Larian Studios
I'm wondering if we should maybe make a complete list of differences in rules. Not because I think that there can't be any differences, but just for posterity.

So list differences you've found here, and I'll edit them into the top post. If there's something that people generally feel the Devs need to rethink I'll add notes.

I'll start:


01. Mage Hand requires Concentration(it does NOT in the PHB), but it can also now shove/interact with enemies (which it couldn't do in the P&P version). ~ (So buffed and balanced against said buff?)

02. Firebolt is now 1D6 + A chance to catch fire instead of 1D10 (Might be considered a slight Buff).

03. Ray Of Frost now creates an ice surface that can knock enemies prone (Buffed)

04. Acid Splash has been changed to an AOE attack that reduces AC by 2 (a considerable buff).

05. Wizard's can learn any spell (hopefully a bug)

06. Can get sneak attack with Great Sword (hopefully a bug)

07. Food heals health (hopefully a bug)

08. Scrolls can be used by anyone (hopefully a bug)

09. Grease is flammable (Have to test myself, Sage Advice, states it is not, might be an intentional buff / return to older rulings on Grease, also it might just make the spell that much more useful).

10. Automatic Passive Perception Checks are missing (this is something I think should be addressed sooner rather than later).

11. Darkness has an arbitrary block on firing ranged into and out of it.

12. Devil's Sight warlock invocation does nothing, since even with it, you are still blinded in Darkness.

13. Sleep spell has been changed to a fixed amount of hit points (16 + 8HP Per Level). in the PHB it says "This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total is how many hit points of creatures this spell can affect.

14. Rogues do NOT get Expertise at level 1 (which is a bummer, I think that should be changed to be more like 5e P&P).

15. Rogue Cunning Action has been nerfed to only be used for DASH (which is also a bummer, and I also think that should be changed to be more like 5e P&P).

16. Spears should be VERSITILE Weapons (They are only Two-Handed in Open Access, and it really serves no purpose mechanically).

17. Dipping/coating your weapon takes a bonus action instead of an action. Also you can use fire to add 1d4 fire damage instead of poison. (Yes, Basic Poison is described in the PHB and explicitly says you can coat your weapon with it as an Action for additional 1d4 damage added to the attack.)
Regarding your first point, Mage Hand is definitely buffed. It can do things like shove people, which it absolutely could not do in the tabletop. The Concentration trade-off seems fair.
Originally Posted by Zer0
Regarding your first point, Mage Hand is definitely buffed. It can do things like shove people, which it absolutely could not do in the tabletop. The Concentration trade-off seems fair.


Noted, and added!
Wizard's can learn any spell (hopefully a bug)

Can get sneak attack with Great Sword (hopefully a bug)

Food heals health (hopefully a bug)

Scrolls can be used by anyone (hopefully a bug)

Grease is flammable (From Sage Advice, JC states it is not)

What about stuff that a bit grey? Attacking from above in BG3 gives advantage, that not really in the rules but could be a DM call / interpretation so definitely a house rule in BG3.

Anyone can use thieves tools.
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem
Wizard's can learn any spell (hopefully a bug)

Can get sneak attack with Great Sword (hopefully a bug)

Food heals health (hopefully a bug)

Scrolls can be used by anyone (hopefully a bug)

Grease is flammable (From Sage Advice, JC states it is not)



Thanks, adding those now!
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem

Grease is flammable (From Sage Advice, JC states it is not)


I mean, if we're talking about differences between BG3 and the PHB, which is the title of this thread, then this one doesn't count. The PHB absolutely does not say that Grease isn't flammable, it historically has always been flammable, and many people disagree with the Sage Advice. If I had to guess, between the DMs that don't know/care about Sage Advice and the ones who think this particular one is wrong, I'd venture that at least 3/4 of tabletop 5e games play with flammable Grease.
Originally Posted by sactoking
Originally Posted by Merry Mayhem

Grease is flammable (From Sage Advice, JC states it is not)


I mean, if we're talking about differences between BG3 and the PHB, which is the title of this thread, then this one doesn't count. The PHB absolutely does not say that Grease isn't flammable, it historically has always been flammable, and many people disagree with the Sage Advice. If I had to guess, between the DMs that don't know/care about Sage Advice and the ones who think this particular one is wrong, I'd venture that at least 3/4 of tabletop 5e games play with flammable Grease.



Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
If the grease spell created a flammable substance, the spell would say so. It doesn't say so. #DnD

From PHB

Grease
1st-level conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a bit of pork rind or butter)
Duration: 1 minute
Slick grease covers the ground in a 10-foot square centered on a point within range and turns it into difficult terrain for the duration.
When the grease appears, each creature standing in its area must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall prone. A creature that enters the area or ends its turn there must also succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall prone.

Darkness has an arbitrary block on firing ranged into and out of it, and Devil's Sight warlock invocation does nothing, since even with it, you are still blinded in Darkness.
Firebolt is considerably buffed because of the way it works now, I don't know if it's just because I've been having good luck or something, but in my experience it always applies burn and it burns right away, as well as at the start of their turn, on top of causing damage because they take more damage when they move out of the fire surface. I'm hoping this is just a bug and that it won't give burn damage right away or cause damage for moving out of that tiny pool of fire.

I believe the Sleep spell has been changed, because in the PHB it says "This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total is how many hit points of creatures this spell can affect. Creatures within 20 feet of a point you choose within range are affected in ascending order of their current hit points (ignoring unconscious creatures)." while I believe the way it works in BG3 is that it puts creatures up to a predetermined HP amount to sleep. Could be wrong on this one, been a while since I looked at sleep in BG3, will check and edit if needed.
Nothing you quoted invalidates my point. PHB doesn't say it's not flammable, it has historically been flammable, and people don't follow/agree with Sage Advice. Simple as that. It's not a BG3/PHB difference, it's a BG3/Sage Advice difference.

Plus, if we followed the Sage Advice reasoning, there are a TON of things players and DMs pull that are "against the rules" because he's taking a 'only things clearly defined are allowed' stance in this instance when it's not taken in any other instance. Can a player recover caltrops? The PHB doesn't say they're "recoverable" so the Sage Advice logic says no but a practical application would be that of course a player could spend 5-10 minutes picking them up.
Originally Posted by sactoking
Nothing you quoted invalidates my point. PHB doesn't say it's not flammable, it has historically been flammable, and people don't follow/agree with Sage Advice. Simple as that. It's not a BG3/PHB difference, it's a BG3/Sage Advice difference.

Plus, if we followed the Sage Advice reasoning, there are a TON of things players and DMs pull that are "against the rules" because he's taking a 'only things clearly defined are allowed' stance in this instance when it's not taken in any other instance. Can a player recover caltrops? The PHB doesn't say they're "recoverable" so the Sage Advice logic says no but a practical application would be that of course a player could spend 5-10 minutes picking them up.



I changed my text to leave Grease more open ended. I'm going to test the spell soon, as it might just be that much more of a utility thing being flammable. Either way, this list of differences isn't to poo poo devs or to champion Rules Lawyers...it's just to give people a guide to things that might not be what they expect, and if something really sucks, we'll be honest about it.

I really appreciate you speaking up about Grease though, I've never seen anyone use it in a P&P game as flammable, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a better spell for it.
Originally Posted by Pupito
Firebolt is considerably buffed because of the way it works now, I don't know if it's just because I've been having good luck or something, but in my experience it always applies burn and it burns right away, as well as at the start of their turn, on top of causing damage because they take more damage when they move out of the fire surface. I'm hoping this is just a bug and that it won't give burn damage right away or cause damage for moving out of that tiny pool of fire.

I believe the Sleep spell has been changed, because in the PHB it says "This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total is how many hit points of creatures this spell can affect. Creatures within 20 feet of a point you choose within range are affected in ascending order of their current hit points (ignoring unconscious creatures)." while I believe the way it works in BG3 is that it puts creatures up to a predetermined HP amount to sleep. Could be wrong on this one, been a while since I looked at sleep in BG3, will check and edit if needed.



