satisfied if I said you've convinced me of that?
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 01:16 PM
What does it matter who said what and when?

If I go to the McDonalds and buy a Big Mac, and I take a bite out of it and it doesn't taste like what I was expecting, I would go to the register and say, "There's something wrong with my burger. It doesn't taste the way I expected it to. Can I:

A. Get a refund

Or

B. Could I get a replacement; another one that does satisfy me, the customer.

We are Larian customers. We are unhappy with the combat system and rules used for this game. We were expecting D&D 5e. We got something totally different.

Now, I'm not looking for a refund, but I'd like Larian to do something to make me a satisfied customer. If they do, I walk away liking Larian more because they were willing to do something to satisfy me and make me happy. If they don't, I'm likely not going to be a very happy customer and I might not ever buy anything from them again.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 02:09 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
Either way - the phrase in question has been direct linked in a thread you've actively participating in. You know, unequivocally, that it was said, so it was wrong of you to cast aspersions on its authenticity.
I see ...
Well, as many other people im sure, i also dont read everything in every topic i write something ...
That is why i quote ... to explicitly and clearly state what im reacting to, not to cut your coments to misleading out ot content cuted parts that can be evily twisted to make completely other sense (as some people seems to believe around here) ...
Cant do much more than just ask you to thrust me in this matter tho. wink

Therefore i can with one hand on bible and another one on heart i can tell you that i didnt know it was said. wink
That is why i asked for the source. smile

Originally Posted by Niara
especially since you're also now misrepresenting the speakers in the other topics you're bringing up in your post. You like to pick apart irrelevant minutia and happily 'forget' information given or points conceded in previous discussions as it suites you
I actualy find this sentence quite funy, but simmilar as most other asumptions ...
I was acused countless times of this ... but never provided any clear example. O_o

So, feel free to be angry at me if you feel like it ... but such acusations sounds to me like some general gibberish, people use when they wish to insult someone indirectly, bcs they dont have anything solid in their amunition folder. :-/
But to be honest, you make me sad ... i had higher opinion about you. frown

Originally Posted by Niara
I'm not playing today, Rag.
Me neither ...
Not today, not ever ... not about this ... acusation of lie is a serious one and i hate it with all my heart.

Originally Posted by Niara
There are, were and continue to be a very great number of people across many platforms who are criticising their translation of the system, and generally feeling misled, deceived or lied to.
Personaly i find number of people irellevant ...
There are, were and continue to be a very great number of people across many countries who believe that Earth is flat ... but that doesnt make it true. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
They didn't all make this up as some kind of mass hallucination; it is a simple truth that for this great volume of plaintiffs, the information as presented in the news they consumed, be that interviews, news articles, live streams or any other, left them feeling like a particular thing was being delivered,

I never said they did ...
Selective perception is well documented phenomenon ... that that have nothing to do with hallucination.

In short ... people tend to hear what they want to hear and tend to ignore what they dont want to hear ...
You practialy prooved it on those quotes you give me in your previous post ... YOU presumed those changes Swen was talking about will be just some minor irelevant things, but HE never actualy said it.

Originally Posted by Niara
and that expectation was contra to the company and the game's actual design goals.
Exactly ... expectation ... not adversiment.
As i keep repeating all the time. laugh

Please try to uderstand me ...
I really dont mind if people wish to make things more 5e (despite of what some people around here think) ... me myself wants some things to be more closer to that ruleset ...
The only thing i simply cant stand in topics like this is that complaining about Larian laying to them ... bcs that is simply not true.

If Larian advertising would be so much focused on "we will bring you 5e" as you (and all those not hallucinating, yet pissed off fans) are trying to say ... how is that possible that i never had the feeling that this was promised? O_o
Here is a hint: I never EXPECTED it. wink
They did ...
And while we were hearing the same interviews, read the same articles, watched the same shows ...
I come to conclusion they are trying to create fun game, while using 5e as inspiration from wich they will borrow from time to time.
You come to conclusion they are trying to create fun game, while using 5e as source material, to wich they will add from time to time.
I mean come on, the only difference is that expectation here ... i cant explain it more clearly even if i draw a picture. :-/

Dont think i dont get it ...
I also had my fair share of false expectations in the past ... my last disapointment so far was Venom 2 ... but i would never even think to blame studio for it, they made it just the way they wanted to, it just didnt fit my taste and i expected something else than it was suppose to be, but that is my own fault.

Originally Posted by Niara
it doesn't change the fact that there is a large volume of voices who received the information that way, and that did not happen by chance, or by mass-selective-hearing. When even media and news articles were throwing around the same phrase in their headings and descriptive openings, you cannot claim that it was just one or two people selectively hearing what they wanted. This was a problem in the advertising itself
I wonder what do you mean, when you say Media ...
Is that those articles as you quoted previously? That last two? When someone entirely different, and not tied to Larian in any way claimed to give people "certainly confrimed information" that quite soon showed themself to be false?
Yes that is a problem, totally agree.
But its not Larian problem ... and it sickens me to see people i respected so far to see spiting on Larian for something someone entirely different claimed. :-/

It would be like judging you for something i said. :-/
That simply doesnt seems right. frown

Originally Posted by Niara
certainly many people didn't and don't care... they would not have cared if the advertising had been handled differently as well, so the are not the relevant group to consider here.
I cant honestly believe this.
That person who would not care no matter what would simply started the discusion and let others join him ... most likely you would not even know (as you dont right now) ... its nice to theoreticaly exclude them, but since there is no way to find them, the practical value of such statement is 0.

Originally Posted by Niara
Regardless, blame me for interpreting incorrectly if you want to; that's fine. Truth is - I read news articles, saw interviews, and read reports from a small variety of sources, and what I saw, before ever looking at the game, was a whole lot of talk about us finally getting our first really solid 5e video game, as true to the system as it could reasonably be
Question is how many of them were with Swen ...

Then there would be second question and that would be how is that possible that they all dissapeared coveniently?
Another phenomen come to play here ... selective memory, again nothing new, well documented thing.

Originally Posted by Niara
That's what I saw
Thats what im trying you tell you. Quite litteraly.

Originally Posted by Niara
The phrases about changes were always "a few tweaks" "some little things" and other phrases like that. They never, not once, implied that there would be any large-scale, substantial departures from,the system. They always caged talk of deviation in 'small' language. Always.
And you THOUGHT you know what does it mean ... and it meaned in your eyes exactly the things that were in like with YOUR EXPECTATION ... how covenient ...
Now you find out it meaned something else ... and you are frustrated, i can understand that.

Fun fact: What is even large-scale? And im not asking about your opinion here ... im asking for some general, universal definition.
Once again there is expression in my country: 100 times nothing killed the donkey. wink

Or different example ...
When Mike Tyson was fighting some much large boxer (i dont remember a name) in start of his carier, nobody believed that he even can win ... surprisingly he did.
When they interviewed the large one after the fight he said: "He reached barely my chin ... but he did it often."

What im trying to say here is that even if Swen would say they "just adjusted the minorest thing in the world" it means little, if they did it with every single thing in the game ... sudently its a large scale of minor tweats.

Originally Posted by Niara
And we all know that a to-video-game translation will necessarily have some elements that either can't translate or that can benefit from QoL tweaks, and so on. So I believed them when they said 'as faithfully as possible' and I believed them when they said 'small tweaks' and 'a few little changes', and then I got to grips with the game itself, and saw that it was not at all what all the discussion and news articles and interviews had led me to believe, and I was disappointed.
Yup ... that is exactly what im telling you.
You believed them when they said "as faithfully as possible" and ignored them when they started with "but there will be adjustments" since you simply expected them to be minor, insignificant and obviously there, bcs those things were granted ...

All im trying to tell you is if you would not ignore the rest, you would not dismis them as "obviously irellevant compared to that superexiting news" ... you would not be so dissapointed. :-/
I feel for you, but its still not Larian fault.

Originally Posted by Niara
And every time I see Larian reps talking about the things they are doing, and exercising their art of smoke and mirrors, I see more and more elements of their generally deceptive advertising practice that oversells, under-delivers, misrepresents and always makes everything out to be more and better than it is... when not outright lying.
Well ... their first and foremost goal is to sell the product, after all ...
Cant really blame them for trying to. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
I'd really like a nice looking D&d game that runs on 5e rules, ported as faithfully as is reasonably feasible for a video game.
I really wanted BG3 to be that game.
This might surprise you but ... I would like that too. smile

Originally Posted by Niara
It looks as though it was never going to be in the first place. Was never intended to be.
I believe so ...
But that dont mean it cant become one. wink

Originally Posted by Niara
Perhaps I should just listen to you, accept that I'm to blame for hoping for this, and for wanting this in the first place, and just give up.
Depends on what "give up" means ...
But if you would believe me at least a little, try the rest sometimes ... not accept, but reconcider ... take some things you are dissapointed about and think if you could change your attitude towards them to feel less down about them ... i started with this few years ago, and it might be quite enlightening sometimes. smile
Not allways tho, bcs sometimes people are just dirty douchebags and you can do nothing about it. laugh
But its interesting experience anyway, the one i can only recommend. wink

Originally Posted by Niara
You put so much work, and time and effort into defending the game's design choices, and nay-saying people who put their own time and effort into highlighting where the game diverts needlessly from the system it claims to be emulating. You do a lot of other things too, of course, but you put a lot of time and effort into this.
Im just killing time actualy.
Also i dont defend design choices, well, not all of them at least. laugh

Originally Posted by Niara
Would it make you happy if I stopped?
Nah, not at all. :-/
What makes me happy is seeing people understands what im trying to tell them (lately its mostly Flooter and mrfuji3) ... it doesnt matter if they agree with me or not, different opinions are more that just welcomed (i allways despite people who surround themself with only those to agree with them, or those who fear to express their honest opinion just so they dont get expelled from some grou) ... the important part for me is seeing that message was recieved and processed corectly. smile
Seeing someone disagree bcs he obviously missinterpret something i said makes me sad.

And also ... i honestly love and kinda envy your energy you put to your focused feedbacks ...
This forum would be much poorer without you. frown

Originally Posted by Niara
I've put so much time and effort into bug testing, reporting and analysing this game; doing break-downs of systems and features as implemented, examining how they differ from core, and examining whether the changes are good for the game or not, and the issues that the changes cause, or will cause later, in the hopes of being seen and nudging the game towards what I was hoping it would be... Even you might be a little horrified by the amount of time and otherwise-employable work I've put into this over the past year. I've worked with 5e itself for years, and my skills at analysing game systems and assessing balance are something that I've done, and been compensated for doing, for longer... I don't like to make arguments from authority and I avoid doing so when I can, but generally speaking, I know what I'm on about when I do these things... but it may be that I've done as much as I can, and no-one is listening any more.
You never know that, at least not until full release ... just bcs they dont respond that dont mean they dont listen ...
Just look how many thigs was allready changed, and they never seemed to listen (at least based on responces). :-/
And even if they dont, someone else might ... someone with skills and will to make a mod, just need the right push. wink

If that is any comfort, i personaly believe that you did tremendous job in your reporting and analysing. wink

Originally Posted by Niara
I've tried hard to keep the forums here a positive space, and friendly and constructive, no matter what side of a debate different people may be on, but even that isn't working out so well any more, and it seems like every week there are one or two new faces that just come here to pick fights, argue, or condescend abrasively at one another, over topics that have already been discussed into oblivion many times before, in different threads that are long buried - and they keep getting discussed because the issues that make people discuss them are still there...
This is never easy job ...
But back in the days i was moderator on one czech forum, i was told by one senior that this kind of work is thankless, endless and frustrating ... but it only will be worthless if you stop. :-/

We all kinda burned out, a year is a long time. :-/

Originally Posted by Niara
Maybe I've done all I can. Maybe it's time I gave up and moved on - and turned back to the "no nice-looking, character-driven, reasonably faithful 5e game" space and hope that something else will come along to fill it one day instead. What do you think, Rag? Would it make you feel satisfied if I said you've convinced me of that?
That was never my intention.
Posted By: Umbra Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 02:20 PM
The best part of taking part in an EA is that you get to play with all the mad shit before it gets fixed or taken out. I'm enjoying it while it lasts, because I do think that larian will pull all the threads together.

Keep giving the feedback. The game is changing, and it seems to headed in the DnD direction and that will at least in part be due to the feedback.
There's less grumbling about barrels here now, or surfaces as these have been changed. I want better class distinction too, and monsters that are closer to the given description. But I also understand that the Tabletop game allows for modifcation to those desciptions to fit the DMs narrative, and I'd expect to see that here too.

So. I'm not in the "happy with the game" camp, because it's not a game. I am reasonably happy with the direction development is taking but frustrated with the slow pace. As for communication, that could be better. Half the problem here is we don't have enough to talk about, just the same old people having the same old conversations until we're all either grumpy or quitting. Maybe if Larain put things out for us to offer opinions on (like models for new monsters or races, armors, animations...) anything to put some meat on the bone we're chewing for them.
Because enthusiasm has lapsed, you can really see that here.
Posted By: gaymer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 02:33 PM
I would like goblins NOT to have 3d6 bombs (lol) and not to have a quiver of magical arrows. The surface effects are still ridiculous and cause constant concentration checks for no reason.

Dodge a fire arrow and then lose your spell to 1 point of dmg from the burning surface. What a joke.
Posted By: Umbra Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 02:45 PM
It will one day be a great EA story to tell your kids about.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 02:54 PM
Originally Posted by Umbra
The best part of taking part in an EA is that you get to play with all the mad shit before it gets fixed or taken out. I'm enjoying it while it lasts, because I do think that larian will pull all the threads together.

Keep giving the feedback. The game is changing, and it seems to headed in the DnD direction and that will at least in part be due to the feedback.
There's less grumbling about barrels here now, or surfaces as these have been changed. I want better class distinction too, and monsters that are closer to the given description. But I also understand that the Tabletop game allows for modifcation to those desciptions to fit the DMs narrative, and I'd expect to see that here too.

So. I'm not in the "happy with the game" camp, because it's not a game. I am reasonably happy with the direction development is taking but frustrated with the slow pace. As for communication, that could be better. Half the problem here is we don't have enough to talk about, just the same old people having the same old conversations until we're all either grumpy or quitting. Maybe if Larain put things out for us to offer opinions on (like models for new monsters or races, armors, animations...) anything to put some meat on the bone we're chewing for them.
Because enthusiasm has lapsed, you can really see that here.

Hi Umbra,

I couldn't agree more.

To add to this, I want to be clear that modifcation to those desciptions to fit the DMs narrative is totally good with me too. For example, the spectator being able to petrify and depetrify. I had a problem with it at first because they shouldn't be able to do that. However, text found in the Underdark calls this out. It is part of the narrative that this is a special spectator. So, I'm fine with it. Great. That's the kind of stuff that you'd expect.

So we 5e'ers aren't all just about absolute 5e, as some would accuse us. We just want more 5e and less homebrew to stabilize the game and make classes more unique and special.

And I agree about the "same old conversations" too. I've thought about giving up on BG3 more than a dozen times. I'm getting really tired of fighting the battle against the same old argumentative people who just want to debate every little tiny detail to DEATH until the dead horse is so mutilated we can't even tell it was originally a horse.

I would ABSOLUTELY love it if Larian gave us topics. I'd also love for them to at least tell us what they're planning. If you ain't gonna give us a 6 party max, for example, just say it so we stop crying out for it. Even if they say, "Hey. We hear ya. We're trying to make 6 party max an option to work but not sure it will." At least that's something. And if they're like, "Nope. Not gonna happen.". Let us know. If I know the answer is no, fine. I'm good. I accept their decision and will live with it.

This endless screaming into the void is wearing REAL thin. I literally never want to be a part of an EA again.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
What does it matter who said what and when?

If I go to the McDonalds and buy a Big Mac, and I take a bite out of it and it doesn't taste like what I was expecting, I would go to the register and say, "There's something wrong with my burger. It doesn't taste the way I expected it to. Can I:

A. Get a refund

Or

B. Could I get a replacement; another one that does satisfy me, the customer.

We are Larian customers. We are unhappy with the combat system and rules used for this game. We were expecting D&D 5e. We got something totally different.

Now, I'm not looking for a refund, but I'd like Larian to do something to make me a satisfied customer. If they do, I walk away liking Larian more because they were willing to do something to satisfy me and make me happy. If they don't, I'm likely not going to be a very happy customer and I might not ever buy anything from them again.

It matters a lot, when the statements are being attributed to someone that didn't make them. It matters a lot when those statements are taken and twisted by others to imply that Larian has said something they didn't say. The most "damning" quotes in Niara's post are irrelevant, because they weren't made by Larian, but by a third party, and they weren't based on anything Larian said, but on what they hoped for from the game, or on what they hoped would bring them the most clicks, since that's how they make their money.

The problem being that you didn't order a Big Mac, you ordered a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, and they didn't give you the cheese, or maybe not enough cheese. There are some flaws, after all, that do need to be addressed, but at it's core, it is a DnD combat system. Despite your outrage, the basics are there, and it really doesn't get much more basic. Having played both Solasta and BG 3, if one isn't hitting up all the exploits, the combat plays out basically the same, except that it does seem, even w/out the "loaded dice" that had to be added because of skill check rolls that made the community unhappy, that I still hit more in BG 3 than in Solasta. Something that has come up on Solasta's forum as well.

So, as someone that isn't taking advantage of broken mechanics, that hopefully get fixed before release, the game feels very much like DnD. Of course, for me, this isn't a deal breaker either way. I'm looking for something else entirely, based on most of the same information. Contrary to your weak attempt at character assassination earlier in this thread, I'm not looking for a DoS/DnD hybrid, I'm looking for a game that's going to have me looking at the clock and realizing that it's 4 AM, and I should have been in bed hours ago. If this game can do that after release, it's going to be successful in my eyes, and any review I might be inclined to write would state that.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 04:10 PM
If your post takes more than a second to scroll through please shorten and/or spoiler tag it. Separately quoting every single line from long posts mainly just makes posts extremely long and disjointed to read. Quote fewer (but larger) parts of others' posts, condense your responses, or just put quotes (and/or your responses) in a spoiler tag and @ the user you're responding to so they know to read it. Thanks.

Also Niara you've done amazing work here, providing many in-depth and useful analyses of various aspects of BG3 - the game itself, Larian's communications and EA process, etc. I certainly have enjoyed reading your various posts and debating you on certain 5e rules. The forums would be worse off without you. That said, if you're mainly unhappy with the time you're spending on the forum, then you should prioritize yourself. Even if we take as truth that Larian is looking at and considering all of our feedback here, honestly they've probably already gotten 99% by now...at least until actual new content is released. Is Larian - and other posters - worth it? (But if you do take a break please come back to give a scathing detailed review of Larian's next PfH XD)

I'll second this:
Originally Posted by Niara
There are, were and continue to be a very great number of people across many platforms who are criticising their translation of the system, and generally feeling misled, deceived or lied to. They didn't all make this up as some kind of mass hallucination; it is a simple truth that for this great volume of plaintiffs, the information as presented in the news they consumed, be that interviews, news articles, live streams or any other, left them feeling like a particular thing was being delivered, and that expectation was contra to the company and the game's actual design goals. You can split the hairs as much as you like, and you can point to the logic of variable interpretation if you want, that's fine - it doesn't change the fact that there is a large volume of voices who received the information that way, and that did not happen by chance, or by mass-selective-hearing. When even media and news articles were throwing around the same phrase in their headings and descriptive openings, you cannot claim that it was just one or two people selectively hearing what they wanted. This was a problem in the advertising itself - certainly many people didn't and don't care... they would not have cared if the advertising had been handled differently as well, so the are not the relevant group to consider here.
At some point, if a large enough sample of people are confused or feeling deceived, the speaker (Swen, Larian, OR the media in this case) is at least partially to blame for any miscommunication. If I went to a high school intro physics class and gave a high-level lecture on quantum mechanics - the Schrodinger equation, probability amplitudes, and Bose-Einstein Condensates - is it my fault or the students' fault that most of them wouldn't understand? (Edit: This is obviously not the same as what happened here; it's just an example showing how the speaker can be at fault.)
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 04:13 PM
I've effectively ignored you Rob. Sorry. You just won't stop relentlessly defending Larian for some reason. You must REALLY love Larian because no matter what anyone says you are fervently defending them tooth and nail. I'm glad you are such a fan, but I really hate pointless debating and arguing over things that don't matter.