You are definitely right about sleep. Adding it now.
Originally Posted by CaryMiller
Originally Posted by sactoking
Nothing you quoted invalidates my point. PHB doesn't say it's not flammable, it has historically been flammable, and people don't follow/agree with Sage Advice. Simple as that. It's not a BG3/PHB difference, it's a BG3/Sage Advice difference.

Plus, if we followed the Sage Advice reasoning, there are a TON of things players and DMs pull that are "against the rules" because he's taking a 'only things clearly defined are allowed' stance in this instance when it's not taken in any other instance. Can a player recover caltrops? The PHB doesn't say they're "recoverable" so the Sage Advice logic says no but a practical application would be that of course a player could spend 5-10 minutes picking them up.



I changed my text to leave Grease more open ended. I'm going to test the spell soon, as it might just be that much more of a utility thing being flammable. Either way, this list of differences isn't to poo poo devs or to champion Rules Lawyers...it's just to give people a guide to things that might not be what they expect, and if something really sucks, we'll be honest about it.

I really appreciate you speaking up about Grease though, I've never seen anyone use it in a P&P game as flammable, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a better spell for it.


Well, I have always gone with, if it does not state it can do something, it probably can't. Look at the Web Spell, main use is to restrain creatures but also can be set on fire. If grease is flammable, why did they add that for Web but not add it for Grease?

"The webs are flammable. Any 5-foot cube of webs exposed to fire burns away in 1 round, dealing 2d4 fire damage to any creature that starts its turn in the fire."
Originally Posted by CaryMiller
Originally Posted by sactoking
Nothing you quoted invalidates my point. PHB doesn't say it's not flammable, it has historically been flammable, and people don't follow/agree with Sage Advice. Simple as that. It's not a BG3/PHB difference, it's a BG3/Sage Advice difference.

Plus, if we followed the Sage Advice reasoning, there are a TON of things players and DMs pull that are "against the rules" because he's taking a 'only things clearly defined are allowed' stance in this instance when it's not taken in any other instance. Can a player recover caltrops? The PHB doesn't say they're "recoverable" so the Sage Advice logic says no but a practical application would be that of course a player could spend 5-10 minutes picking them up.



I changed my text to leave Grease more open ended. I'm going to test the spell soon, as it might just be that much more of a utility thing being flammable. Either way, this list of differences isn't to poo poo devs or to champion Rules Lawyers...it's just to give people a guide to things that might not be what they expect, and if something really sucks, we'll be honest about it.

I really appreciate you speaking up about Grease though, I've never seen anyone use it in a P&P game as flammable, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a better spell for it.


This and some spells in general. I actually think they are going slightly off to be more realistic, and those providing immersion to the spells. A thing D&D doesn't do because it's up to the DM to decide.

Case in point firebolt having a smaller damage die, but causing things to burn. So it's 1d6 now vs. 1d10 a difference of a 1d4. It's a slight buff I've not seen any massive numbers off of burning normally within the 1d4 range. The flame also doesn't last long usually 2 rounds, which is 12 seconds D&D time. on average your still only getting 4 extra damage on an enemy. Since the burn doesnt stack, then your next firebolt will still only be 1d6 worth of damage. plus on average an extra 4.

If they simply stuck with a nongraphical games listing of spell effects then it would be boring. I know DM's that house rules things like using fire in a forest has a chance of starting a fire. It adds more realism, and consequences to the game. Makes you think, instead of going murder hobo all the time.

Yes sleep is way off.

So are spears = in game they are 2handed, in 5e they are versatile. It makes no sense that they are only 2handed in game, not even realistically.

Racial cantrips - are not according to 5e, most seem to have the same ones. could be place holder for future updates after bugs, and other things are done.