I'm a customer. I didn't get the product I thought I was buying. 2nd of story. I'm suggesting that Larian implement options for people like me, since I'm not alone, so that we can also play the game the way WE want to play it.

The way I see it, you are in European football camp. I'm in American football camp. The game is more made for European football lovers. I'm hoping they make it an option so we American football players can also more fully love the game.

That's it. No arguments about who is right or wrong. I don't really care who said what or whether Larian has a legit reason to totally ignore my request. I think it would make the game better, so I'm suggesting that they do more 5e because the point of EA is to provide such feedback.
Posted By: fylimar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 04:38 PM
This is a suggestion board, people are making suggestions (in this case about better implementation of the 5e ruleset). There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm playing in a pen & paper DND 5e group at the moment and have the comparison in real time, since I'm also doing a new playthrough of BG3. And there is stuff, I wish would make it into the BG3 game.
And yes, I want 6 companions in the group, a better fighting system and other stuff. That doesn't mean, I hate the game, far from it. But I see it as my job as a player of EA to give feedback. I'm not doing it as constantly as GM4, Niara and a few others here, because of real life stuff keeping me busy, but I'm wondering, why people, who point out stuff, they think could benefit from a change, are treated as if they are haters.
Maybe instead of looking who said what when, concentrate of what you like or don't like about the game and give that feedback - yes positive stuff too. SO if Rag finds everything great, he should say it as much as GM4, who wants a more faithful 5e implementation.
That is my 2 cent about all this. I would find it sad, if people turn their backs on the forums or even the game, because they think, they are not heard or worse, their opinion is not valid.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 10/12/21 06:29 PM
Absolutely fylimar! Thank you.

And now, let me metion what BG3 does have that IS D&D 5e:

Dice rolls for dialogue options. Yes! This is good. If anything, I'd like to see more of it. I know some people hate it because they just want to pick a dialogue option and succeed every time, and maybe they could make an option for that, not just weighted dice, but I love it! Talk about replayability! Every time I play this game, it's a different experience because you never know if you're going to succeed on any given Persuasion or Deception roll or whether you might succeed or fail on Insight or Intimidate or Medicine, etc.

THAT'S what I"m talking about. That's pure RPG D&D gold, and I want more.

Example: I've mentioned it on a different thread. In the beginning, we meet Shadowheart. For some reason, she's wearing a Dark Justiciar armor set. We now know this because when we reach Grymforge you can find a suit of Dark Justiiciar armor that is virtually identical. Other Dark Justiciars in Grymforge are also wearing similar armor, and the statues indicate, Yes! This is Shar worshippers at their pinnacle.

So let's have a History or Religion roll as soon as we meet her. Failure means we don't detect anything. Success means our character knows that she's wearing armor of Shar. Then give the player a very brief synopsis of who Shar is. Something like, "She's wearing an armor with symbols of Shar on it; the round, black onyx stones. Shar is the Mistress of the Night, Goddess of Darkness, Pain and Loss. She is considered evil by most people."

Bam! Now we know right then and there that she's a Cleric of Shar IF we succeed in the roll.

Another example: Arabella is bitten by Teela, the snake. Give the player the option to make a Medicine check. If Failure, you watch, like current, as Arabella dies. If Success, you recognize the type of snake she is and immediately devise a remedy to save Arabella's life. Quickly, you snatch up some leaves off of a vine nearby. Grabbing a flask of water from the table in the chamber near the other druids, you crush the leaves into the water, swirl it, tilt Arabella's head back and pour the cure down her throat, saving her just in time.

THAT'S the kind of stuff I want more of. Give us more of that. Yes!

And more 5e combat and stats and class traits and stats and so forth. smile
Posted By: Archaven Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 07:08 AM
such a long thread. just to cast my vote on the OP. can't say it better myself. i concur. it doesn't taste like hamburger to me as well. the biggest issue for me on how much it looks, play and feels like DOS2 to me and i'm getting the notion that larian really just wanted a DOS game in the veins of d&d which is truly wrong IMO. it's right spot on by the OP on the monster stats and the bonus action / stealth which take outs from rogue and given it to everyone else seems inappropriate personally myself. if those were taken out, would that make the gameplay worst or slower and annoying?
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Another example: Arabella is bitten by Teela, the snake. Give the player the option to make a Medicine check. If Failure, you watch, like current, as Arabella dies. If Success, you recognize the type of snake she is and immediately devise a remedy to save Arabella's life.
Yeah, I would love more of that kind of stuff - but I do have some issues with the system. And I think it is less BG3 and more DnD 5e.

I find bonuses from characters builds to be underwhelming. Maybe it will get better as I level up, but in EA, bonuses I get from attributes/skills feel minor compared to buffs. As such few things feel like a reward for picking certain build. I do favour Obsidian's flat skill checks, but Disco did dice rolls recently and did them better - with both less RNG through use of two dices, and bigger impact of our build on the result.

The issue I have, is that I feel that check like that still wouldn't properly recognise our investment in medicine. Those who invested in medicine would have advantage, but still best bet would be to buff and force our way through RNG. I don't get the feeling from BG3 of "I build my character that way, and therefore I can do this". I am not sure where the fault lies exactly.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 12:53 PM
It's just because you're at such low levels right now. Level 5 and beyond, proficiency bonuses start to increase, and skills become more pronounced.

This is also why rogue expertise is sorely missed by players like me. It sets rogues apart by doubling proficiency bonuses.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 01:41 PM
Check out the proficiency table at this site:

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Character%20Advancement#content

Also, read this explanation: https://www.fandomspot.com/dnd-5e-expertise/

As you can see, proficiency bonuses are what makes classes more distinct. Without expertise, rogues and such are not much different from anyone else. With expertise, they are clearly set apart.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 02:03 PM
I wouldn't say that they are very important.
The difference between a character (with proficiency) on level 1 and a character on level 10 is a miserable +2.
This is a stupid system and I hope 5.5e will fix it eventually.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 02:42 PM
That is why skill expert feat exists.

Double proficiency makes a +2 a +4 difference.

So maybe at level 1 you had only +2, but by level 10 with skill expert, you might have +8. Quite the difference.

It's all about what's important to your character.

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/feat:skill-expert
Posted By: Archaven Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 02:50 PM
i thoroughly enjoyed pathfinder 1st ed. heard pathfinder 2nd ed. was quite a nerf which i personally dislike. new to dnd5e. does level 20 brings to high level fights? are there mythic progression in d&d5e? or it's simply a nerf version for low level campaign?
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 04:14 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
That is why skill expert feat exists. Double proficiency makes a +2 a +4 difference. [...]
In all my games of D&D 5e, I don't think I've ever seen a person take the skill expert feat. It's just not worth it, except for maybe on a high level fighter since they get so many more feats. You lose out on an ASI or one of the much better feats. And even if you do take it (since most campaigns stop around level 10), this gets you an additional +3 or +4 bonus to a skill which is...not really that much. 15-20% better chances of success.

I dislike 5e's system of skill advancement combined with the variance of a d20. There's ~no customization as you level up, which makes leveling up more boring. The bonuses are generally so low, even for level 10+ characters. And you have to take a feat to get proficiency in any new skills. This would be a thing I'd be happy for Larian to change, though I still want some amount of randomness.
- Perhaps Dicso Elysium's 2d6 + bonuses for skill checks. I've also seen 2d10 suggested, which is more similar to 1d20
- Some system of improving or getting new skills at level ups. Int mod (minimum 1) skill points to spend every ~4-5 levels, additional skill proficiencies added to classes/feats, something.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 04:21 PM
It's all about DC. In previous versions, DCs could easily be above 20. 5e stabilizes DC, keeping the high end at 20 with very rare instances above 20 for really really hard actions.

So a +1 is actually a 5% increase to your skill roll.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 04:48 PM
But since the Pathfinder system averages out the typical skill DCs between characters of all skills, Pathfinder characters that put a lot of ranks into a skill are much better than their D&D counterparts.

In Pathfinder, a level 1 "moderately challenging" DC is 15. A player with ranks in a class skill can have a +6 (60% chance) while a player with no ranks in it has a +1 (35% chance).
But at level 18, a "moderately challenging" DC is 30. A player with points in the skill can easily have a ~27+ (including magical items, feats, etc: >90% chance) while the player with no ranks has a +6 (0% chance). Even players with a few ranks will have maybe a +12, which is still only a 15% chance.

Whereas in 5e, normal level 1 characters (ignoring rogues/expertise) will have a +5 bonus to certain skills and +1 to some others (55% and 35% chance again to hit DC 15).
At level 18, these same skills will have bonuses of +12 and +2. Let's say the DC for a similarly difficult check goes up to DC 18. This is a 75% chance for the skilled player and a 25% chance for the unskilled.

In sum, higher level 5e characters have a lower chance of success for skilled checks than their Pathfinder counterparts, and the difference between unskilled and skilled 5e characters is less than Pathfinder characters. Thus, rng matters more in 5e.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 05:11 PM
Right. That is exactly what I'm referring to about the old systems. There is no way a level 1 person could even remotely come close to rolling a DC 30. DC 15 being a moderate difficulty means that if I don't have any skill proficiency that is an extremely difficult roll.

What I like about 5e is that it is more balanced. A person who is level one can still make roles that are 15 or higher which is a challenging difficulty. They can even make a roll of 20 or higher which is supposed to be extremely difficult.

Meanwhile, if you are proficient in a particular skill you might have a +5. That means that a 15 or higher, which is a challenging difficulty, is still a 50/50 chance for someone who has some skill in it even at level 1. Same character at level 10 could have a +7. So now a 60% chance of success. A person with expertise would have a much better chance at say + 9 or + 10. Thus giving value to someone with expertise.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 05:40 PM
I also ,want to include the fact that in 5e, Advantage/Disadvantage plays a major role. If a character with +5 also has Advantage, that is a HUGE boost to chance of success. The Adv/Dis system is supposed to play a major role.

For example, my Gith Ranger only has +2 Arcana because he's not proficient. However, he's on a Ghaik ship. I, the DM, might give him Advantage on any Arcana rolls because his race is more familiar with mind flayers than Joe Half Drow. Even though the Half Drow has +5 Arcana, he doesn't gain Advantage.

So, a roll of 10 or higher is a 5 or higher for the half Drow but 8 or higher for the Gith. BUT, the Gith gets to roll 2 20-siders.

Flip the script. The Gith is proficient but the half Drow isn't. 5 or higher AND Advantage means the Gith has a super high probability of success versus the uneducated half Drow who has no familiarity with mind flayers at all.

Now imagine proficiency bonuses were higher WITH Advantage. It would be ridiculously hard to fail. They'd have to increase DCs and thus make the whole system more volatile. Low level characters would never have a chance ever against higher level ones... Not even a small chance.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Right. That is exactly what I'm referring to about the old systems. There is no way a level 1 person could even remotely come close to rolling a DC 30. DC 15 being a moderate difficulty means that if I don't have any skill proficiency that is an extremely difficult roll.

What I like about 5e is that it is more balanced. A person who is level one can still make roles that are 15 or higher which is a challenging difficulty. They can even make a roll of 20 or higher which is supposed to be extremely difficult.

Meanwhile, if you are proficient in a particular skill you might have a +5. That means that a 15 or higher, which is a challenging difficulty, is still a 50/50 chance for someone who has some skill in it even at level 1. Same character at level 10 could have a +7. So now a 60% chance of success. A person with expertise would have a much better chance at say + 9 or + 10. Thus giving value to someone with expertise.

You have to admit that class progression in 5e is terribly poor compared to others. While it works on the table, it does not work very well in games.
This is bad because it practically nullifies the character's build.
Why a warrior who has never had a book in his hand has a minimally less chance of success than a wizard who has devoted his entire life to studying magic.
Such a person should not have a chance (or minimal) to pass a check that requires magical knowledge, in practice the difference is 20-30% which is a ridiculous amount.
What's even funnier is that this difference can be compensated for with a spell. I would understand if this was some spell that actually costs something but it's just a cantrip.
Just a simple cantrip that can be cast by any cleric for the fighter to catch up with the wizard's skills?
Of course, I do not take into account the bonuses from the statistics because they do not matter in this discussion.
The point is that because of the pathetic bonuses, every character of a given class is practically identical.
You cannot make a fighter that specializes in diplomacy or one that will prefer a direct approach.
Of course you can mutilate your character by choosing certain feats, but in most cases you will usually choose additional stats or one of the more op feats.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Low level characters would never have a chance ever against higher level ones... Not even a small chance.
Yes. This is what I want and is actually how combat progression works in 5e. Skills in 5e are (very slowly) linear, whereas combat is exponential.

Combat and magical-ability wise, level 1 D&D 5e characters are novices. Better than the average commoner, sure, but not overwhelmingly better. Easily defeatable by a goblin.
Level 20 characters, however, are practically gods. Due to bounded accuracy, a goblin could still possibly hit their AC. But due to ~unbounded abilities and HP, low-level characters&monsters don't stand a chance.

However, when you look at skills (and STs), the differences are comparatively miniscule. A level 20 adventurer is only ~35% more likely to succeed on the same check than a level 1 adventurer with the same skill proficiency. Which is about the same difference between a level 1 adventurer and a (unskilled) commoner.

There are loads of good things about bounded accuracy. It vastly simplifies the game which has certainly helped with 5e's popularity. But personally, I'd rather a bit more complexity and level 1 adventurers being unable to succeed on certain things (e.g., DC 30 lockpicking/acrobatics/perception) that higher-level characters can do with ease. To bring it back to the thread's topic, I'd be fine if Larian took some liberties with this.

p.s. Regarding Advantage: with my system of skill advancement DCs would be increased, so Advantage should have a similar effect as currently, though it would obviously help less if you're completely unskilled. But theoretically you could still Help an ally, giving them Advantage!
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 09:27 PM
Let me say, I'm not saying I don't get where you're coming from. I'm just obviously quite happy with 5e because I think it's easier and once you really delve into it... I just think many people don't fully understand and appreciate how it works.

Level 1 Mage, Arcana +5 because proficient and +3 Int
Level 1 Fighter, Arcana +0 because not proficient and 0 Int
DC 10 = Moderate. Mage needs a 5. Fighter needs 10. Considerable difference.

Same scenario. Level 10.
Mage = +7. Needs 3 or higher
Fighter = +0. Needs 10 or higher.

Similar scenario.
Level 1 Rogue, Stealth + 7 with expertise and Dex +3
Level 1 Mage, Stealth +4 with proficiency and Dex +2
Level 1 Fighter, Stealth +1 no proof and Dex +1 and Disadvantage because of armor
DC 13 Passive Perception for enemy

Rogue needs 6 or higher, Mage 9, Fighter 12 with Dis.

Considerable difference.

Same scenario. Level 10
Rogue = +11, needs a 2
Mage = +6, needs a 7
Fighter= +1, needs a 12 with Dis

Considerable difference.

It's all in the way you build your character. Yes, proficiency alone might not be a huge deal, but couple it with Ability score differences and increases and it makes a bigger impact. Add Expertise and it's an even bigger impact.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Another example: Arabella is bitten by Teela, the snake. Give the player the option to make a Medicine check. If Failure, you watch, like current, as Arabella dies. If Success, you recognize the type of snake she is and immediately devise a remedy to save Arabella's life.
Yeah, I would love more of that kind of stuff - but I do have some issues with the system. And I think it is less BG3 and more DnD 5e.

I find bonuses from characters builds to be underwhelming. Maybe it will get better as I level up, but in EA, bonuses I get from attributes/skills feel minor compared to buffs. As such few things feel like a reward for picking certain build. I do favour Obsidian's flat skill checks, but Disco did dice rolls recently and did them better - with both less RNG through use of two dices, and bigger impact of our build on the result.

The issue I have, is that I feel that check like that still wouldn't properly recognise our investment in medicine. Those who invested in medicine would have advantage, but still best bet would be to buff and force our way through RNG. I don't get the feeling from BG3 of "I build my character that way, and therefore I can do this". I am not sure where the fault lies exactly.
That whole situation with Arabella.. the girl bitten by a snake is literally surrounded by spellcasters who can heal and cure poison, including an "archdruid". Or does poison work so fundamentally differently in 5e that it somehow makes sense no one heals her before she dies?
Posted By: Topgoon Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 10:57 PM
Jumping into this thread quite late and admittedly haven't read all 18 pages. Overall I agree with the spirit of it and that more RAW elements of 5E needs to be brought into BG3.

I agree with #2 and #5 (stricter 5e rules, day & night cycle). Ritual Casting, cover system, reactions, proper short-rests (hit dice) and item attunement. A lot of these little things add tactical elements to gameplay which will ultimately make for a better experience. Night Cycle wouldn't only improve immersion - it'll also completely open a new avenue of gameplay for more stealth based characters. I.e. maybe instead of fighting or lying your way into the Goblin Camp, you can now sneak through. Homebrewing isn't necessarily a bad thing - but only when it enriches the tactical choices, as opposed to simplifying it. I.e. I'm quite happy with the weapon-based special attacks, just because it does help address one of the biggest issues Martials have in 5E.

I support #3 and #4 (larger parties and random encounters), but I don't think they're critical. 5E table top is "balanced" around 4 players, so I'm not strictly against that, but I do like offering player choice. Other than nostalgia for IE games, not sure why "6 max" is the chosen holy number. Honestly if they are opening the party size, I would not mind if they allowed parties of 7-8 if wanted (as long as it's properly balanced - i.e. level slower, encounter adjustments, etc). Let me get the entire fellowship of the ring together please. In terms of random encounters, they can add to immersion but also can become a slog if not well implemented. I think taking inspiration from the Fallout games would be best - i.e. there's a large list of hand-crafted, story-driven "random" encounters, but also some generic ones. So it's almost a treat each time you run into one.

I don't agree with #1 - the requirement for having "proper" stats for 5E monsters. Now, that doesn't mean Larian should change everything and lose the core mechanics behind iconic monsters. I.e. a Red Dragon should still breath fire, etc. However, I think strict adherence is detrimental. 5E monster stats/CR are already not very well balanced for table top (usually on the "too weak" side), over-simplified to make them easy for a DM to use on table-top, and that's before we factor in effects of the videogame conversion (just some high level thoughts):
- The Monster Manual is balanced against 4 characters (unoptimized, no magical gear, and 6-8 encounters a day) - which is quite different from what you'd expect from a video game party
- Mobility and extreme range (i.e. 100 ft+) isn't translated well to video games, but can be a huge part of monster tactics and defense in table top
- Per above, resting limits is hard to enforce without making the game too linear (like Solasta), which means you should always expect more player resources
- A single person managing a party is simply going to be far more coordinated and tactical than a group of 4 people (especially the very casual, role-playing focused D&D core of today)
- Combat loops in games are much faster than table top. 1 fight can last an entire session, whereas in 1 gaming session you might do 5-6 times that. This to accelerated player knowledge and loot. The latter especially makes a huge difference
- People in videogames (especially single player) are far likely going to be power-gaming/optimizing. Characters can vary dramatically in power-level depending on optimization
- The reload button changes everything

As someone who has DM'ed and built encounters, I've found stat adjustments to toughen encounter design is usually more precise than adding numbers of enemy, because action economy snowballs quickly and is much tougher to gauge. I.e. if you increase enemy hp by 20%, you can expect a slightly tougher encounter, whereas adding a fifth body to an enemy party of 4 can much more easily snowball an encounter - because there's so many more layers of RNG (initiative, attack rolls, etc).

My overall stance is, change is okay, as long as it's actually thought out and not something dismissed due to laziness. And realistically a lot of the current missing systems (reactions, attunement, etc) does feel like that a bit, as opposed to being well thought-out, deliberate system change.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 10:57 PM
The way I understood that scene was that all the other druids were afraid of Kagha; for one reason or another. She was the leader in that moment so defying her would be against the rules. Some might have been genuinely afraid of her or maybe she was threatening for some reason hidden in another plot line.

The player character is an outsider, though. If Kagha was curious to see what you could do and lets the situation play out then all others would too.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
That whole situation with Arabella.. the girl bitten by a snake is literally surrounded by spellcasters who can heal and cure poison, including an "archdruid". Or does poison work so fundamentally differently in 5e that it somehow makes sense no one heals her before she dies?
Im complaining about this for whole last year. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/12/21 11:49 PM
Pros of 5e skill system
Easy to remember skill bonuses. If 1 skill is +4 for Dex, all skills for Dex are likely +4 if proficient. I don't have +8 Stealth and +4 Sleight of hand, etc.
Simple level ups. I don't have to spend skill points. Thus, it doesn't take a 30 minutes to level up 1 character.
It gets the job done. If done right, there is still a considerable enough difference to make a distinction between proficient and not proficient.
Stabilizes difficulty levels so you keep the same basic difficulties even as you gain higher levels. With previous systems, of you were unskilled, a moderate difficulty was brutal. You get like +1 or +2 against a DC 15 while a skilled person might have +8. Try being a mage with +2 for Athletics who needs to make a moderate jump versus a fighter with +8 or +10. Mage would fail like so many times. When it should be 50/50 for unskilled, it was 50/50 for skilled.

Cons of 5e
Not as diverse with skills. You don't have someone with really high Arcana because they focused more in that, excelling in one skill far above the others. They might have +8 in Arcana, +5 in History, +3 in Religion, +9 in Persuade. Other systems vary the skills more.

I'm out of time, but I'm sure you'll all give more cons. 😁
Posted By: Niara Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/12/21 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
But since the Pathfinder system averages out the typical skill DCs between characters of all skills, Pathfinder characters that put a lot of ranks into a skill are much better than their D&D counterparts.

In Pathfinder, a level 1 "moderately challenging" DC is 15. A player with ranks in a class skill can have a +6 (60% chance) while a player with no ranks in it has a +1 (35% chance).
But at level 18, a "moderately challenging" DC is 30. A player with points in the skill can easily have a ~27+ (including magical items, feats, etc: >90% chance) while the player with no ranks has a +6 (0% chance). Even players with a few ranks will have maybe a +12, which is still only a 15% chance.

Whereas in 5e, normal level 1 characters (ignoring rogues/expertise) will have a +5 bonus to certain skills and +1 to some others (55% and 35% chance again to hit DC 15).
At level 18, these same skills will have bonuses of +12 and +2. Let's say the DC for a similarly difficult check goes up to DC 18. This is a 75% chance for the skilled player and a 25% chance for the unskilled.

In sum, higher level 5e characters have a lower chance of success for skilled checks than their Pathfinder counterparts, and the difference between unskilled and skilled 5e characters is less than Pathfinder characters. Thus, rng matters more in 5e.

You're missing a detail here;

In Pf, the DC of checks moves relative to the party - as you said yourself, a moderate challenge is represented by a 15 at low levels, and by a 30 at high levels in Pf. This is NOT the case in 5e.

This means that your comparison is not balanced.

In Pf, a level 1 moderate challenge is 15. And players might be expected to have a 60% chance to succeed if trained towards it, and a ~35% chance if not.
In 5e at level 1, a moderate challenge is 15. Players might be expected to have a +5 if trained (55%) and +1/+2 if not (~35%).

At level 18 in pf a moderate challenge is a 30 DC, and a +90% chance if we include feats magic items and features (trusting your numbers), while an untrained character won't be able to succeed at all, at this 'moderate challenge'

At level 18, in 5e, a moderate challenge is still a DC 15. That's the marker for a moderate challenge and it doesn't change. A character with proficiency, and let's say one core stat exceed and one magic item that adds +1 to the skill in question, nothing else - they'd probably have more than that, but I'm keeping it slim - will have a +13 - so a +90% chance to succeed. An untrained character will still be at that roughly 35% chance to pass a moderate challenge that they were originally.

In sum, higher level 5e characters have a equal or better chances of success for skilled checks than their Pathfinder counterparts, and generally have to sacrifice less to get there, and the difference between unskilled and skilled 5e characters is less than Pathfinder characters.

If you present ME those two systems and ask me which one feels like better character skill progression and growth, I'm absolutely going to tell you it's the second one, hands down.

In one game, my level 1 ranger has a +9 to hit with her bow - on the trip through to level 4 she never missed once.
In another game my rogue has +11 to stealth at level 5 (and +10 to initiative).
In another game, my bard has a +12 to performance and persuasion, still at low levels as well.

The bonuses are plenty potent enough in 5e's system, and they absolutely do NOT need to be any higher. You can definitely build your characters to be effective and skilled at certain things, already. The skill progression in 5e is good. It's Meaningful. I far, Far prefer it to other previous systems.

Like Pathfinder... where you will frequently have characters who will drown on still calm lakes because they didn't have the spare points to put ranks into their specific "swimming" skill, because they needed those skill ranks for other things that actually made them effective in their role, like stealth, sleight of hand, disable device, perception, bluff - you know, the ones that matter... but since they didn't 'waste' ranks on 'swimming', they now will drown on calm placid lakes on sunny still days, if they try to take 10 on the swim across it. Such a great system I don't think, thanks...
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/12/21 12:52 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
You're missing a detail here;

In Pf, the DC of checks moves relative to the party - as you said yourself, a moderate challenge is represented by a 15 at low levels, and by a 30 at high levels in Pf. This is NOT the case in 5e.

This means that your comparison is not balanced.
Somewhat. While technically, yes the definition of "moderate difficulty" checks in 5e doesn't increase, in practice it would. Higher level 5e characters face higher level monsters, who will have higher stats and PBs. E.g., a 5e goblin's passive stealth is 16 while a Vampire's (CR 13) passive stealth is 19. This is why I slightly increased my high-level typical/moderate DCs even for 5e. Though I admit this only necessarily holds true for contested checks and remains a much small difference than in PF.

Phrased differently, high-level 5e characters should typically be dealing with "hard" or "very hard" checks, while PF's system scales so that the term "moderate" is ~equally applicable to all levels of play.

Originally Posted by Niara
The bonuses are plenty potent enough in 5e's system, and they absolutely do NOT need to be any higher. You can definitely build your characters to be effective and skilled at certain things, already. The skill progression in 5e is good. It's Meaningful. I far, Far prefer it to other previous systems.

Like Pathfinder... where you will frequently have characters who will drown on still calm lakes because they didn't have the spare points to put ranks into their specific "swimming" skill, because they needed those skill ranks for other things that actually made them effective in their role, like stealth, sleight of hand, disable device, perception, bluff - you know, the ones that matter... but since they didn't 'waste' ranks on 'swimming', they now will drown on calm placid lakes on sunny still days, if they try to take 10 on the swim across it. Such a great system I don't think, thanks...
To be clear, I'm not arguing for a Pathfinder system of craziness. I would like some compromise between the two systems, weighted more towards 5e. Where 5e players can both manually allocate points to improve skills (this part especially), and doing so can result in a slightly bigger (~+15 at level 20 instead of +11) bonuses. Or you can spread out your points to be more of a jack-of-all-trades. But I also understand why people wouldn't want this, and I totally agree that the pathfinder system can be messy/frustrating/dumb.

p.s. I'll again link this to ST progression in 5e, which I think has the same problems but even worse. Enemy DCs go up and failing to save against a spell is typically much worse than failing a skill check.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/12/21 03:37 AM
I'm working this out.

Stealth. Rogue builds. Dex 16

Level 1 no prof = +2
Level 1 prof = +4
Level 1 expertise = +6

Easy Dif = 5 which is a 75% chance of success if no skill Bonus at all
Mod = 10, or 50% chance unskilled
Challenging = 15, or 25% chance unskilled
Grueling = 20, or 5% chance unskilled

DCs are based on unskilled characters.

So, Rogue unskilled at stealth would have to roll an 8 or higher for moderate stealth, which is 60% chance of success. Skilled would need 6, or 70%, and expert a 4 or 80% chance. With Advantage, say because of darkness, chance increases exponentially.

Level 10 no prof = +2
Level 10 prof = +6
Level 10 expertise = +10

Moderate difficulty. Unskilled Rogue still needs 8, 60% chance, skilled needs 4, 80% chance and expert needs 0, 100% chance.

So, unskilled remained at 60%. Skilled increased by 10% and expert by 20%.

Take past D&D. Max skill rank was 4. Add +2 for Dex. So +6 for max Skilled at Level 1. Unskilled might be +2. Difficulty 15 is moderate.

13 or higher unskilled, 9 for Skilled. Unskilled = 35% chance, Skilled = 55%. That's pretty sucky for a Skilled character. Moderate means 50% chance for Skilled characters, not unskilled. So the entire system works fine as long as you're Skilled. Unskilled means it is brutal. Again, if you're an unskilled mage at athletics and you really need to make a jump... sorry. You're Doomed.

5e, the unskilled mage has at least a better chance. Certainly better than 35%.

That's what I like. Simple and better in terms of chance. Yes, Skilled people have a better chance, but it's not so big a gap that the unskilled is screwed.

In previous versions, a DC of 25 was impossible for unskilled, but many Skilled could do it well enough. It was too extreme and very frustrating. Skilled would be bored because they could ace it, and unskilled would just be poopmout of luck.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/12/21 04:08 PM
Going back to party size of 6, I remembered another main reason I want proper 5e rules and stats. Current game nerfed stats and rules would be way too easy for a party of 6. My reasons for wanting party of 6 are all in that megathread, but the point is that the game would be well balanced for a party of 6 if they used proper stats and abilities and rules.
Posted By: Archaven Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 05:50 PM
is there a help action yet in bg3? i read the rules it seems there's an help action where you can grant advantage to your ally in the next attack roll. i recall in first EA i never see any help action. correct me if i'm wrong.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 07:09 PM
I think the Help button is mostly for reviving fallen allies to stabilize them and give them 1 HP so they can rejoin the fight.

I haven't tried it recently, but I know the last time I tried it, it did not do the Help function of giving advantage to an ally.

Can anyone else confirm?
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I think the Help button is mostly for reviving fallen allies to stabilize them and give them 1 HP so they can rejoin the fight.

I haven't tried it recently, but I know the last time I tried it, it did not do the Help function of giving advantage to an ally.

Can anyone else confirm?


The last time I played, when I used the Help button, I believe the character was only downed and not dead yet. Not sure if it gave it advantage but only 1 HP.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 07:31 PM
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp. The game refused to do anything else but to attack that 1 hp character and I didn't have any other options except to die or reload the game. Shouldn't there be a limit to how many times you can help a character back up?
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by heuron
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp. The game refused to do anything else but to attack that 1 hp character and I didn't have any other options except to die or reload the game. Shouldn't there be a limit to how many times you can help a character back up?
While the whac-a-mole emergent gameplay is a valid criticism of the Help action in BG3 (and to a lesser extent, the death ST mechanic/healing word in 5e), I'm not sure how such a Help limit would give you more options in this case?

I'm assuming you always Helped your ally instead of simply attacking the enemy because you didn't want that ally to die (or you'd need both characters alive & in the fight to have a chance of winning)..? But if there was a Help limit, then your ally would just die once you reached that limit and you'd be in the same situation of dying and reloading.

To be clear, I agree that there should be a Help limit (of zero); I'm just a bit confused what your reasons are. Is it just that you find this aspect of gameplay un-immersive/dumb/gimmicky?

Edit: And yes, in BG3 the Help Action can revive downed characters with 1 HP, and also remove limited conditions like Prone, Sleep, Webbed. It cannot be used for giving Advantage as in PnP 5e.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I'm assuming you always Helped your ally instead of simply attacking the enemy because you didn't want that ally to die (or you'd need both characters alive & in the fight to have a chance of winning)..? But if there was a Help limit, then your ally would just die once you reached that limit and you'd be in the same situation of dying and reloading.

That was exactly the situation. I did it on purpose as a test. The one character that was up could not possibly win so I, effectively, engaged in a stalemate. I don't have a problem with it but I thought it was interesting that I could just keep helping the downed character up. I thought there would be a limit; which would add to the game's difficulty.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by heuron
That was exactly the situation. I did it on purpose as a test. The one character that was up could not possibly win so I, effectively, engaged in a stalemate. I don't have a problem with it but I thought it was interesting that I could just keep helping the downed character up. I thought there would be a limit; which would add to the game's difficulty.
Makes sense. This could also be solved by AI changes, where the AI begins to target a character that keeps reviving downed allies. This would shake things up a bit, but honestly would still result in combats being ~unloseable if you have more PCs than enemies.

Replacing BG3's Help Action with 5e's Help action - or making it so the Help action only stabilizes, doesn't bring to 1 hp - would be better. This would force you to use consumable resources (potions, scrolls, or spell slots) to revive downed characters.

Other solutions could be giving characters mechanical penalties every time they're brought back to 1 hp in a single combat or, when characters go to 0 hp, they start with 1 automatic failed Death Saving Throw per every time they've gone down previously in the same combat. But these solutions are adding homebrew on top of homebrew, which isn't the best.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 08:36 PM
Another interesting thing I tested was using Misty Step as an alternative to lock picking doors (or gates) you can see through.

Dror Ragzlin has a trophy room that is behind a locked door. The door is just made of bars so you can see through to the other side. The game indicates that it does not want me to Misty Step in there when it tells me the location is out of sight or unreachable (I forget the exact phrasing). I managed to do it in a very specific spot immediately on the other side of the door, however.

Is Misty Step a teleportation spell? Can it not send a body behind a door like that?

Would my use of it not be allowed in PnP?
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 11:12 PM
Misty Step is 100% a teleportation spell; it allows you to "teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space you can see." PnP Misty Step even works for teleporting through transparent surfaces - e.g., glass or a Wall of Force.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/12/21 11:28 PM
In that case I hope obstacles that are transparent or have large gaps (like gate style doors) get flagged by the program so that Misty Step doesn't get blocked. It's a very useful and mischievous ability for a thief to have.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/12/21 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by heuron
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp.
Yes, I had encounters where 3 companions would constanty get downed and helped back up, while one was doing actual killing. While silly, I wouldn't want it removed without some major rebalancing to the combat experience.

To me,(talking purely from my experience in BG3, with little knowledge on how it works in PnP), it would make more sense if "help" would stabilize compaions (stop them from bleeding out) but not revive them back to combat (perhaps medicide check on help? if failed they are just stabilisided, if succesful they get up with one HP)- gringing them back up would require spell or healing item.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/12/21 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by heuron
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp.
Yes, I had encounters where 3 companions would constanty get downed and helped back up, while one was doing actual killing. While silly, I wouldn't want it removed without some major rebalancing to the combat experience.

To me,(talking purely from my experience in BG3, with little knowledge on how it works in PnP), it would make more sense if "help" would stabilize compaions (stop them from bleeding out) but not revive them back to combat (perhaps medicide check on help? if failed they are just stabilisided, if succesful they get up with one HP)- gringing them back up would require spell or healing item.

Here again the pure 5e rules would stop that and a party of 6 would balance combat out so 1 or 2 downed companions wouldn't likely mean game over and reload. 5e rules would make it so a character would have to make a Medicine roll to stabilize downed characters. Not bring them back into combat with 1 HP. That is what potions and healing spells are for.

So, again, the 5e rules provide meaning and significance to various game elements. Potions and healing spells are more valuable because downed allies can not only be stabilized and kept from death, but they can bring them back into the fight. Medicine also gains a bigger value boost, making it so much more important because now it may literally mean life or death for allies to have a higher Medicine skill.

All they'd have to do is implement the 5e rules and make it so that instead of throwing potions, a person can administer a potion to a downed character if they are at touch range. So, instead of Help = instant 1 HP, you click on the Help button and several options appear. One is to administer a Health Potion. One is to Stabilize. One is to add advantage to an ally's roll. This would make Help so much more valuable and meaningful in the game and less a broken mechanic that people can use to spam waking up a fallen companion just to keep enemies busy. I'm also missing the Help providing advantage option, which it should have.
Posted By: Archaven Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/12/21 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by heuron
I once got stuck in a loop where one character kept getting downed while I used another to help them back up to 1 hp.
Yes, I had encounters where 3 companions would constanty get downed and helped back up, while one was doing actual killing. While silly, I wouldn't want it removed without some major rebalancing to the combat experience.

To me,(talking purely from my experience in BG3, with little knowledge on how it works in PnP), it would make more sense if "help" would stabilize compaions (stop them from bleeding out) but not revive them back to combat (perhaps medicide check on help? if failed they are just stabilisided, if succesful they get up with one HP)- gringing them back up would require spell or healing item.

Here again the pure 5e rules would stop that and a party of 6 would balance combat out so 1 or 2 downed companions wouldn't likely mean game over and reload. 5e rules would make it so a character would have to make a Medicine roll to stabilize downed characters. Not bring them back into combat with 1 HP. That is what potions and healing spells are for.

So, again, the 5e rules provide meaning and significance to various game elements. Potions and healing spells are more valuable because downed allies can not only be stabilized and kept from death, but they can bring them back into the fight. Medicine also gains a bigger value boost, making it so much more important because now it may literally mean life or death for allies to have a higher Medicine skill.

All they'd have to do is implement the 5e rules and make it so that instead of throwing potions, a person can administer a potion to a downed character if they are at touch range. So, instead of Help = instant 1 HP, you click on the Help button and several options appear. One is to administer a Health Potion. One is to Stabilize. One is to add advantage to an ally's roll. This would make Help so much more valuable and meaningful in the game and less a broken mechanic that people can use to spam waking up a fallen companion just to keep enemies busy. I'm also missing the Help providing advantage option, which it should have.

+1. Was wondering if it's larian's plan that there will be this help providing advantage option in full release? As i understand it's part of the dnd5e rules. After all isn't larian making a dnd5e game? I like this rule so that rogue can land sneak attack.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/12/21 06:40 PM
When helping another, it would be just a matter of selecting a character that you are going to provide advantage to. Then, on that character's turn, both characters would perform the same action. In other words, if Lae'zel was going to help Astarion, she would click on the help button and select Advantage, or something like that. Then she could select Astarion to give him advantage and therefore sneak attack. End turn. On Astarion's turn, he does sneak attack via bow. Select Target. Both he and Lae'zel fire a ranged attack. If she has no ranged weapon, they could make it so that she scoops up a rock and throws it. After all, she's only helping him by distracting the foe. She doesn't need to actually shoot or throw something that would hit.