Passive perceptions are indeed automatic, they just show you. = When you spot a trap as your walking, spot a lever, secret door, etc. It's using your passive perception, since currently there is no way to have your characters actively looking. They simply use your passive perception for it, and it's always going.
Familiars in BG3 have an attack. This is not the case in PHB unless you are a Chains warlock.
So for sleep, the spell goes up by 8 hp for the upcast from level one to two (24 hp to 32 hp). I suspect rather than go with an average value of 5d8--(5+40)/2=22.5, round down to 22--for the spell, they just reduced the maximum by 16 and then increase the spell's affected hp by 8 for each level of spell slot above 1.

If they went with average, it would be 22 for the level one version, then 31 for the level 2 version, and so on, adding 9 (the average roll of 2d8) every time.

I don't understand exactly why they did it this way, but seeing as how level 4 Gale can knock out two goblins in one go with level 2 sleep, it may be for balance? If they actually did the die roll, he could knock out the entire goblin group at the front gate to their camp, or most of them at least.

Also where would they put the die roll? If they put it before you cast the spell, then you could just cancel the casting and reroll. If they put it after, you wouldn't have any clue how effective it would be (which is how this goes in 5e but usually you can modify your aiming after you roll the HP dice if you have a normal, decent DM).

this prob bugs me more then it should, Spears are 2h in bg3 but not in core. Spears dont have reach and have the damage of a 1h unlike polearms ect that are 2h which have reach. side note reach is 10 ft not 8.3 but its effectively the same.
Let's add weapon ranges to the list? Right now, both longbow and short bow have a range of 18m, leaving 1d6 vs 1s8 as the only meager distinction.
Disengage and Jump are the same thing, and are bonus actions for all classes... even if that's supposed to be a power granted by the tadpole, it should be changed. Both are proper actions, only disengage should be a bonus action for rogues.
- Sleep only lasts for 1 round I believe? (While its 1 min in the PHB). But most spells have duration changed. Shield of faith for example lasts until rest I believe (10 min in the PHB).
- Rogues have no expertise.
- Arrows create surfaces.
- Fighters get a fighting style at lvl 2 instead of at lvl 1.
- You can only have 1 short rest between long rests. In the TTRPG there is no such limitation.
- The help action immediately gives someone 1hp. Originally you need a Medicine check of 10 to stabilize them, and they 1hp after 1d4 hours.
- Shove as a bonus action for everyone.
- Disengage as a bonus action for everyone.

Those are the unlisted changes on top of my head.




Originally Posted by clavis

Case in point firebolt having a smaller damage die, but causing things to burn. So it's 1d6 now vs. 1d10 a difference of a 1d4. It's a slight buff I've not seen any massive numbers off of burning normally within the 1d4 range. The flame also doesn't last long usually 2 rounds, which is 12 seconds D&D time. on average your still only getting 4 extra damage on an enemy. Since the burn doesnt stack, then your next firebolt will still only be 1d6 worth of damage. plus on average an extra 4.

If they simply stuck with a nongraphical games listing of spell effects then it would be boring. I know DM's that house rules things like using fire in a forest has a chance of starting a fire. It adds more realism, and consequences to the game. Makes you think, instead of going murder hobo all the time.


I think the buff to firebolt is massive. It often applies damage three times to the same target. They get hit and ignited. And when they move, they get ignited again. Not only that, but you still apply damage when you miss in most cases. Ray of frost combining a trip with decent damage is also a massive buff.

And I don't think the surfaces add any realism. Getting shot in the chest by a frostray, and suddenly slipping on ice seems weird. The same goes for the cobblestone beneath your feet getting ignited from you being hit by a fire. I don't mind stuff like grease being set on fire by flames though. Many a player would ask their GM if they could do such a thing.






Originally Posted by Old-School-Gamer
Familiars in BG3 have an attack. This is not the case in PHB unless you are a Chains warlock.
And for Pact of the Chain, it's "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack with its reaction."
Originally Posted by CaryMiller

01. Mage Hand requires Concentration(it does NOT in the PHB), but it can also now shove/interact with enemies (which it couldn't do in the P&P version). ~ (So buffed and balanced against said buff?)