Likewise, when helping in melee, the person who is helping should be shown as swinging their weapon or throwing a punch at the same time as the one who is truly trying to hit.
Posted By: Archaven Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 05:14 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
When helping another, it would be just a matter of selecting a character that you are going to provide advantage to. Then, on that character's turn, both characters would perform the same action. In other words, if Lae'zel was going to help Astarion, she would click on the help button and select Advantage, or something like that. Then she could select Astarion to give him advantage and therefore sneak attack. End turn. On Astarion's turn, he does sneak attack via bow. Select Target. Both he and Lae'zel fire a ranged attack. If she has no ranged weapon, they could make it so that she scoops up a rock and throws it. After all, she's only helping him by distracting the foe. She doesn't need to actually shoot or throw something that would hit.

Likewise, when helping in melee, the person who is helping should be shown as swinging their weapon or throwing a punch at the same time as the one who is truly trying to hit.

i think it's not difficult to implement at all. i hope they honor the dnd ruleset. also.. i think they should take out bonus action as it's exclusive to certain feats or class.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 06:24 AM
Originally Posted by Archaven
I think it's not difficult to implement at all.
Depends on your point of view ...
Its not "hard" to say that Rise of Skywalker was a good movie. I mean there is no complicated wordfor saying.
But to force yourself to tell such obvious lie? Thats the tricky part.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Archaven
I think it's not difficult to implement at all.
Depends on your point of view ...
Its not "hard" to say that Rise of Skywalker was a good movie. I mean there is no complicated wordfor saying.
But to force yourself to tell such obvious lie? Thats the tricky part.

Ah, you're talking out your butt. Do you really know how hard it is? Do you?

I have an inkling since I work with IT folks all day long. It's not hard from a "certain point of view."

See what I did there? Star Wars quote. 😁

But seriously. It would be no harder than anything else they have to program. If I can do a simple version in Microsoft Excel, with relatively little pain, I would think they could in BG3. Granted, it's MUCH bigger than anything I'd do in Excel, but the point is that it can be done.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 09:27 AM
If we are talking in Star Wars refferences, i think i shall call you Stromtrooper ... since you are missing my point. laugh

Lets try it from the other side ...
Its easy to write a simple code ... its not so easy to include it to your final product, if you DONT want it there. wink
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
If we are talking in Star Wars refferences, i think i shall call you Stromtrooper ... since you are missing my point. laugh

Lets try it from the other side ...
Its easy to write a simple code ... its not so easy to include it to your final product, if you DONT want it there. wink

Nah. I got your point. Twas only joking around. Trying to be less serious out here. Doesn't do any of us any good to get all fired up. Right?

Anyway - Well yes. Certainly if they DON'T want it there, then this is all just pointless. If they're going to be stubborn and not give people what they are asking for, an option for 5e stats and rules, and they're going to force people to play this weird DOS/D&D 5e mixed up mesh of rules and stats, then that's what we're going to get and we'll just have to deal with it.

I didn't think we were talking about what they WANT or DON'T want. I mean, how do we know what they WANT or DON'T want? We don't. Not really. Unless you are an employee who works for them and you have some sort of inside knowledge, then we don't really know much about that.

So, I can't really base any of my suggestions or feedback on what they may or may not want to do. Now, if they'd communicate with us more, and they'd just tell us something like, "We don't want to provide players with actual D&D 5e rules and stats," then I'd just stop trying to push it and we'd all move on and everything would be just peachy... except we'd be a bit disappointed that they aren't going to give us what we were hoping for.

But since we have no definite feedback or answers about this, I'm just going to keep assuming that my voice matters and that if I keep pointing out that I think it'd be good to implement a 5e rule system and stats, maybe, just maybe, they'll actually do it.

As Minsc used to say, "The squeaky wheel gets the KICK!" So, if I'm squeaky enough, maybe I"ll get a kick. smile
Posted By: Lady Avyna Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
If we are talking in Star Wars refferences, i think i shall call you Stromtrooper ... since you are missing my point. laugh

Lets try it from the other side ...
Its easy to write a simple code ... its not so easy to include it to your final product, if you DONT want it there. wink

Nah. I got your point. Twas only joking around. Trying to be less serious out here. Doesn't do any of us any good to get all fired up. Right?

Anyway - Well yes. Certainly if they DON'T want it there, then this is all just pointless. If they're going to be stubborn and not give people what they are asking for, an option for 5e stats and rules, and they're going to force people to play this weird DOS/D&D 5e mixed up mesh of rules and stats, then that's what we're going to get and we'll just have to deal with it.

I didn't think we were talking about what they WANT or DON'T want. I mean, how do we know what they WANT or DON'T want? We don't. Not really. Unless you are an employee who works for them and you have some sort of inside knowledge, then we don't really know much about that.

So, I can't really base any of my suggestions or feedback on what they may or may not want to do. Now, if they'd communicate with us more, and they'd just tell us something like, "We don't want to provide players with actual D&D 5e rules and stats," then I'd just stop trying to push it and we'd all move on and everything would be just peachy... except we'd be a bit disappointed that they aren't going to give us what we were hoping for.

But since we have no definite feedback or answers about this, I'm just going to keep assuming that my voice matters and that if I keep pointing out that I think it'd be good to implement a 5e rule system and stats, maybe, just maybe, they'll actually do it.

As Minsc used to say, "The squeaky wheel gets the KICK!" So, if I'm squeaky enough, maybe I"ll get a kick. smile

I agree with what you want in BG3 but unfortunately it seems Larian has a different idea for the game, which WOTC seems to support. Here is an article from 2019 talking about this, it's titled "Baldur's Gate 3 will combine the best of Divinity and D&D 5th Edition"

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

Here's a quote: "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke, "so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure. That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."

I don't think that quote has to do with D&D but more with Divinity which is what made their studio well known.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 03:30 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I didn't think we were talking about what they WANT or DON'T want. I mean, how do we know what they WANT or DON'T want? We don't. Not really.
I did ...
And how do i know what tgey want? Well easily ... i see what they do. laugh
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 04:29 PM
Well, whatever. Again, as Minsc used to say, "The squeaky wheel gets the KICK!" So, if I'm squeaky enough, maybe I'll get a kick.

If you don't tell people what you want, and you don't even try to fight for it, then you must not really want it. If you don't fight for it, you likely won't get what you want.

My hope is that Larian will see enough people want a more authentic 5e experience, so maybe we'll get it at least as an option.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 17/12/21 10:48 PM
Isnt it obvious? People left in these forums aren't even BG1 and BG2 fans. Not sure even if Larian are fans of the prior games.
But hey, its called BG3 so yey for that.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 28/12/21 12:31 PM
Ok. Bringing this one back.

Party of 6 rocks! It is by far superior to party of 4. That said, proper 5e stats and rules would make it even better.

That said, you know what I'm discovering? Homebrew like surfaces and such aren't so bad with party of 6. Goblin fight at windmill, goblins shooting acid arrows or throwing exploding bombs now makes party of 6 more challenging instead of frustrating.

So, although I do still want 5e stats for things like phase spiders and imps and intellect devourers and such, I'm telling you, party of 6 makes even the homebrew stuff more tolerable.

Still too many potions though. My gosh, if I just used potions all the time I'd never need a cleric ever. Gotta tame down the amount of items that you can just use to replace everyone or something.
Posted By: Lunar Dante Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/01/22 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Long Rest = Unlimited by default. Option to make it Restricted. Can only Long Rest at certain Rest Areas like Emerald Grove. (You might say this isn't a RAW 5e rule. However, no DM would allow players to just randomly long rest whenever they want wherever they want without some sort of consequence or restriction at all. "Say, Mr. DM. We just killed a goblin leader. Hmmm. But we're pretty banged up. Can we Long Rest right now inside their goblin base?" "No! Are you insane?" says the DM. "There're goblins all around you, and they're super pissed. Get out and then I'll maybe let you find a safe place to rest.")

Shove = Bonus action by default. Option to make it an Action like the 5e rules state. Why? Because I can literally shove someone off a cliff and kill them and then run up to another enemy and attack them with my sword and kill them; effectively killing two enemies in one round. Oh, and btw, the enemies can do that to you too BEFORE you can even act. This very seemingly small thing completely throws off combat, making it more volatile especially as you gain higher levels. 3 out of 4 times when I start the Githyanki Patrol fight, they are attacking twice AND still doing things like shoving my characters around; 3 actions, basically, in one round, and since they are standardly fast, that means they are usually having at least one or two go first, seriously beating the snot out of my characters even before I get a chance to go once. Cutting down on these kinds of homebrews limits both players and enemies more, thus stabilizing combat better and balancing it out better. But, again, I'm only asking for the option so I can play a more stable, realistic combat without enemies making two or three attacks per turn (shove also being an attack whether you call it an attack or not).

Scrolls = Unrestricted by default. Option to make them restricted by class per 5e rules. Again, this adds value to the different types of casters. Clerics being the only ones who are able to use healing scrolls, especially revives, makes them SO much more valuable to the party. If you even have a cleric sitting at camp and you didn't bring them with, but you know you can go get them and bring them to a dead companion to rez them, that cleric is still a very valuable member of the party to have around. If anyone can rez, clerics are less valuable.

Attunement of Items = Unrestricted by default. Option to make it so that you have to attune per standard 5e rules in order to use certain items effectively. This prevents characters from just combing through their inventory and selecting any old item whenever they might need it to use in a particular fight. You have to be more strategic about which items you attune your characters to so that you aren't just willy-nilly grabbing the flaming sword to use against an enemy who is weak to fire and then in the next couple of rounds pulling out your ice sword and using it because you're now fighting an ice vulnerable monster. You might have to strategically spread your items out around your party, making sure at least someone has an item that is of fire and someone has an item of ice and so on and so forth so that you are working as a team instead of just solo-ing everything in the game because you can switch to just the right item whenever you need it. (Again, though, just asking for the option.)

Jump = Crazy Larian jumping 30 feet distances over people's heads by default. Option to make it so that my characters jump actual normal distances per 5e rules so they aren't jumping over people's heads like super heroes, and their distances align with movement speed, not allowing to add additional distance beyond normal movement speed.

Shoving distance = Able to shove someone 300+ feet down a pit in certain areas by default. Option to only allow characters to shove characters 5 feet, like in the 5e rules. Also, ability to shove prone, or both combined. Why? Because ridiculously unrealistic shove distances make the game more volatile. I was literally tossed 300 or more feet by a drow in the Underdark and still somehow my character survived with 1 HP. I was a good 10-15 feet from the edge, but the drow still shoved me off the edge and I continued to soar further away and down to a lower level. That character was SO far from the battle, she never got back into it by the time it was over, all because of the ridiculous shove distances. You all might like that, but I'd like some realistic 5 feet distances please (monsters and characters with greater strength naturally receiving some additional distance since it makes sense that they are stronger and could therefore throw someone further.)

Shall I go on? Over and over again, Larian has stretch or changed the rules. The game barely even seems like D&D because of it.

So, again, I ask... are we really playing a game based on D&D 5e? Hmmm. I guess in the sense that it is called D&D 5e with D&D 5e monster names and appearances and characters are called clerics and rogues and fighters and druids, but the point is that there are so many differences that we are not really playing D&D 5e. Are we?

Hello fellow GM !

I used to view things the same way you do. I was shocked by the systematic advantage of high ground, the jump which bypassed AoO, the lack of disengage system, the fact that you could eat while in combat getting back hp or the fact that you could throw healing potions on your companions to heal them... I was pissed off. But they arranged all that and I am a quite relieved. So THANK YOU LARIAN (and I positively changed my reviews of the game on internet because of that) It is ok for my if if is not perfect from a D&D5 perspective, but, I would like to comment on your feedbacks :

SCROLLS = Unrestricted by default. Option to make them restricted by class per 5e rules.
+100 : it is so true, and it is the biggest issue currently for me. And also, it would be great to get super treasures for the wizard : a spellbook at times, from which you can learn new spells as per the rules !!!! (it is so D&D !)

Long Rest = Option to make it Restricted. Can only Long Rest at certain Rest Areas like Emerald Grove.
+1 for me : that, or make random encounters !

Shove = Bonus action by default. Option to make it an Action like the 5e rules state.
+0.75 yes, it is too powerful compared to other actions. We could argue that it is very fast to shove someone, and more realistic, and maybe they might change that in D&D5.5

Attunement of Items = Unrestricted by default. Option to make it so that you have to attune per standard 5e rules in order to use certain items effectively.
+1

Jump = Crazy Larian jumping 30 feet distances over people's heads by default.
Yes, but now I think thet can't change it because many locations are designed already and only accessible with this jump range. However, they can still reduce a bit the range of jumps in fights and it will be more realistic !

Shoving distance = Option to only allow characters to shove characters 5 feet, like in the 5e rules.
+1

And yes, still TOO MANY potions and scrolls !
Posted By: WebSpyder Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/01/22 07:37 PM
+1 to all of this but additionally, the option to shove someone prone instead of pushing them away. Also, when anyone gets shoved, why are they able to immediately stand? They should be prone until their turn where they use half their movement to stand.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/01/22 07:41 PM
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
... I was shocked by the systematic advantage of high ground, the jump which bypassed AoO, the lack of disengage system, the fact that you could eat while in combat getting back hp or the fact that you could throw healing potions on your companions to heal them... I was pissed off. But they arranged all that and I am a quite relieved. So THANK YOU LARIAN (and I positively changed my reviews of the game on internet because of that) It is ok for my if if is not perfect from a D&D5 perspective, but, I would like to comment on your feedbacks :

Maybe this was a clever negotiation tactic. Deviate so far from D&D rules that every time they change something back people are grateful.

The game is still all about cheesy exploits, unlimited long rest and pushing people into pits and lava. PC's who are forever lost or incinerated to ash get transported back to camp without explanation in a very arcade "3 lives" fashion.

It still doesn't feel like D&D to me. I'm not immersed. Everything screams generic video game and not Forgotten Realms or grown-up RPG. BG1&2 did not have this problem. BG3 feels more like Super Mario in Forgotten Realms.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/01/22 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Maybe this was a clever negotiation tactic. Deviate so far from D&D rules that every time they change something back people are grateful.
I enjoy believing this is what happened with the Sonic the Hedgehog Movie
- Make something obviously bad, with no intention of using it
- Get lots of negative press coverage ("any press is good press")
- "Fix" it to something that's better (and that you always planned on using)
- Get incredible acclaim, benefiting from both the original negative press and people now feeling like they must watch the movie to support the fact that the devs listened.
- Profit immensely

Regardless, good job Larian for going back on some of your OP homebrew. Keep it up.
Posted By: Temohjyn Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/02/22 06:41 PM
Quote
So, I've been kinda saying it on other posts, but I'm laying it out here in a brand new one. ...

Huzzah. Emphatic +1. Excellently said, and I concur whole-heartedly.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/02/22 06:59 PM
Omg I would love Random Encounters during rest as a possibility. Can that even be done with this engine?
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/02/22 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Omg I would love Random Encounters during rest as a possibility. Can that even be done with this engine?
Well ...
Basicaly something quite simmilar is allready there.
When Minthara attacks you, and then another night when Halsin come for revenge ...

I mean its still scripted obviously, but all you need to add is one random number generator, that ill determine if those enemies will appear or not and voila!
Impression of random encounter is complete. laugh
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 11/02/22 11:13 PM
You are kind of missing the whole point of Random Encounters. It is about variety. You know how variety is the spice of life. Having Random Encounters allows players to go up against more of a variety of enemies. It also provides greater replayability combat wise for the game as a whole.

During one playthrough, I might fight a pack of wolves near Moon Haven. Next playthrough, I might fight nothing near moonhaven, but I fight a giant toad at the bog. Then during that same playthrough I fight stirges also in the bog. Next playthrough I don't fight any of those, but I fight boggles or maybe bandits on the road.

Random Encounters allows things to be mixed up and it makes the world feel more alive. I take a long rest, I get up, and I might face something new that day that I never fought before instead of having an empty world with no enemies to fight once I've cleared a certain area out no matter how many times I've gone to bed.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 07:06 AM
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Omg I would love Random Encounters during rest as a possibility. Can that even be done with this engine?
I don't see how the engine would be a restriction IF Larian wanted to implement that.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
You are kind of missing the whole point of Random Encounters. It is about variety.
It's not just about variety (and honestly there's only so many different encounters you can plan, anyway. At least without going bonkers). It's more than anything about introducing an element of uncertainty.
It's about having AT LEAST a small chance that not everything will always go as planned and the player will always be completely in control of how and when to engage in a combat.
It's about being forced to evaluate if, for instance, the benefits of resting outdoor may be out-weighted by the risks.

And so on.
Posted By: DraigoZarovich Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 07:49 AM
It would be nice if they added watches to long rests so they arent spammed as much, which anyone whose played 5e knows destroys the class balance, especially of casters becoming op while martials and warlocks fall to the side. This seems to be something most here don't seem to fully understand why long rest spam is so bad. I know its not seen here, but wait until you have casters spamming Phantasmal Killer, Flame Strike, or other 3rd level or higher spells every battle while the martials just whack things or get caught in the AoEs, and then simply getting it all back before the next fight.

Regardless +10 to everything. I understand that not all of the rules can be faithfully adapted but I do not feel this is a 5e game. I feel this is Divinity with a DnD paint, and I say this while playing in 2 heavily homebrewed 5e campaigns as well as DMing one. I do enjoy some of their changes, especially to martials, yet the game just does not have the soul of dnd. I do not feel like Im traveling and working with a party, I feel like Im the main character with a bunch of lovable, snarky npcs who only contribute in combat and one contributes to help dialogue. I am not a DnD purist, I just want to at least feel the spirit of it.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 09:37 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
During one playthrough, I might fight a pack of wolves near Moon Haven. Next playthrough, I might fight nothing near moonhaven, but I fight a giant toad at the bog. Then during that same playthrough I fight stirges also in the bog. Next playthrough I don't fight any of those, but I fight boggles or maybe bandits on the road.
And they all are done the same way ...

Developers spawn specific NPCs to specific places to attack you, prepare some behaviour for them, maybe track some routes for them to follow, etc.
And when you are approaching the place those enemies *may* show up .... developers let random number generator generate a number ... wich determine if this particular encounter will show up, or not. smile

Once generator will produce 1 ...
And you are fighting a pack of wolves near Moon Haven ...
Next playthrough it will produce 0 ...
And there is nothing near Moon Haven ...

Then it will produce 1 in different place ...
And you are fighting giant toad at the bog ...
Or it will produce 2 ...
And you are fighting stirges instead of toad ... or this particular encounter was prepared few metters away, so its another randon number generated.

The point is ...
You have to prepare every single encounter manualy, there is nothing like "now you just meet a pack of wolves" ... computers dont understand that, and if you "just spawn an NPC" it will just stand there and look at you, since engine will have no way to deal with it. smile
Therefore its much easiler for developers to simply left random encounters out and let you fight every single thing they prepare, since the only thing they add is the fact that those people whos random number generator will generate 0 will simply not experience their work. laugh
That is the only difference.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 01:07 PM
Just because it's not easy, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.

They can do random encounters right.

That said, I will say this. I in no way want them to up the system requirements for this game. If random encounters were to put a strain on the game, for some reason, I would not want them to include them.

As much as I think they would improve the game, it is more intelligent to keep system requirements where they are so more people can play the game.

But, come on. Don't tell me it's too hard to create random encounters and not worth it. It makes the world feel alive. It surprises players and adds the element of danger instead of, "Well, I cleared out the world. I'm 100% safe now. I know there's an angry camp of goblins in a temple 100 feet from me, but I'm safe here in Moonhaven. Spiders below? No worries. Undead? Nah. Not worried."
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 01:56 PM
There is no system requirement involved at all ...

All you invest is amount of time to create full encounter, and then code it so some people dont see it at all, not bcs of their choices wich players often like ... but simply bcs RNG generated wrong value. laugh
I gues it might be seen as fun by someone, even tho i cant quite understand it, but what exactly does this improve? laugh

//Edit:
Let me put it in different perspective ...
You are writing your fanfiction ...