02. Firebolt is now 1D6 + A chance to catch fire instead of 1D10 (Might be considered a slight Buff).

03. Ray Of Frost now creates an ice surface that can knock enemies prone (Buffed)

04. Acid Splash has been changed to an AOE attack that reduces AC by 2 (a considerable buff).

To be perfectly honest the list could end here and the system would still be insanely divergent from 5E. Entries in the Cantrip class of Actions were thoroughly playtested and their specific designs are integral to the balance across all Action +hit and +dmg modifiers in 5E. Cantrips are considered overpowered by a majority of the playerbase even without these additions as they increase the presence of caster classes even before they traditionally overtake martial classes with the insane utility of 4th level and higher spells.
There's also spell ranges. Eldritch Blast now has some range as Acid Splash.

Class features. No expertise for rogues. Cunning action nerfed to dash only.
*BUMP!* Will go through everyone's posts when I have a minute and add more to the list.
Push is a bonus action instead of an action.
A few relatively minor, racial changes:
  • Halflings don't seem to get Halfling Nimbleness (though that is because it probably isn't too relevant in the CRPG)
  • Lightfoot Halflings now get Stealth proficiency rather than Advantage when hiding behind larger creatures.
  • The Half-Elf optional subraces have entirely replaced the PHB Half-elf (who got 2 free-choice skill proficiencies instead of Mark of the wild or the High-Elf Cantrip).
  • Similarly Drow are an Elven subrace (and to be honest I can't see any good reason why they have decided to change that - Both Seldarine Drow and Lolth-Sworn appear to be identical so it can't be just so that they could have separate Drow subraces).
  • Human's are accurate as far as I can tell, but are missing the Human variant option. I don't think I have actually seen anyone use the standard PHB Human in game (it's not banned or anything, just not used).
Originally Posted by Pupito
Firebolt is considerably buffed because of the way it works now, I don't know if it's just because I've been having good luck or something, but in my experience it always applies burn and it burns right away, as well as at the start of their turn, on top of causing damage because they take more damage when they move out of the fire surface. I'm hoping this is just a bug and that it won't give burn damage right away or cause damage for moving out of that tiny pool of fire.

I believe the Sleep spell has been changed, because in the PHB it says "This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total is how many hit points of creatures this spell can affect. Creatures within 20 feet of a point you choose within range are affected in ascending order of their current hit points (ignoring unconscious creatures)." while I believe the way it works in BG3 is that it puts creatures up to a predetermined HP amount to sleep. Could be wrong on this one, been a while since I looked at sleep in BG3, will check and edit if needed.


Firebolt is actually underpowered as the AoE damage doesn't scale.
- Offhand attacks can be made without making a mainhand attack with another light weapon first.
- Object interactions are unlimited. (can switch from bow, shoot, to dual weild - offhand attack, to sword and board, all in one round)
- Stealth does not require a roll if you are heavily obscured, and it is possible even when only lightly obscured, whereas in PHB you MUST be heavily obscured in order to even attempt to hide.
- Shove does not allow you to push people prone, and it has a much greater shoving distance.
- Falling prone on your turn ends your turn and no actions can be taken while prone.
- Enemies make saves vs hold person at the start of their turn, and can then take actions after. A huge nerf ot the spell.
- Invisibility does not allow you to target the enemy with single target attacks - in PHB invisiblity just gives you disadvantage, but unless they are hhiding you should still be aware of their location and be able to make attacks against them, so long as it is not a spell that requires you to see the opponent.
- Spells no longer use components, aside from verbal - which all spells now use.
- Invoke duplicity now serves as nothing but a distraction.
- Mirror image has been majorly nerfed to now provide +3 ac per duplicate, and you lose one of the clones each time an enemy misses you, rather than each time you are hit and the attack is deflected to a copy.
- Colour spray now works against a fixed number of hp liek the sleep spell.
- The sleep spell has a much shorter duration.
- Offhand attacks automatically grant your ability score modifier to damage.
- Thief gets an extra bonus action for its fast hands ability, as opposed to being able to use objects as a bonus action. And it can use this e xtra bonus action to make a second offhand attack.
- Thief gets resistance to falling damage instead of no penalty to climbing speed.
- Arcane trickster no longer gets mage hand + 2 cantrips, instead they just get 2 cantrips.
- The help action now restores a downed character to 1hp rather than providing advantage.
- Jumping now requires a bonus action, and has been tied to disengage,
- You cannot move through friendly spaces (unless you jump over them).
- False life now gives a flat 5 temporary hp, rather than 2d6 (a nerf)
- Dancing lights now requires concentration.
- No cover rules have been implemented (aside form full cover)
- Sacred flame ignores full cover.
- The GWM and sharpshooter feat have been combined - heavy crossbows now coutn as heavy weapons and work with great weapon master, but sharpshooter feat has been removed.