So lets say you spend few hours describing how they were walking through the forest for example ... meet some guy, talked to each other, fighted some group of wolves.
And then after you will have it all done and prepared, and will be quite satisfied with how it looks ... you roll a dice and instead add to your fanfiction a sentence "so they walked through the forest for few hours" ... all the work you just made wasted, just bcs "random" factor decided. laugh

Then you spend another few hours describing another part in the underdark ... same story as abowe.
And then you roll your dice and you write there instead "so they get through the underdark without any problems" ...

Does that sound like fun?

That is the main problem with random encounters ...
They may sound like good idea "on paper" but in reality they are just HUGE waste of time and resource for adding something that many people will possibly never even see. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 02:43 PM
You're thinking linear story, like a novel.

Video game RPGs are like choose your own adventures. The author writes all sorts of paths that may or may not be followed by said readers. Adding a few more small one-pagers for random encounters is not that much extra work.

Think more like this.

If you go left on this path, turn to page 14.

If you go right, turn to page 18.

Turns to page 18. It reads, Roll a dice and consult the table below.

Rolls dice, consults table, and it says go to page 30. On page 30, it's a random encounter. One page event. Fights slimes. At the end, it says, "return to page 18 and roll again. Reroll page 30 result."
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 05:19 PM
This idea of choosing your adventure is why I'm interested in a "story mode", or whatever it may be called, that removes the dice rolls for non-combat situations. After playing through the game several times it would be nice to just have the [success] or [failure] options revealed to us so we can choose how the story unfolds. Perhaps this could be implemented as a "new game plus" reward that unlocks after playing through "normal" once. This could be useful for those that just want to see all the different permutations of the story without having to pray to RNGeezus.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by heuron
This idea of choosing your adventure is why I'm interested in a "story mode", or whatever it may be called, that removes the dice rolls for non-combat situations. After playing through the game several times it would be nice to just have the [success] or [failure] options revealed to us so we can choose how the story unfolds. Perhaps this could be implemented as a "new game plus" reward that unlocks after playing through "normal" once. This could be useful for those that just want to see all the different permutations of the story without having to pray to RNGeezus.

That completely negates the need, then, for skills. Why even bother with them if you never have need of them?

Rolling skill checks is not only an integral part of the game, it gives a lot more reason to replay the game. One playthrough, you succeed in saving Arabella via Persuade roll. Then next, you fail.

They already provide too many outs now. Because people didn't like failing saving Arabella, they made it so you almost can't fail no matter what. Now, skills matter even less.

I mean, I guess it makes sense to have the option - though I feel like we keep adding to their options list... Gotta be like a mile long by now - but if you're just going to save and reload every time you fail a roll, I guess it makes sense to want an auto succeed feature. It'd be like reading a light novel or manga then instead of playing a game.
Posted By: heuron Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by heuron
...This could be useful for those that just want to see all the different permutations of the story...

That completely negates the need, then, for skills. Why even bother with them if you never have need of them?

A player wouldn't *need* to bother with them. The reason is simply to see all the content that was created play out in the game. That's it. A mod might be more appropriate for this. I mentioned that this would be a kind of reward to unlock. If you think about it, this would give players more reason to keep playing the game; I assume the developers would like this.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
You're thinking linear story, like a novel.
Irellevant ...
It really doesnt matter if player will get first to the swamp, then to the forest and finaly to the mountains ... or if he will explore those things in different order.

The point stays the same ...
You either experience (write or play) some adventure on that place where the adventure was prepared for you, or simply skip it whole bcs "random number generator generated valute that means you are not attacked right now".

I mean just imagine exactly this game as it is, and simply erase some encounters ...
Then imagine it again and simply erase different encounters ...
Then imagine it once again and simply erase different encounters ...
And finaly imagine it yet again and simply erase some mobs and replace them with different mobs ...

THIS is how "random encounters in PC game" would looklike. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
You're thinking linear story, like a novel.
Irellevant ...
It really doesnt matter if player will get first to the swamp, then to the forest and finaly to the mountains ... or if he will explore those things in different order.

The point stays the same ...
You either experience (write or play) some adventure on that place where the adventure was prepared for you, or simply skip it whole bcs "random number generator generated valute that means you are not attacked right now".

I mean just imagine exactly this game as it is, and simply erase some encounters ...
Then imagine it again and simply erase different encounters ...
Then imagine it once again and simply erase different encounters ...
And finaly imagine it yet again and simply erase some mobs and replace them with different mobs ...

THIS is how "random encounters in PC game" would looklike. :-/

Irrelevant.

I'm not talking about encounters like ones already in the game. I'm talking about encounters that randomly generate on top of and in conjunction with ones already in the game, and those encounters would not be as in depth and serious. No voice acting required ot\r dynamic cutscenes. I'm talking something like, "You make camp in the clearing near Scratch. While camping, suddenly, a pack of 4 kobalds wanders into the area. They don't see you" Dialogue options:. Attack. Persuade to go away. Intimidation to scare off. Stealth to avoid. All characters in the party work together. Highest skill amongst party members is used.

Like in NWN 2 Storm of Zehir. I mean, it's been done before. It can be done again but better.

We're not talking huge encounters here. We're talking small, varied encounters to add some flavor and to make the world a more ALIVE place.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I'm not talking about encounters like ones already in the game.
Sometimes i wonder if you ignore me on purpose, or just missing the point so hard. O_o

From engine point of view ... there is no difference between them.

Its just "final amount of encounters" minus random number. laugh

The point was to imagine final situation ... its no matter of any "depth" or "seriousness" nor even "voice acting" or "cutscenes" ...
That is one of reason litteraly nobody mentioned those things until now ...

What im talking about is that those encounters still need to be prepared ...
NPCs need to be told where they can run, what they can attack, wich attack they can use, etc. ... its not just spawning an NPC and tell them "fight as usualy". :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
"You make camp in the clearing near Scratch. While camping, suddenly, a pack of 4 kobalds wanders into the area. They don't see you"

Dialogue options:
Attack.
Persuade to go away.
Intimidation to scare off.
Stealth to avoid.
Wich would require cutscene and possibly even voice acting. laugh
I mean that is Larian standard ... you should be avare of what are we talking about.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Highest skill amongst party members is used.
This would mean even more work tho ...
Since that is not how dialogue options work. smile
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 09:42 PM
I get your point. You're saying Random Encounters would take more work and such, and for what? So people might encounter them maybe?

But I'm saying that's irrelevant. We're talking about what would make the game better.

Everything takes more work. Should they do literally nothing anymore to make the game better just because it's work?

The true difference here is that you don't think it will make the game better. Many of us, though, do. The benefits of random encounters are that it creates a sense of danger. At any time, you could be attacked. You never know, even if you've played the game a hundred times and even if you've cleared out every area from all planned encounters. It creates the illusion of a living world, not static where once you've cleared it, nothing lives there anymore. It's just a ghost town. It creates variety and spices up the game so you never know what you might face this playthrough.

But you see this as unprofitable and a waste of time because players may not see encounters and thus the devs wasted their time.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
We're talking about what would make the game better.
And my counterquestion is how ...

There are two options IF they prepare the encounter ...
Either make it "random" ... wich should provide some benefits that im askig about.
Or make it "permanent" ... wich in my honest opinion should provide exactly the same theoretical benefits, PLUS it will work for everyone. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
The benefits of random encounters are that it creates a sense of danger.
In game where you can long rest litteraly any time? Doubt that. laugh

//Edit:
Originally Posted by GM4Him
not static where once you've cleared it, nothing lives there anymore.
This also isnt true ...

You either create place where enemies can spawn endlessly ...
(Also those enemies would have to be named Bandit, or Goblin, or something simmilar ... since "Random name generators" actualy just gives you random results from list of potential names, no algoritm can "randomly create" names ... so they would repeat themselves sooner or later.)
Wich create both XP and Loot exploit potential.

Or you can let that RNG generate only certain amount of numbers, wich create exactly that "ghost town" you were talking about, once that amount of generated numbers is reached. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 11:19 PM
The benefits of random encounters are that it creates a sense of danger. At any time, you could be attacked. You never know, even if you've played the game a hundred times and even if you've cleared out every area from all planned encounters. It creates the illusion of a living world, not static where once you've cleared it, nothing lives there anymore. It's just a ghost town. It creates variety and spices up the game so you never know what you might face this playthrough.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 12/02/22 11:32 PM
Yeah you just coppied the previous message. laugh

I dunno if you expect me now to do anything else than just coppy my reaction ... O_o
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 01:21 AM
I said,We're talking about what would make the game better.

You asked how?

I already told you. So I repeated it because I already said how. You just disagree, which is fine, but what else needs to be said?

And the point is, random encounters on long rests as well, because you can get attacked in dangerous places when resting, so it limits ;omg resting. You know. Realism - a world that feels more alive, and it discourages an even bigger exploit - long rest spamming, because you never know what enemies you might trigger via random encounter if you long rest in dangerous places. Maybe a troll who wipes you because you're already weak. Oh! Shouldn't have rested in a dangerous place.

And why are you okay with other exploits but not okay with random encounters as a potential exploit, which would not happen super frequently, if done right, so they wouldn't be super great exploits? You know, like long rest spamming... Because long rest spamming is a WAY more severe exploit then random encounters happening infrequently.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 09:28 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
You just disagree
More like there is logical fault in that argument wich negates itself ...
So it seems more like just random promises, like politicians usualy do "it will be better", "i shall improve that", "we will work on that" etc ... nothing specific, never say what or how they are going to improve ... you are just expected to believe and NEVER to think about it. laugh

But if you dont want to give proper arguments i gues i have no way to force you. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
it discourages an even bigger exploit - long rest spamming, because you never know what enemies you might trigger via random encounter if you long rest in dangerous places. Maybe a troll who wipes you because you're already weak.
On the contrary ...
This is more argument for resting after every combat. laugh

I mean if there is option that strong troll will attack me on Long Rest, i would rather face it after single combat (when i have part of my spellslot used) than after five (when i have all of them used). laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
And why are you okay with other exploits but not okay with random encounters as a potential exploit, which would not happen super frequently, if done right, so they wouldn't be super great exploits?
Well if you read it properly you can find out i never said im not okey with it ... i just pointed out that this potential is there. smile
Also i dont really believe that there are any "lesser" or "greater" exploits ... you either are using them or not, how big advantage either gives you is a matter of personal preferences (and chosen class). smile

That is what im asking what exactly is your "done right" ...
Either i can run around the place and never find a live soul ... wich negates your argument for bringing more life to the world.
Or i can run around the place and keep spawning another and another enemies ... wich negates your argument for not making it super frequently.
It doesnt really matter if my chances to spawn them is 1:5 or 1:1000 ... question is about limited or unlimited amount, nothing more nothing less. laugh

I mean, i really try hard to understand your vision, but you have to choose some ...
Its impossible to go both left and right at once. laugh
Posted By: DraigoZarovich Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 11:47 AM
Ok ok enough of this. It seems no one actually read what I said so I shall repeat it.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
I mean if there is option that strong troll will attack me on Long Rest, i would rather face it after single combat (when i have part of my spellslot used) than after five (when i have all of them used). laugh

The DnD classes are not designed for this kind of play. This will break all balancing of the game. I hate random encounters during travel but to add risk to resting to prevent rest spam is the only thing that is going to balance everything out. Casters will become overpowered and Martials/Warlocks will fall off with Long Rest Spam, its a problem at the table, it will be a problem with the game, its a problem with the system as a whole.

In dnd 5e we have a way to help stop random encounters through Watches, where you assign people to 3 watches each night. Elves themselves can easily take up two because they only need 4 hours to long rest, same as other races like them. You roll perception and if its high enough, they can spot trouble or even avoid it entirely. More things could be done like how Wrath of the Righteous does it, with camp camouflage to help conceal, an easy Survival check. This makes the camp not just a safe hub, but an actual interesting place and most of all, it preserves the balance between casters and martials for just a bit longer.

If you don't believe me, then I will ask, how fair is it Martials attacks become easily negated and they become squishier the higher level you go, with them barely putting out the any better damage unless they get good magical items, while Wizard, with a 4-th level slot can cast Vitriolic Sphere, a 20-ft AoE that has a Dex save where its halved if they succeed, but still does 10d4 Acid damage on hit, and if the enemy fails, they take another 5d4 at the beginning of their turn. Casters have millions of spells like this, and if you long rest spam like you suggest, then tell me what happens to the Martials. They become useless.

This is no longer the case of Story or If Random Encounters add life to the world. Could Larian do something to make Martials better? Maybe. Could they somehow limit casters from abusing spells? Maybe. Who knows. Its a big reason no one runs campaigns above level 10. Casters can just solve everything with little to no thought. I already face this balancing enough IRL as it is, and I do not want to get into a game where half of the classes become obsolete after level 6.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by DraigoZarovich
The DnD classes are not designed for this kind of play. This will break all balancing of the game.
Yup ...
And normally we have a GM who keep an eye on when, and where you can or cannot rest ... im aware.
But i believe you are also aware that in PC game this luxury is not an option, so it have to be resolved explicitly ...

And while there is several potential options ...
Larian did good to remember that there are experienced players that are technicaly able to get through whole EA within single Long rest ... and also there are newbies who will need at least 20 Long Rests ...
And you need to keep them both in mind, so some "Long rest only every third battle" is not an option (even tho its quite some time i have seen something like this). laugh

So right now, we have food ...
If you dont need many long rests, you dont need many food ... and therefore you have much more free space.
If you do need many long rests, you need much more food ... and it either block much more of your inventory, or you spend much more time in tedious and anoying moving items one-by-one to the camp and back to your backpack so you can actualy eat it ... its anoying and it is supposed to be anoying, so people are encouraged to avoid it as much as possible ... but if they desperately need it, all they need to do is grit their teeth and endure it for a moment.

Originally Posted by DraigoZarovich
I hate random encounters during travel but to add risk to resting to prevent rest spam is the only thing that is going to balance everything out.
That is the thing ... adding risk during travel or during resting isnt going to prevent rest spam ... its going to encourage it.

Right now ... i have fight ... i spend half my spellslots and i can continue ...
Sure i can rest, system allows me to, but i dont *need to* ... my desire to rest is low, since it only keeps me from the adventuring i enjoy.

IF there would be random encounters both on the road and long rest ... i have fight ... i spend half my spellslots and i can continue ...
BUT im aware that in this system, there is constant danger lurking for me behind every corner ... so im in the decision, i can teoreticaly continue at half of my strength and hope it will be enough ... or i can simply go rest and continue on my full power.

Question here is:
Why would i risk Game Over by continuing the adventure without resting?

And remember that we are not talking here about "op skilled überplayers" that can exterminate whole Goblin Camp without using single spellslot ... but also about "newbie" people who in the same battle either use all they have, or die.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 12:54 PM
It's simply a fact that Long Rest needs to be more restricted. Otherwise they need to start neutering higher level spells which would completely undermine what makes spellcasters cool in DnD. Or start buffing martials with extra abilities, which would mess up the game even further.

I'd really like a good random encounter system that would discourage rest spam without being frustrating. And it would be really cool if elves would get a perk as great watchmen during long rests. Perception proficiency, Darkvision and only need 4 hours of sleep/meditation. It makes sense, great flavor.

I really hope that Panel from Hell 5th edition actually means they are adding a 5th edition difficulty setting in the game that removes most if not all of the bad homebrew meme rules or conforms them to DnD more accurately (e.g. fire Dip requiring a substance because metal doesn't burn). But it's more likely a reference to level 5. Ideally both.

I just really want to play 5th edition instead Larian's whac-a-mole king of the hill shovefest with unlimited long rest mindless spell spam. The meme combat in BG3 is so unsatisfying tactically and stylistically.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 01:00 PM
Like I said Ragnarok, you disagree. No need to be rude about it and accuse me of being illogical. Just because YOU don't see the logic in things, doesn't mean there's no logic there. Hey. If others agreed with you and told me I'm being totally illogical and there's nothing good at all in what I said, I'd be inclined to wonder if maybe I'm totally off base. However, if you notice, most of what I pointed out as benefits of random encounters, other people have said also.

But you fail to recognize your own contradictions. On the one hand, you're very opposed to people using exploits. Then, on the other hand, you're totally against people potentially using random encounters as an exploit. You have no problems with long rest spamming exploits, and height wins every time exploits and shoving exploits and drinking potions as bonus action exploits and stealth exploits and broken exploits like freezing an enemy in dialogue so you can easily sneak around behind him with every other character and steal everything from that person in real time while that person is frozen forever in turn based mode, and so on and so forth.

But, for some reason, you are so upset about the possibility that someone could use random encounters to increase their loot and experience points? If you receive a random encounter once maybe every thirty minutes to an hour of gameplay, how is that a major exploit in the game? On the contrary, you can literally use stealth in every situation to win, or you can literally freeze an enemy in dialogue, switch to characters not in dialogue or combat, move around in real time and position yourself so you can attack the enemy over and over again from the best possible position, and win every time. Or, spider lair, you can just wait until she's on a web, multiple times, and shoot her down so she loses like 20 HP a drop until she's almost dead.

But most of all, you WANT them to make it so you can long rest all the time so that when the game gets to spellcasters hurling fireballs you can literally use them in every battle, long rest, and use them again in every battle spamming them and making every other class completely obsolete. Makes absolutely no sense.

Random Encounters during travel, if done right, would only add a small element of risk for the purpose of making players be on guard at all times. If you never know when you might suddenly drop into combat, you aren't going to use your high powered spells constantly in case you get suddenly jumped by a troll or a couple of gnolls or ogres or whatever. (I'm not talking just with our little level cap of 4 but thinking of future potential random encounters.) If I know that while I'm prowling the goblin base, I might get suddenly jumped by a couple of ochre jellies, BESIDES all the other dangers there, even though I just cleared out an area of goblins, I might be a bit more careful.

Here's what I mean. I just got done fighting Ragzlin. I have 1 HP for one character, 9 HP for another, 5 HP for another and 4 HP for another. Game has no random encounters, and I know I've just cleared a huge portion of the game map. Inside the goblin base, there are no enemies at all. Now, if there are no random encounters, I don't need to worry about healing at all. Why bother? There are no enemies left. So why should I waste potions? Why should I waste a short rest? I'm good. Area cleared.

But, if there's the potential that while I'm trying to work my way out I might random encounter 2 ochre jellies, or 2 hobgoblins, or 3 more roaming goblins, or 2 giant spiders, or whatever, a sense of danger is created in the game. I COULD risk trying to get out without healing, and I would probably succeed because the chance of a random encounter in the goblin base is maybe 10% chance on a dice roll every 300 feet of movement or something like that. Well, am I willing to risk it, or should I heal just in case I am unlucky and encounter something I won't be able to handle? This creates potential dangers that can occur at any moment, since you won't know when it was that the game rolled the last time to determine if you encounter a random encounter. It makes you strategize and think, and it adds a "living" element to the world. It isn't just some stagnant map where nothing ever changes unless it's scripted, and once you've played the game through once, you know exactly what to expect. You never know when something will jump out at you, so you best not be stupid and continue roaming a hostile camp with very little health, etc.

And, now to Draigo's point, random encounters is meant to prevent rest spam. If you know you could be attacked by a troll if you long rest in goblin camp, but there's no chance of it if you rest in the Druid's Grove, you'll make sure you rest at Druid's Grove and not try to long rest while exploring the goblin base. You make it sound like a troll would be easy to take out, so spam long rest more frequently so you can trigger the troll early. That would be foolish. Why? Because after you've wasted all your spells on the troll, you try to long rest again and might, maybe run into a couple of hobgoblins as well. Now you've wasted HP and spells and items on the troll, AND you might have to fight more enemies, AND you still have the planned encounters to fight. So, spamming long rest in a dangerous location is foolish because you risk constantly dwindling down your resources fighting non-scripted enemies. Makes you strategize and ask yourself, "Should I long rest now or try to keep going? Do I risk it?"

AND, if they prevent you from simply teleporting from anywhere back to Druid's Grove, then it works. OR, if you try to fast travel, they implement a random encounters interruption potential every time you fast travel, symbolizing that you traveled on foot to the nearest portal and there was a chance that you might encounter something on the way. Either way, limiting long rest spamming, as Draigo said, is essential to later levels of spellcasting. (Plus everything else he said.)

And Draigo, one thing we're fighting for IS a more true D&D 5e ruleset BECAUSE classes are already obsolete. Rogues don't have Expertise and are completely nerfed. Clerics are not essential for healing because anyone can use any scroll, potions are all over the place in such numbers it's ridiculous, etc. Everything is so blurred that it really doesn't matter what class you pick, everyone can lock pick just about as easily as everyone else, and so on and so forth. To your point, this will ONLY become worse at higher levels.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
It's simply a fact that Long Rest needs to be more restricted. Otherwise they need to start neutering higher level spells which would completely undermine what makes spellcasters cool in DnD. Or start buffing martials with extra abilities, which would mess up the game even further.

I'd really like a good random encounter system that would discourage rest spam without being frustrating. And it would be really cool if elves would get a perk as great watchmen during long rests. Perception proficiency, Darkvision and only need 4 hours of sleep/meditation. It makes sense, great flavor.

I really hope that Panel from Hell 5th edition actually means they are adding a 5th edition difficulty setting in the game that removes most if not all of the bad homebrew meme rules or conforms them to DnD more accurately (e.g. fire Dip requiring a substance because metal doesn't burn). But it's more likely a reference to level 5. Ideally both.

I just really want to play 5th edition instead Larian's whac-a-mole king of the hill shovefest with unlimited long rest mindless spell spam. The meme combat in BG3 is so unsatisfying tactically and stylistically.

+1 to everything you said here.
Posted By: DraigoZarovich Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 02:19 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
It's simply a fact that Long Rest needs to be more restricted. Otherwise they need to start neutering higher level spells which would completely undermine what makes spellcasters cool in DnD. Or start buffing martials with extra abilities, which would mess up the game even further.

I'd really like a good random encounter system that would discourage rest spam without being frustrating. And it would be really cool if elves would get a perk as great watchmen during long rests. Perception proficiency, Darkvision and only need 4 hours of sleep/meditation. It makes sense, great flavor.

I really hope that Panel from Hell 5th edition actually means they are adding a 5th edition difficulty setting in the game that removes most if not all of the bad homebrew meme rules or conforms them to DnD more accurately (e.g. fire Dip requiring a substance because metal doesn't burn). But it's more likely a reference to level 5. Ideally both.

I just really want to play 5th edition instead Larian's whac-a-mole king of the hill shovefest with unlimited long rest mindless spell spam. The meme combat in BG3 is so unsatisfying tactically and stylistically.

+1 to everything

And sadly, I have to agree about the class imbalance and I fear for how worse it become if they don't change things. I fear that this game will truly suffer in the long run if things remain the way they are. What will be the point of Rogues, Circle of Moon Druids, ect. when you can just have a party of Casters steamroll everything. What will make Bard special if everyone else already is a Jack of All Trades? 5e already has a very rough class balance as it is, with WotC adoring Cleric and Wizard, who have the most subclasses at 12 and 11, compared to most martials only having about 9 to 10. I honestly don't care how long the game takes to come out if they address the issues, the countless performance issues, the system abuse and cheese. I don't want to see another game where we can literally kill the BBEG with a chest, hell, the fact that we can already kill the cambions, mindflayer, and commander in the very beginning of the game at level 1 in Avernus is an issue. Not to mention if we are suppose to see that general again but you already killed him will be a major world rule break since fiends slayed in the Nine Hells are permanently destroyed.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 02:33 PM
If they add random encounters, restrict fast travel, or add any other long rest restrictions, please put them in the options so I can turn them off. To me random encounters are boring and slow down the pacing. Same with not being able to fast travel.
Posted By: ash elemental Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 02:52 PM
To second Icelyn, only if it is an option to turn that off in the game. To me random encounters are interesting when they are part of storytelling, and not a resting or travel mechanics. For example the assassin groups from the Sword Coast Stratagems mod in BG1, Suna Seni in BG2, or Halsin on the evil path in BG3.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 03:17 PM
I'd say the stale and scripted world we now have that has no surprises, no random elements, (no night time) or any real feeling of danger is boring.

Creatures even move according to a script. That's why we have expert playthroughs where acid flasks are thrown to the spot the Bulette will jump on before it actually does.

Generally the level of metagaming in the hard encounters is absurd. You don't need a scout because after the first time you know exactly who is where and what they will do. Even the basic encounters could do with a bit of variance or randomness. In the Panels, Swen seems to personally enjoy defeating enemies with heavy metagame knowledge though, which is frankly a bit alarming. I don't think RPG's should be about metagaming. To RP, you need to be able to live in the shoes of your characters as much as possible, knowing what they know. Once again an immersion thing.

I'm not at all opposed to a Story mode that removes most of the mechanical challenges. I think Larian should have included at least 3 difficulty levels already in the EA so we wouldn't have to argue about stuff that gets sorted with Story / Normal / Core Rules settings.
Posted By: fylimar Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 04:00 PM
About random encounters: I think, they make sense in some areas. I'm currently again in the spider matriarchs lair and after fighting the first group (two spiders and two ettercaps) I'm planning a long rest - since you are now resting inside those caves, there should be chance, that phase spiders attack - I mean, you are literally sleeping in their home. Same with camping in the goblin camp - yeah, they might consider you as an ally for the moment, but they are goblins, nothing is sure with them.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by fylimar
About random encounters: I think, they make sense in some areas. I'm currently again in the spider matriarchs lair and after fighting the first group (two spiders and two ettercaps) I'm planning a long rest - since you are now resting inside those caves, there should be chance, that phase spiders attack - I mean, you are literally sleeping in their home. Same with camping in the goblin camp - yeah, they might consider you as an ally for the moment, but they are goblins, nothing is sure with them.

Exactly. Allow people to camp wherever, even in the spider lair, but some places have 0% chance of random encounters like most areas in the Grove. Some 1-5%, like Blacksmith Shop basement. If you leave it open, 5%. Locked 1%. Places like spider lair but you didn't alert anything, 5%. Alerted spider lair, maybe even as big a chance as 50% because you alerted enemies to your presence. Goblin camp when they think you are friendly, 1%. You kill Gut, Ragzlin or Minthara, 50%. Something LIKE that. And I'm talking just rest mechanics. Not travel random encounters.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 05:53 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm not at all opposed to a Story mode that removes most of the mechanical challenges. I think Larian should have included at least 3 difficulty levels already in the EA so we wouldn't have to argue about stuff that gets sorted with Story / Normal / Core Rules settings.
I usually play on normal in most games, so I would like the options I like to be available on normal as well. I like having combat, just not the boring stuff!
Posted By: ash elemental Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm not at all opposed to a Story mode that removes most of the mechanical challenges. I think Larian should have included at least 3 difficulty levels already in the EA so we wouldn't have to argue about stuff that gets sorted with Story / Normal / Core Rules settings.
I usually play on normal in most games, so I would like the options I like to be available on normal as well. I like having combat, just not the boring stuff!
Same for me. It's not about removing the challenge, it's about making it interesting.

The assassin groups from the SCS mod were both tougher and more fun then the kobolds / bandit groups that spawned in the unmodded game.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm not at all opposed to a Story mode that removes most of the mechanical challenges. I think Larian should have included at least 3 difficulty levels already in the EA so we wouldn't have to argue about stuff that gets sorted with Story / Normal / Core Rules settings.
I usually play on normal in most games, so I would like the options I like to be available on normal as well. I like having combat, just not the boring stuff!

Oh. I agree. Random Encounters just to spawn baby, boring encounters is not fun. I think it can be done right and make the game feel more alive, dangerous and fun.

What I don't want: Traveling through Moonhaven, random encounter occurs. Stirges. Killed easily. Leave village, wander to bog. Cutscene. Random Encounter out of nowhere. Boggles. Killed easily. Fight redcaps. Long rest in bog. Rest interrupted. Fight stirges. Kill easily. Long rest attempt 2, 3, 4. Stirges, boggles, stirges. Finally long rest on 5th attempt.

No thank you. That's boring as all heck, and yes, BG1 and 2 and IWD 1 and 2 did that. No. I don't want that even remotely.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm not at all opposed to a Story mode that removes most of the mechanical challenges. I think Larian should have included at least 3 difficulty levels already in the EA so we wouldn't have to argue about stuff that gets sorted with Story / Normal / Core Rules settings.
I usually play on normal in most games, so I would like the options I like to be available on normal as well. I like having combat, just not the boring stuff!
Same for me. It's not about removing the challenge, it's about making it interesting.

The assassin groups from the SCS mod were both tougher and more fun then the kobolds / bandit groups that spawned in the unmodded game.
Yeah not removing the challenge but setting the right kind of challenge would be a better way to say it. I hope they add difficulty options soon. I always play on core rules in every D&D game and like to be rewarded for smart resource management or saving the party's strength as much as possible. And I like it if failure is a real option in a game. And it's always immersion over convenience for me.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 10:23 PM
This time i decided to make a little social experiment ...
First spoiler is just about you acusing me from something and me explaining you why you are wrong, with examples, diagrams, pictures and graphics (well, just examples laugh ) ... second part is actualy on topic ...

Feel free to compare how much shorter would my posts be if you would actualy READ them before you react. wink

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Like I said Ragnarok, you disagree.
Just out of curisosity ... with what exactly?

Originally Posted by GM4Him
No need to be rude about it and accuse me of being illogical.
Okey, have it your way ... how im i suppose to call an argument that contradicts itself?

Please pick wich statement you concider logical and tell me why:
1) More danger in game -> players being more carefull -> resting less often.
2) More danger in game -> players being more carefull -> resting more often.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Just because YOU don't see the logic in things, doesn't mean there's no logic there.
True ...
But since "all the others" are unable to show me where that "present logic" is, i find i kinda hard to believe.

Right now it seems more like: Just because YOU want to see the logic in things, doesn't mean there's logic there. smile

I mean, if its right there ... just show me and i gladly admit that i was wrong. smile

Here is my claim for you to have example:
Saying that people will rest less if random encoutners will be implemented is false.
Bcs with random encounters world become more dangerous place ... therefore players will feel stronger urge to keep their power up, therefore they will recharge more often.

Cause and effect, simple rules. smile

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Hey. If others agreed with you and told me I'm being totally illogical and there's nothing good at all in what I said, I'd be inclined to wonder if maybe I'm totally off base.
Well ... one would say that i would have to say that in the first place so they can "agreed with me". laugh
(Yes, talking about that part "there is nothing good at all" ... lets not play a scapegoat here, shall we?)

Also, those "others" would need at least show minimal acnowledge of both sides ... to be taking under concideration for "who have majority" argument.
I mean, we both know that most people simply skips all my posts for various reasons ... hardly you can agree or disagree with anything you didnt even bother to read. wink

Originally Posted by GM4Him
However, if you notice, most of what I pointed out as benefits of random encounters, other people have said also.
Or, you just managed to get people who want random encounters express their support to suggestion to include random encounters.
I gues we will never know.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
But you fail to recognize your own contradictions.
Now this is a straight lie ...
Sad part is that im affraid you know it. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
On the one hand, you're very opposed to people using exploits.
Really?
I wonder when i did that ... if you could provide me at least single example it would be much appreciated. smile

BTW ... pardon my poor english, but what exactly is difference between "being opposed to someone" and "totally against the same people" ?
I mean in my language "opposition" litteraly means being "against something", so ... as i understand is being opposed to people using exploits, would be exactly the same as being totally against people using exploits ...
Wich i never was. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Then, on the other hand, you're totally against people potentially using random encounters as an exploit.
You mean that part where i litteraly told you that i never said im pro or against this potential exploit, and i was only pointing out that this opourtunity is there?

[toxic sarcasm]
Well ... i gues you got me there, totally contradicting something i never said by something else i never said. laugh
It look like you are perfectly right and not at all like if you are ignoring me and just keep repeating the same. smile
[/toxic sarcasm]

Originally Posted by GM4Him
You have no problems with long rest spamming exploits, and height wins every time exploits and shoving exploits and drinking potions as bonus action exploits and stealth exploits and broken exploits like freezing an enemy in dialogue so you can easily sneak around behind him with every other character and steal everything from that person in real time while that person is frozen forever in turn based mode, and so on and so forth.
No i dont ...
I wonder if you know why. smile

Wanna know?
Its quite easy actualy and i said it at least thousand times allready ... bcs theese things can be easily avoided. laugh
I have no problems with any of those, bcs i simply ignore them and they stop exist for me ... if someone want to use them, i dont care, its his game and his 60€
I shall not, and therefore i see litteraly no reason for me to care about them. smile

Originally Posted by GM4Him
But, for some reason, you are so upset about the possibility that someone could use random encounters to increase their loot and experience points?
No im not ...
It might surprise you, but that is the reason i told you in my last post that im not. laugh

Let me repeat it for you:
"Well if you read it properly you can find out i never said im not okey with it ... i just pointed out that this potential is there. smile "
See? Not even single word about me being upset ... or even against it ... on the contrary im litteraly telling you that this conclusion is false one.

Or do you want me to repeat that first sentence? Okey, no problem:
"Wich create both XP and Loot exploit potential."
See? Again not even single word about being upset, expressing displease, or anyhow pointing out that is wrong ... simple statement of possibility, nothing more, nothing less. wink

You know this posts will be MUCH shorter if you actualy acnowledge what i say. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If you receive a random encounter once maybe every thirty minutes to an hour of gameplay, how is that a major exploit in the game?
As i said there is no such thing as "major" or "minor" exploit ...
There are exploits, and based on who is using it, in what situation is he using it, or what benefits it will bring him ... every exploit can be big or small ... depending on those circumstances.

But lets say every 30 minutes ...
Right now EA (if you do it whole) is worth aproximately cca 20h or gameplay.
That would mean 40 encounters.
Im too lazy to count them right now ... but from just quick look it seems like amount of combat was at least doubled. laugh
Wich obviously also means double amount of XP, amount of loot, amount of long rests and everything else related to combat.

And you are asking how is that an exploit? laugh
The exploit potential is that you can easily just return to the same place over and over and over and over and kill yet another and another and another and another "randomly" spawned NPCs ... to get yet another and another and another and another loot and XP ...

This is basicaly "infinite gold" and "infinite XP" mod. laugh

[sarcasm]
I believe the game will be much harder when group of level 7 players in full magic gear will attack Minthara in her goblin camp, bcs they spend 4h killing the same group of bandits in the crypt.
Doesnt sound exploitable at all to me. laugh
[/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by GM4Him
On the contrary, you can literally use stealth in every situation to win, or you can literally freeze an enemy in dialogue, switch to characters not in dialogue or combat, move around in real time and position yourself so you can attack the enemy over and over again from the best possible position, and win every time. Or, spider lair, you can just wait until she's on a web, multiple times, and shoot her down so she loses like 20 HP a drop until she's almost dead.

Yes you can ...
Your point?

Just bcs something worse exists doesnt mean that bad things that are not so bad sudently become good. laugh
Yes, they are "lesser evil" compared to "greater evil" ... but noticed the therm?
Its still evil. wink

Originally Posted by GM4Him
But most of all, you WANT them to make it so you can long rest all the time so that when the game gets to spellcasters hurling fireballs you can literally use them in every battle, long rest, and use them again in every battle spamming them and making every other class completely obsolete. Makes absolutely no sense.
Not sure how im i suppose to understand this sentence ... are you speaking about me speficily or in general? laugh

Since if you were adressing me, no i dont ... but even i would it make no difference, from what Swen want. smile
That is the reason why i restrict myself from resting too often ... for one it takes away my fun to burn everything with strongest spell possible, and i play to have fun ... and two (wich is probably more important for me) resting is mostly anoyance, i rather explore, fight and resolve puzzle than sit around the fire and listen the same old conversations i allready heared thousand times before. laugh

BUT if you were talking in general ... i still think "you" dont. laugh
I mean, keeping in mind less experienced players *i* think its good think that Larian decided to allow us rest almost anytime ... but *i* also believe that we should not be able to rest everytime.
Hag lair is perfect example, i love the place ... no, there is nothing stopping me from runing out and rest as much as i need, on the other hand i also dont need to
laugh but if someone do, the game is totally playable for him aswell. Wich is important.

Sure this problem will be void once difficiulties will be introduced, but until then we just have to all play at same playfield. smile

Originally Posted by GM4Him
Random Encounters during travel, if done right, would only add a small element of risk for the purpose of making players be on guard at all times.
Again that vague "if done right" ... well, surprise surprise, anything that is "done right" is "done right". Who would expect that? laugh
The question is what does it even mean "done right"?

Originally Posted by GM4Him
If you never know when you might suddenly drop into combat, you aren't going to use your high powered spells constantly in case you get suddenly jumped by a troll or a couple of gnolls or ogres or whatever.
Sure ... you can either save it, or restore it asap.
Both approaches are valid.

In either way the point is the same "to have prepared your hight powered spells ... just in case".
I simply believe that you have to take both in concideration, since THAT is the situation. laugh

[quote=GM4Him]Here's what I mean. I just got done fighting Ragzlin. I have 1 HP for one character, 9 HP for another, 5 HP for another and 4 HP for another. Game has no random encounters, and I know I've just cleared a huge portion of the game map. Inside the goblin base, there are no enemies at all. Now, if there are no random encounters, I don't need to worry about healing at all. Why bother? There are no enemies left. So why should I waste potions? Why should I waste a short rest? I'm good. Area cleared.
Ah an example. smile Excelent!

Lets see ...
Well, this is a good one, i agree you dont need to "bother" with healing after all your enemies are done ...
Lets put aside for a second that you dont know if *all* your enemies are done, unless you are metagaming ...

I think its totally safe for you to dont bother with healing at all and ... and what exactly? laugh
Sory i just dont see any conclusion here.

I mean the important question is what will you with your 1HP, 9HP, 5HP and 4HP halfdead party do now?
If that is gameover for you, then yes it really dont mean anything how much HP you have left.
If you go loot, and then teleport to vendor to sell it ... then i gues it doesnt matter either.
If you will heal them with cleric, since you dont need to worry about your spellslots ... well you can aswell long rest. laugh
If you went to explore, then i gues you made a misstake ... did you noticed all those skelletons we are looting in games? Especialy those who have healing potions by themselves? Well, those are adventurers who decided to "not waste a potion" and then trigger some trap. laugh

I would need this example to lead somewhere. laugh
This tells me nothing, you described the situation and thats it.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
But, if there's the potential that while I'm trying to work my way out I might random encounter 2 ochre jellies, or 2 hobgoblins, or 3 more roaming goblins, or 2 giant spiders, or whatever, a sense of danger is created in the game. I COULD risk trying to get out without healing, and I would probably succeed because the chance of a random encounter in the goblin base is maybe 10% chance on a dice roll every 300 feet of movement or something like that. Well, am I willing to risk it, or should I heal just in case I am unlucky and encounter something I won't be able to handle? This creates potential dangers that can occur at any moment, since you won't know when it was that the game rolled the last time to determine if you encounter a random encounter. It makes you strategize and think, and it adds a "living" element to the world. It isn't just some stagnant map where nothing ever changes unless it's scripted, and once you've played the game through once, you know exactly what to expect. You never know when something will jump out at you, so you best not be stupid and continue roaming a hostile camp with very little health, etc.
This is interesting scenario ... a little idealistic tho, but interesting.

As i allready said, the main problem with PC game is that everything litteraly "needs to be scripted" ... so, yup things still dont change, unless someone in Larian will implement several variatiaons of the same encounter. laugh
(note that when you create two versions for one encounter its no longer matter of "chance" that players will not see one of them, that is certain)

You say "It makes you strategize and think" ... i say it makes me use one of my bzillion potions, healing scrolls, or tons of food for long rest.
Its the most logical move. :-/
Sure you can explore damaged and at half strength ... but the less you know about your surroundings, the less rational move it would be. laugh
So the only way to as you say "done right" random encounters would be rework whole game. :-/

Originally Posted by GM4Him
And, now to Draigo's point, random encounters is meant to prevent rest spam. If you know you could be attacked by a troll if you long rest in goblin camp, but there's no chance of it if you rest in the Druid's Grove, you'll make sure you rest at Druid's Grove and not try to long rest while exploring the goblin base.
That is exactly it ... if the mechanic is negated so easily as by clicking on fast travel ... why even bother with it?
Game companies usualy try to remove as much of "just running around" as possible (except survival games, there its usualy core part of design) its called Quality of Life improvements.

One of example for quality of life improvement is ability to "magicaly trade items between characters" without need to do that manualy.
Or another would be ability to send things to camp ... instead of traveling there, put item to the chest, and traveling back.
Or yet another would be ability to fast travel from everywhere, instead forcing us to roam back and forth between Vendor and Loot waypoints.

If you add the thing that in spiders cave i can be attacked when long resting, what is holding me back from simply travel outside to rest?
Nothing.
So what exactly does this feature add? It effectively added five minutes of our characters jogging through the spider cave. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
You make it sound like a troll would be easy to take out, so spam long rest more frequently so you can trigger the troll early. That would be foolish. Why? Because after you've wasted all your spells on the troll, you try to long rest again and might, maybe run into a couple of hobgoblins as well.
How?
When i travel to my camp ... i find a Troll there ... so i waste all my spellslots on him and kill him ... now i AM in my camp, and it is clean, since i just cleaned it ...

Why (and more important how) would i "try to long rest again" ?
I simply crawl to my tent after i kill a Troll and rest, there is no try. laugh

Originally Posted by GM4Him
AND, if they prevent you from simply teleporting from anywhere back to Druid's Grove, then it works. OR, if you try to fast travel, they implement a random encounters interruption potential every time you fast travel, symbolizing that you traveled on foot to the nearest portal and there was a chance that you might encounter something on the way. Either way, limiting long rest spamming, as Draigo said, is essential to later levels of spellcasting. (Plus everything else he said.)
I believe you noticed that they added option to "run from combat" in ... im not sure if that was last patch, or some previous to be honest ... well, anyway in the past. laugh

So what exactly is holding me back from simply play "all in" and if i just happen to walk into a hard random encounter in both Long Rest, or Fast Travel ...
To simply run away and then do the same action without the encounter?

I mean sure, you can say that encounters will not dissapear, they can theoreticaly keep waiting for us forewer ...
In that case you just created scenario, when Random Number Generator is just generating Game Over for unexperienced new players.
Does that seem like fun to you? :-/

I mean dont get me wrong, i allready noticed that you are creating the best possible game experience for *youreself* ... but think about it for a second, would you? wink
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 13/02/22 10:40 PM
I'll only answer the first question at the moment. I frankly don't have time for the rest right now.

You disagree with Random Encounters. You don't like them or want them.

Therefore, everything you say is against it. Thus, you come up with arguments like how Random Encounters can be exploited by players to gain loot and XP.

But, you aren't against long rest spamming. And that's just illogical to me. You want to be able to spam long rest as much as you want, and it IS a much bigger, more serious exploit.

Fireball 3 times, kills all monsters. Long rest. Next fight. Fireball 3 times, kills all monsters. Long rest. Next fight. Fireball 3 times, kills all monsters. This is a gameplay major exploit. There is literally nothing in game to stop this.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 02:47 AM
Eh. You know what. It probably doesn't matter. They're not likely going to do any of this anyway.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 10:10 AM
In some twisted way this is actualy quite fascinating ...
You come to conclusion ... you were told that conclusion is false, repeately, witch examples and proofs ... you stated that your conclusion is ilogical ... and yet you keep claiming its right one. laugh

I wonder why do you keep persuating me about what i said?
Dont you think that i know it well enough? After all i was there when i said it. laugh
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 01:27 PM
Sooooo. Back on topic. Lather. Rinse. Repeat until they actually implement this.

5e rules, at least as a difficulty OPTION, better implemented would make the game more fun, strategic, and it would make it so classes are valuable, items are valuable, and gimmicks and exploits are not as valuable or even present in the game. Monsters with proper stats would be unique, instead of all of them being ranged attack, high ground shoving maniacs with no real uniqueness at all. Phase spiders would be true phase spiders and attack close range. Jellies would split when hit with slashing weapons or lightning. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And the world would be more alive with a sense of potential danger around every corner via random encounters. Don't sleep in dangerous places, or BAM! You never know what might attack you in the night. Best find a safe spot to rest first. You won't be as inclined to long rest in a goblin camp that's hostile to you because you might just trigger a fight you can't handle. Best to be sure you're well prepared before going into such dangerous places and/or find a safer place in a room where you can lock the door before long resting. And wizards and clerics won't be nigh invincible at higher levels because spamming long rest to recover spell slots may just be their undoing.
Posted By: Zellin Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 01:50 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
And the world would be more alive with a sense of potential danger around every corner via random encounters. Don't sleep in dangerous places, or BAM! You never know what might attack you in the night. Best find a safe spot to rest first. You won't be as inclined to long rest in a goblin camp that's hostile to you because you might just trigger a fight you can't handle. Best to be sure you're well prepared before going into such dangerous places and/or find a safer place in a room where you can lock the door before long resting. And wizards and clerics won't be nigh invincible at higher levels because spamming long rest to recover spell slots may just be their undoing.
Argh... I hope this will make you happy https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1306179349494849536
Also if you didn't notice: the sleeping cutscene is actually 2 cutscenes playing one right after another with our HP beeing restored after the first one. I believe it is made that way to be able to put an encounter in between.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by GM4Him
And the world would be more alive with a sense of potential danger around every corner via random encounters. Don't sleep in dangerous places, or BAM! You never know what might attack you in the night. Best find a safe spot to rest first. You won't be as inclined to long rest in a goblin camp that's hostile to you because you might just trigger a fight you can't handle. Best to be sure you're well prepared before going into such dangerous places and/or find a safer place in a room where you can lock the door before long resting. And wizards and clerics won't be nigh invincible at higher levels because spamming long rest to recover spell slots may just be their undoing.
Argh... I hope this will make you happy https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1306179349494849536
Also if you didn't notice: the sleeping cutscene is actually 2 cutscenes playing one right after another with our HP beeing restored after the first one. I believe it is made that way to be able to put an encounter in between.

So, first off, sorry to annoy you, Zellin.

Second, my device was having a hard time pulling that link up. Is it basically saying Larian IS going to do random encounters post EA? I think that's what you are saying, but wanted to make sure.

Third, I was partially trying to bring it back to the main topic, since it seems to have been derailed and become about random encounters only. Yes, I brought that up yet again with everything else, but only because it's one small portion of the overall point of the thread. I didn't want to exclude it going forward.

But, ultimately, I'm just trying to get more of a true D&D experience with BG3, which means we need some true 5e rules, stats, less homebrew, blah, blah, blah.

I do hate repeating all this over and over, but I know how people work. Don't keep bringing things up and they either forget or feel like you must not have really wanted it. If they want me to shut up, all they have to do is say, "Hey. We're going to do an option for true 5e rules and stats post EA," or "No, we're not, so stop asking.". A response from THEM is all it takes.
Posted By: Zellin Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So, first off, sorry to annoy you, Zellin.

Second, my device was having a hard time pulling that link up. Is it basically saying Larian IS going to do random encounters post EA? I think that's what you are saying, but wanted to make sure.

Third, I was partially trying to bring it back to the main topic, since it seems to have been derailed and become about random encounters only. Yes, I brought that up yet again with everything else, but only because it's one small portion of the overall point of the thread. I didn't want to exclude it going forward.

But, ultimately, I'm just trying to get more of a true D&D experience with BG3, which means we need some true 5e rules, stats, less homebrew, blah, blah, blah.

I do hate repeating all this over and over, but I know how people work. Don't keep bringing things up and they either forget or feel like you must not have really wanted it. If they want me to shut up, all they have to do is say, "Hey. We're going to do an option for true 5e rules and stats post EA," or "No, we're not, so stop asking.". A response from THEM is all it takes.
The link contains Larian inner conversation in which they consider adding "random nightly visitor", say that this is a "good idea", but also something for "post EA". Everything in "" is a literal quotation of their employee words. So yes, you'll probably get random encounters, but with full release. I suppose they want less randomness in EA. I may add that the screenshot that Swen got hidden appeared around the same time in another place and it was showing that something wreaked havoc in the camp, but here you will need to trust my memory and understanding and I wouldn't trust them after the amount of things I read about the game.
About the first, third and the last part. I understand why you are repeating things, but in my opinion you're going too far with repeating the exact same things. It's like one of those youtube videos of 1 hour of something. Try to imagine the work of Larian employees, who are supposed to read this forum and they read you repeating the same exact thoughts on a daily if not hourly basis. I feel bad for them and for the other good thoughts and ideas which are drowning under this flood. And we know that they won't say anything even if they would like to, because of the consequence of being obligated to do what they promised even if they will eventually find out that it creates a ton of bugs and it's easier to cut the feature out than fix it (happens in development). So it's not any kind of annoyment by your thoughts, but you are sincerely getting me worried about where this kind of behavior may lead. Could you, please, act in a more "balanced" way? I believe it will be more helpful.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm not at all opposed to a Story mode that removes most of the mechanical challenges. I think Larian should have included at least 3 difficulty levels already in the EA so we wouldn't have to argue about stuff that gets sorted with Story / Normal / Core Rules settings.
I usually play on normal in most games, so I would like the options I like to be available on normal as well. I like having combat, just not the boring stuff!
Yeah, but usually your idea of "boring stuff" is anything that could make a game mechanically interesting and/or doesn't strictly relate to snuggling bare-chested Halsin.

You hate any form of resource management, you object challenging combat, you hate any type of inconvenience (i.e. occasional impossibility to teleport from a certain spot or to rest-spam at will) that forces you to evaluate your next action and doesn't pave your way into an effortless stroll. Etc, etc.
You generally seem to be a kind and friendly person, but you also happen to be my personal Anti-Christ of game design.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 14/02/22 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So, first off, sorry to annoy you, Zellin.

Second, my device was having a hard time pulling that link up. Is it basically saying Larian IS going to do random encounters post EA? I think that's what you are saying, but wanted to make sure.

Third, I was partially trying to bring it back to the main topic, since it seems to have been derailed and become about random encounters only. Yes, I brought that up yet again with everything else, but only because it's one small portion of the overall point of the thread. I didn't want to exclude it going forward.

But, ultimately, I'm just trying to get more of a true D&D experience with BG3, which means we need some true 5e rules, stats, less homebrew, blah, blah, blah.

I do hate repeating all this over and over, but I know how people work. Don't keep bringing things up and they either forget or feel like you must not have really wanted it. If they want me to shut up, all they have to do is say, "Hey. We're going to do an option for true 5e rules and stats post EA," or "No, we're not, so stop asking.". A response from THEM is all it takes.
The link contains Larian inner conversation in which they consider adding "random nightly visitor", say that this is a "good idea", but also something for "post EA". Everything in "" is a literal quotation of their employee words. So yes, you'll probably get random encounters, but with full release. I suppose they want less randomness in EA. I may add that the screenshot that Swen got hidden appeared around the same time in another place and it was showing that something wreaked havoc in the camp, but here you will need to trust my memory and understanding and I wouldn't trust them after the amount of things I read about the game.
About the first, third and the last part. I understand why you are repeating things, but in my opinion you're going too far with repeating the exact same things. It's like one of those youtube videos of 1 hour of something. Try to imagine the work of Larian employees, who are supposed to read this forum and they read you repeating the same exact thoughts on a daily if not hourly basis. I feel bad for them and for the other good thoughts and ideas which are drowning under this flood. And we know that they won't say anything even if they would like to, because of the consequence of being obligated to do what they promised even if they will eventually find out that it creates a ton of bugs and it's easier to cut the feature out than fix it (happens in development). So it's not any kind of annoyment by your thoughts, but you are sincerely getting me worried about where this kind of behavior may lead. Could you, please, act in a more "balanced" way? I believe it will be more helpful.

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback.

Honestly, I'm getting pretty tired anyway. For a year and a half, saying the same old stuff over and over and going round and round with Ragnarok, and other - though mostly Rag - trying to actually stay respectful to him/her - is wearing me out. I can't take it.

So, maybe you're right. If Larian doesn't know where many of us stand at this point...
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 07:07 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
saying the same old stuff over and over and going round and round with Ragnarok, and other - though mostly Rag - trying to actually stay respectful to him/her
Wich is actualy quite funny bcs even this very sentence is as disrespectfull as one can be. -_-
Posted By: Dexai Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 07:12 AM
It's less disrespectful than the attitude you give in your average post, rag :insincere winking smileyface:
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 08:03 AM
/shrug
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
saying the same old stuff over and over and going round and round with Ragnarok, and other - though mostly Rag - trying to actually stay respectful to him/her
Wich is actualy quite funny bcs even this very sentence is as disrespectfull as one can be. -_-

How is this disrespectful? It's the truth. Did I insult you? No. I simply said I'm tired of saying the same old stuff over and over and going round and round with mostly you.

Look at most of my posts. Who do I go back and forth with more than you?

I'm tired of it. And as far as "actually stay respectful," yes. It's because you frustrate me, so I have a hard time not disrespecting you. If me saying this insults you, that's on you.

Sigh. This is probably where you say, "That's irrelevant" or "that's illogical."

So, let's get back on topic now, shall we? Anyone have anything relavant to say about D&D 5e rules that HASN'T been said a thousand times?
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
How is this disrespectful?
Well i could tell you ...
But mostly you ignore whatever i write and keep saying the same, so why bother.

Like this. wink
Posted By: DraigoZarovich Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 03:02 PM
I do think the Scrolls of Revivify should be changed into Scrolls of Raise Dead if they really want to keep them. Since Revivify can only be done within 1 minute of death but Raise Dead can be done within 10 days. They should also add the material consumption later on for these, 300 gp diamonds should be pretty hard to come by until you get to Baldurs Gate proper
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 03:35 PM
Personaly i hope and believe that cost of theese scrolls will be dramaticaly incerased on release ...
Right now it simply would be too frustrating to keep reloading bcs some unballanced monster squished us like overripe fruit. smile

Its Early Acess after all ...
We should expect bugs, we should expect placeholders, we should expect unfinished things ... and we most certainly should expect some of those can kill us on spot without any defence.
(Do you remember that bug when Druids killed their party for just being too close? laugh That kind of things.)
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by DraigoZarovich
I do think the Scrolls of Revivify should be changed into Scrolls of Raise Dead if they really want to keep them. Since Revivify can only be done within 1 minute of death but Raise Dead can be done within 10 days. They should also add the material consumption later on for these, 300 gp diamonds should be pretty hard to come by until you get to Baldurs Gate proper

I don't think switching Revivify for Raise Dead is the solution. The solution is that Revivify should only be able to be used by select classes, AND if the user isn't high enough of a level they should have to make a roll to see if they succeed, AND they should only be able to be used within the first minute after a person dies.

So, combat should not end if you have a dead companion unless the player purposely ends Turn-Based Mode. The game should continue to track how many rounds the person has been dead for - sigh - like in Solasta (sigh - I had to say it). If you can use a Revivify scroll within 10 rounds after death, the character is saved. If not, they're dead. Then, you either need to go to Withers to raise them from the dead, spending 200 GP (which should be more like 500 since that's, I think, how much it actually costs for a Raise Dead diamond), or you should have to find a (very rare) Raise Dead scroll AND 500 GP diamond.

Raise Dead scrolls should be dished out VERY seldomly. They are rare items, not things Larian should hand out like candy, like they are Revivify scrolls. They (Raise Dead Scrolls), and the diamonds that are necessary to cast them, should be few and far between. They should make players go, "Oh thank God! A Raise Dead Scroll AND diamond! Now I have a safety net. This is great especially since I"m about to fight a beholder in the Underdark. I wish I had two!"

Revivify, on the other hand, is a lower spell with the 1 minute limit, so it is a bit more common and is more appropriate to hand out frequently. They just need to actually implement the rules correctly so that neither of these items is OP, like Revivify Scrolls are currently.

I mean, why even bother having death at all in the game if you're going to hand out a ton of Revivify scrolls and make it so you can use them at any point after someone dies? There's no excitement at all to that. Only IF your entire party is wiped is death even remotely an issue in BG3.

I've had Astarion live, and everyone else died in my party (Gith Patrol Fight), but Astarion used Revivify Scrolls to bring everyone back. Psssh! Lame. Astarion, Vampire Spawn Rogue, uses Revivify scrolls AFTER everyone's been dead for like 10 minutes (I fled with him to Waukeen's Rest and the Flaming Fist helped me kill the rest of the Gith). That's just wrong on so many levels.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by DraigoZarovich
I do think the Scrolls of Revivify should be changed into Scrolls of Raise Dead if they really want to keep them. Since Revivify can only be done within 1 minute of death but Raise Dead can be done within 10 days. They should also add the material consumption later on for these, 300 gp diamonds should be pretty hard to come by until you get to Baldurs Gate proper
What should be done upon death is an interesting question for BG3 / 5e rules. Currently, death in BG3 is very... un-impactful. The only penalty to most character death is 200gp (a pittance) and losing them for the remainder of that combat. Honestly, I think a DAO-like injury system would work better with Larian's BG3 philosophy - perhaps 2 failed Death STs knocks the character out for the combat, short of some reviving spell - normal healing won't work. But after the combat ends, they get up with [1 stage of exhaustion, an ability score penalty until next long rest, etc].

I would like Scrolls of Revivify/Scrolls of Raise Dead to have proper time limits, but on the other hand I don't want the super-powerful Scrolls of Raise Dead to be handed out by everyone/available in shops, which would be the current requirement under BG3's lack of permadeath philosophy. (Sidenote: I don't believe that material components are necessary when using a scroll; those materials were already used to create the scroll. Correspondingly, the price for a Scroll of Revivify/Raise Dead should include that 300/500gp diamond.) Scrolls of Revivify can be more common and used for reviving characters during combat, and Scrolls of Raise Dead...can be reserved for Hard Mode.

There can be a setting in game - Injury System or 5e Death - where the normal difficulty mode defaults to the former (described in my first paragraph). The latter system works like 5e - Revivify only works 1 minute after death, Scrolls of Raise Dead are appropriately expensive and rare, and the Hooded Skeleton either can't resurrect allies or it costs an appropriate amount (~1250-2000 gp).
Posted By: DraigoZarovich Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 15/02/22 07:47 PM
Yes, material components are used in making a scroll. I agree with both sides but I also see that Larian will not lock the revive spells to the proper classes due to their design philosophy.

A good way to do it could be what Pathfinder:Kingsmaker and Wrath do, which is the first death puts you on Death's Door. You get up at 1 hp but retain the deaths door condition, where if you die again before its cured, you die die, thus need revive. This could be put on the easiest difficulty. Then the normal/hard mode could be the proper rules.

Everyone being able to use the combat Revivify isn't that powerful without a way to heal up, and its already the most accessible. Raise Dead, Reincarnation, Resurrection, True Resurrection, and (Torm forbid) Wish should be left to their actual classes.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/02/22 03:40 AM
So. Ladies and Gentlemen. I believe it is time to admit defeat. It is clear that Larian is moving FURTHER away from D&D 5e rules and stats, preferring to create more superhero gameplay mechanics like chucking 9 pound cats across a span of 1,000 feet so it can land in shadows in a spider lair and then easily use stealth to avoid phase spiders - and this is called clever gameplay and master strategy.

It is therefore clear. We will not likely receive a true D&D 5e experience here, nor shall it be likely even close. After a year and a half of fighting stupidly for this, Larian has made it clear by slapping us in the face with even MORE ridiculous mechanics that completely disregard D&D and the world of Faerun.

This said, I will likely no longer post to this thread. Game over. Flag waved. The memes win.

From this point on, just gonna try to enjoy the game as best I can. My dream for a better BG3 has ended. What hurts most is that it was killed by the Barbarian class... The one class I've been wanting from the beginning.

And now. Taps.

Brrr brrr brrrrrrr. Brrr brrr brrrrrrr. Brrr brrr brrr. Brrr brrr brrr. Brrr brrr brrrrrrr. Brrr brrr brrr. Brrr brrr brrrrrrr.
Posted By: Street Hero Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/02/22 03:50 AM
Op be like
[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]
I mean no disrespect just wanted to say kiss your 5e rules good bye.
[Linked Image from i.redd.it]
Posted By: LukasPrism Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/02/22 03:53 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
So. Ladies and Gentlemen. I believe it is time to admit defeat. It is clear that Larian is moving FURTHER away from D&D 5e rules and stats, preferring to create more superhero gameplay mechanics like chucking 9 pound cats across a span of 1,000 feet so it can land in shadows in a spider lair and then easily use stealth to avoid phase spiders - and this is called clever gameplay and master strategy.

It is therefore clear. We will not likely receive a true D&D 5e experience here, nor shall it be likely even close. After a year and a half of fighting stupidly for this, Larian has made it clear by slapping us in the face with even MORE ridiculous mechanics that completely disregard D&D and the world of Faerun.

This said, I will likely no longer post to this thread. Game over. Flag waved. The memes win.

From this point on, just gonna try to enjoy the game as best I can. My dream for a better BG3 has ended. What hurts most is that it was killed by the Barbarian class... The one class I've been wanting from the beginning.

And now. Taps.

Brrr brrr brrrrrrr. Brrr brrr brrrrrrr. Brrr brrr brrr. Brrr brrr brrr. Brrr brrr brrrrrrr. Brrr brrr brrr. Brrr brrr brrrrrrr.

As a tabletop player of 20+ years I can understand your frustration, and felt the same way as I was watching this game develop without being able to play it as I didn't have a powerful enough PC. Now that I have, and have just come off the back of a full Patch 6 co-op playthrough, I can say I had an absolute blast. All the silly yeeting and whatnot is just so much fun when you're playing together. I can see why Larian have gone in this direction and I have to just live with the fact that it's something different, its own thing. I've done some solo too, and it's definitely not as much fun – although still enjoyable.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 16/02/22 07:55 AM
Originally Posted by Street Hero
THIS IS AWESOME xD
Posted By: Ignatius Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 18/02/22 06:02 PM
Well, the closer it is to core, the easier it can be fixed by modders, in my opinion. Meaning, the less time it will take them to right the wrongs of Larian's short-sighted design philosophy. So, I don't think it's a futile endeavor. But, yes, it can be discouraging.
Posted By: DraigoZarovich Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 18/02/22 07:16 PM
Considering how people completely reworked Divinity OS2, Im expecting a total rework mod to come out in the future as well. Then both sides can be happy.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 20/02/22 09:14 AM
And, we're back. People are once again crying out for 5e.

Because of Shove.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=808775#Post808775

I'm telling ya, this should be a megathread.

Not that it probably matters. Party of 6, Camping, Day/night, movement, all megathreads. Still not implemented.

Sigh.
Posted By: Zefhyr Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 20/02/22 11:27 PM
I agree with this topic.

And even if the point of view ofLukasPrism about he multiplayer mod is interesting.


BG3 shouldn't be create only for multiplayer mod.

Anyway, this is just a DOS3 with nice BG3 clothes and it's not working really great.
I mounred over it a year ago...
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 12:50 AM
Replaying Solasta. Gotta say, it really drives me crazy that they aren't making BG3 combat more 5e. Solasta combat is so much better. it is just so much more balanced and well done.

Ugh. Drives me nuts that BG3 is so NOT balanced.
Posted By: jfutral Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Replaying Solasta. Gotta say, it really drives me crazy that they aren't making BG3 combat more 5e. Solasta combat is so much better. it is just so much more balanced and well done.

Ugh. Drives me nuts that BG3 is so NOT balanced.
Oh, hey. That looks pretty cool. I may have to install Windows on my Mac again to play.

Joe
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 02:05 AM
Did you see these Solasta snippets showing proper 5e shove?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZXI3b_SFXX0RanDOVe88mN0e97DmWoZT/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WzLP0P-y1GfBeU7rbw7TnqHR39Yord1Q/view?usp=sharing

SO much better.

I actually did record 20 minutes of Solasta combat and wanted to post it, but I can't seem to get it to work. 😞

REALLY shows how BG3 COULD be tactical if they just did 5e better.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 04:26 AM
And, I must bring up the harpies again. SO annoying. They fly and throw stones. I come to get them. They fly higher so they can constantly get their +2 height bonus to AC and Attack.

What about making them what they are! Flying multiattacking claw slashing, club smashing melee brawlers who can charm you with their song and then fly down and bash you in the head. Instead, they fly and throw things at you, turning the entire battle into ranged fest or they make you chase after them. So frustrating.

I don't mind some variation, but a more true to 5e approach would really make that fight less annoying.

I mean, I get that you want to use the terrain in the fight. That's cool, but maybe there's some other way than having them constantly playing keep away rock throwers.

And the harpies would spread out their Luring Songs. Have one use hers. When enemies have snapped out of it, THEN another uses hers. A harpy can only charm you once, but you have to roll again for each new harpy's song.

So the harpies need to work together better. Should be first harpy sings, the others swarm in for the kill while those who failed are charmed. They focus on the PCs, leaving Mirkon alone because he's squishy and can be killed easier. They're more worried about taking out those who are charmed first.

Swoop down, bash with club and take with claws. Two hits per round. Now THAT would be a tough fight, and it wouldn't be all about chasing them around and trying to just get high enough so they don't get height bonus.
Posted By: sublimeclown Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 05:47 AM
Originally Posted by jfutral
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Replaying Solasta. Gotta say, it really drives me crazy that they aren't making BG3 combat more 5e. Solasta combat is so much better. it is just so much more balanced and well done.

Ugh. Drives me nuts that BG3 is so NOT balanced.
Oh, hey. That looks pretty cool. I may have to install Windows on my Mac again to play.

Joe

They have Solasta for Mac now.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 07:06 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
They fly and throw stones.
Imersion no longer suits us?

I mean it makes perfect sense doesnt it? They have hands -> they can throw things. And there is plenty rocks around.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 09:35 AM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
They fly and throw stones.
Imersion no longer suits us?

I mean it makes perfect sense doesnt it? They have hands -> they can throw things. And there is plenty rocks around.

It's not about immersion, RagnarokCzD. It's about using the harpies' Creator-Given combat mentality and tactics.

Imagine running into a pack of wolves that didn't attack as a pack. That's what most of the creatures are like in BG3. They don't behave as their creature race says they should.

Here's how harpies should act. One sings. Maybe one or two characters are charmed. The rest of the harpies swarm down and attack the charmed one before they uncharm. They land within melee range and begin to use claws and their club, two attacks per turn in melee combat, to try to kill the charmed one.

Or, as an alternative, they DON'T attack the charmed one(s) for they are making their way slowly towards the singing one. They instead focus on bashing and slashing the ones NOT charmed to try to finish them off either before the charmed ones break the charm or they reach the singing harpy who then starts wailing on them.

Two attacks, one with claws and one with club, have much more damage potential than throwing stones from a distance, and it's far less annoying to not have to chase after them across the board, climbing higher and higher to try to get on even ground with them. They instead drop down to you and pummel your characters at close range. 3 out of the 4 harpies, if not all 4, should surround you and beat you. When you break out of one harpy's song, another starts to sing to charm you again.

Trust me, that would be a tough fight, and it wouldn't be nearly as annoying as chasing after them up the cliffside just so you can get on the same level as them so you don't get a -2 to hit them.

My point is that Larian is trying to make more options for combat. That's what they've said their goal is, or so I thought they said this anyway. However, all they are really doing is stripping D&D 5e options and making them obsolete, and then they are creating their own that you can spam, or HAVE to spam, over and over again.

So, instead of simply Attack, now you must get on even ground with your opponents and/or higher ground so you can hit better. Trading one option for another, honestly more annoying, option.

In Solasta, height isn't as big of a deal. Cover provides +2 to target AC for Ranged Attacks, but height doesn't. So, I'm not constantly fighting to get to higher ground than my opponents. I need to work to get into better position maybe, because they've got cover, but I'm not fighting with winged harpies just to get on an even playing field so I can hit them WHEN THEY CAN FLY.

Over and over again, in just about every scenario of the game, you have to strive to get higher. At least, thank God, they got rid of height advantage, but it's still there with the +2 AC/+2 to Hit. So, goblins, spiders, drow, duergar, harpies... pretty much everything in the game, is constantly trying to "Get to the high ground."

And that is my point. Can we have some variety? D&D is FULL of various monsters all with different attack strategies and abilities. If you're using harpies, make them swarm PCs. Let them use their multiattack abilities to claw and club people.

Imagine Gale, Wyll, Lae'zel and Tav on the beach. Harpy sings. Gale fails. Wyll fails. You have Lae'zel and Tav. 3 Harpies swoop down and surround you. That's 6 attacks in one round. They swarm Gale. In one round, Gale is on the ground bleeding out. Tav is a cleric and heals Gale to get him back on his feet. Lae'zel attacks one harpy with Menacing Attack. Success! Harpy is scared. She uses Action Surge and attacks again. Menacing Attack succeeds. 2 Harpies scared.

Round 2. Wyll starts moving towards the singing harpy. Attacks of opportunity. One of the harpies is close to Wyll and gets a free hit. Wyll is alive, but he's lost 6 HP. He snaps out of it because the damage done to him allows him to reroll his Save. Wyll's back in action. He Eldritch Blasts the first harpy Lae'zel attacked. She goes flying backwards because he has the knockback ability (forgot what it's called right now). A new harpy sings. Lae'zel is now entranced and so is Wyll. Dang!

But Gale is free, and there are two harpies near him that he could attack with Burning Hands. He positions himself to hit both and fires. Ah! Satisfying damage. They both failed. Then they soundly bash and slash him again. This time, it only takes one of them. The other goes after Tav to try to take her down while her companions are charmed. Smash and slash. Tav is hit once. 8 HP off. Tav is forced to heal Gale again. She can't attack because she's struggling to keep her allies alive. Lae'zel makes her way towards the singing harpy. So does Wyll. The harpy that Wyll blasted is scared, so she can't even make her way up to the PC's. NOW it would make sense to have her pick up a stone and throw it as an Improvised Weapon.

Round 3. Wyll doesn't snap out of his charm. He walks right up to the harpy that is singing. "Ah, sweet music." Since he is so close, the harpy can't resist. Let's see how Tav does trying to revive 2 fallen allies. The harpy bashes and slashes Wyll, reducing him to 0 HP. Gale is up, though, and he's bringing his magic back to try to help save Tav. Thunderwave! Both harpies go flying into the river. Lae'zel snaps out of her charm. She rushes the harpy Wyll sent flying. It's already weak. If she can finish it... She rushes up and hacks at it with Menacing Attack. SUCCESS! The harpy dies. Only 3 more to go. Tav runs up to Wyll and heals him. DANG! Tav's really being put to work! Guess it was good to have a cleric around, eh? The harpies return. Wyll and Gale are both taken down by one harpy a piece because, you know, they get two attacks each with club and claw, and Tav can't heal that much each time. The third one goes for Tav. One hit and one miss.

Hmmm. Actually, this fight sounds too tough for a party of 4, doesn't it? Maybe they should allow us to have a Party of 6 instead. smile
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 09:48 AM
Ah. At last, I got the video to work.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ujqM1gJtaYn3ziJ3Xs6OQjlwOzhYjbvt/view?usp=drivesdk

Here is a video of Solasta combat gameplay. This is what Baldur's Gate 3 COULD play like if they used more RAW D&D 5e combat. Now, let me make this very clear. I'm not saying I want BG3 to play EXACTLY like this, nor do I think the UI is exactly how I would like BG3's UI, BUT what I'm saying is that BG3 could be WAY more balanced with plenty of combat options still being brought to the table IF they implemented more of the 5e rules.

Also note how easy the UI is to read, and note how easy it is to find everything. Notice also how quick it is to find options in the UI and to select them and focus more on the game and not on trying to find all the various skills and abilities. Notice how Reactions work and how special abilities like Smite work. Quick. Simple. Straightforward. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. That's what Tactical Adventures did, and it works well.

Now, that said, they REALLY could have improved their controls simply by providing hotkeys. Spacebar to end turn instead of having to click on the End Turn button, a hotkey for stealth, a hotkey for spells, being able to hit escape to close a menu instead of clicking on Abort... All those things are annoying in Solasta. They really would have benefited from providing hotkeys and allowing players to customize their hotkeys. Also, the UI in Solasta is also a bit too big, and their mini-map is virtually useless. It's just more of a radar than a map. You have to pull up the mini-map via the M hotkey (so there are a few hotkeys). There isn't a convenient mini-map for you right on the screen.

But notice how all the Actions are on the left. All the Bonus on the Right. When I hover over enemies, it automatically switches to Attack icon. If I want to attack with offhand first, I simply go to the Bonus Action Attack and click it first. Then I select my enemy. And notice how after my first attack is done, if I hover over the enemy it is auto-switching to the Attack icon. So, if I want to attack 2 times in a row, I don't need to press the Attack button. I can just hover over my enemy, Attack, hover over enemy again, Attack. Simple. Easy. Not a lot of back and forth.

And see how simple the switch weapons icon is? And notice how if you switch to one you can't switch back. Oh my goodness! You mean, it doesn't make sense to be able to pull out a bow, nock an arrow to it, fire, put the bow away, and pull out your sword and shield again just so you can benefit from the shield's extra AC? Yes! It makes no sense. If you switch your weapons, you can't switch back in a single round. (Now, that said, I think Solasta is a bit TOO strict on this. If I switch to melee to see if it would be better to use my melee weapon, I'd like to be able to switch back to ranged again if ranged is a better option. As long as I haven't actually attacked, I'd like to be able to see my options. Solasta locks you into the weapons you switch to whether it's good or not. That sucks! Don't want that.) And notice how straight the arrows fly. No weird arcs and jazz. Clean. Crisp combat. Ahhhh!

Anyway, there are so many things I could point out, but watch the video and imagine how BG3 would be if they simply used more strict 5e rules like Solasta.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 11:04 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's about using the harpies' Creator-Given combat mentality and tactics.

Imagine running into a pack of wolves that didn't attack as a pack. That's what most of the creatures are like in BG3. They don't behave as their creature race says they should.
That is exactly what im talking about ...
Imagine you are intelligent (or at least sentient) creature with both wings and hands ... with opposite thumb ... so you are totally capable of graping and throwing stuff.

What reason in every Hell you would have to "swoop down and fight in meele" while your greater advantage over litteraly everything except other winged creature with both wings and hands ... is that you are totally capable to fight from safe distance?
Especialy since you are living on such place as this rocky cliff, that is litteraly FULL of potential amunution? laugh

//Edit:
I would understand the idea: Try to charm them ... slit throats of those who are charmed, before they wake up ...
But anything else is willingly put yourself in danger ... for what benefit exactly? laugh
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It's about using the harpies' Creator-Given combat mentality and tactics.

Imagine running into a pack of wolves that didn't attack as a pack. That's what most of the creatures are like in BG3. They don't behave as their creature race says they should.
That is exactly what im talking about ...
Imagine you are intelligent (or at least sentient) creature with both wings and hands ... with opposite thumb ... so you are totally capable of graping and throwing stuff.

What reason in every Hell you would have to "swoop down and fight in meele" while your greater advantage over litteraly everything except other winged creature with both wings and hands ... is that you are totally capable to fight from safe distance?
Especialy since you are living on such place as this rocky cliff, that is litteraly FULL of potential amunution? laugh

//Edit:
I would understand the idea: Try to charm them ... slit throats of those who are charmed, before they wake up ...
But anything else is willingly put yourself in danger ... for what benefit exactly? laugh

Throwing stones. 1d4+1 damage (5 max), or at least it SHOULD be, but Larian has them dealing up to 8 damage per stone somehow (based on last playthrough). Regardless, slashing with claws and bashing with club. 14 HP potential damage (2d4+1 and 1d4+1). The entire tactical advantage of harpies is Luring Song, Charm Targets, swarm them, kill them fast.

But yes. IF that tactic fails and their targets start to win the fight, THEN it makes sense to maybe have them start to take tactical advantage of flying away and hurling stones.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 01:18 PM
Well ... improvised weapons (stones) were added only just now ...
So it makes sence that Larian had to implement some kind of ranged attack for them ...

It would be great if they would change it ... even better if they would prepare lets say 5-10 "heavy rocks" for them, so they are "prepared to hunt in their usual spot" (and to provide players who first scout their suroundings to sabotage this plan)
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 01:26 PM
Do rocks have the same range as a Long Bow? Since everything seems to be the same 18m in BG3. Rocks should have a really crappy range and suffer from Disadvantage outside that. They are not actual weapons.

Throwing rocks is more of a joke when talking about combat. There could be a situational rock drop for the Harpies close to their lair but yeah they should sing and swoop down to claw you mostly.

Other than that, I rather like the fight. Using Jump to hunt them down is very satisfying.

But overall, Larian needs to control the urge to give enemies teleport abilities and ranged weapons. Harpies throwing a rock or two is fine, but the Phase Spiders spitting poison and devil pigs jumping over tanks in a tactical chokepoint are not.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 23/02/22 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Do rocks have the same range as a Long Bow? Since everything seems to be the same 18m in BG3. Rocks should have a really crappy range and suffer from Disadvantage outside that. They are not actual weapons.

Throwing rocks is more of a joke when talking about combat. There could be a situational rock drop for the Harpies close to their lair but yeah they should sing and swoop down to claw you mostly.

Other than that, I rather like the fight. Using Jump to hunt them down is very satisfying.

But overall, Larian needs to control the urge to give enemies teleport abilities and ranged weapons. Harpies throwing a rock or two is fine, but the Phase Spiders spitting poison and devil pigs jumping over tanks in a tactical chokepoint are not.

Thrown Improvised Weapons = 20 feet/ max 60 with Disadvantage. 1d4+1 damage at most with 2d4+1 crit. Again, makes sense once Luring Song is no longer working to then fly away and throw rocks, but when first attacking, they should swarm with claw and club.

I sometimes wonder if they are planning to do these things later, and I sure hope so. We know that they SAID Difficulty settings will be added, so maybe there will be a Core setting that has harpies acting more like genuine harpies. Maybe they're just testing other potential difficulty settings they want to create. Maybe. Hopefully.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules - 24/02/22 07:41 PM