When you get the same proficiency from multiple sources (for instance, Stealth from Lightfoot Halfling and Urchin Background), you should get a free pick of a skill instead - but in BG3 you basically "lose" a proficiency via the overlap.
Originally Posted by Muldeh
Originally Posted by endolex
When you get the same proficiency from multiple sources (for instance, Stealth from Lightfoot Halfling and Urchin Background), you should get a free pick of a skill instead - but in BG3 you basically "lose" a proficiency via the overlap.


That's not a difference between BG3 and PHB.


Yes it is. PHB specifically states:

Originally Posted by PHB page 125
"If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead."


I stand corrected, thanks for teaching me something. smile

Jsut played another fight so got a couple more notes:
- Opportunity attacks by players that are dual weilding attack twice.
- Bane is currently granting disadvantage to attacks rather than -1d4 (porbably a bug)
- The unconcious condition gives attackers 100% chance to hit
- The evocation schools spell sculpting does not seem to work (probably bugged)
- The abjuration schools arcane ward doesn't seem to do anything.. though the description says it only has 3hp anyway which is pitiful compared to phb.
- Upcasting armour of agathys currently increases the tmp hp but not the damage (looks like a bug)
- There seems to be no way to willingly end concentration early except for casting another concentration spell.
- Weight capacity has been changed to 10lb per point in str rather than 15, but encumbereance currently has no effect in game.


Originally Posted by Ascorius
- Sleep only lasts for 1 round I believe? (While its 1 min in the PHB). But most spells have duration changed. Shield of faith for example lasts until rest I believe (10 min in the PHB).



adding back the durations would help with the need to sleep, as i played i think 5 hours without camping once with ease.


things to maybe add:
-Something to think about, i understand why its not used, but spell components and ammo would be nice.
-adding str option to intimidation.
-the inability to have familiar and animal companion out at the same time. If someone wants to play a pet class let them go all out.
-Creatures have disadvantage to hit any targets 5 or more feet above them, regardless of their size or level of cover (applies to weapon and spell attacks)
-Creatures have advantage to hit any targets 5 or more feet below them (applies to weapon and spell attacks)
-Spells that target saving throws cannot be used on creatures above you to bypass disadvantage, a "Too High" indicator is provided, there is no indication how high "Too High" is
-All ranged spells and abilities seem to have the same 60 foot range
-Ranged weapons can hit targets further away with increased elevation

Demonstration of height system:
https://i.imgur.com/ENQEFrM.jpg

In this screenshot, my character has disadvantage to hit an enormous flying angry balloon who is 9 feet above me, because he is 9 feet above me.
Originally Posted by override367
-Creatures have disadvantage to hit any targets 5 or more feet above them, regardless of their size or level of cover (applies to weapon and spell attacks)

-Ranged weapons can hit targets further away with increased elevation


all spells seem to be that way, even dc saves spells.
Please add Silence...

Silence is BROKEN.
1) Silence only seams to affect the Players;
- Enemies are able to cast
- Harpies can sing whether they are in the area or the players are in the area
- Goblins can still beat a war drum to draw other into a fight while in a silenced area

I thought Silence meant no sound in our out, Otherwise this should be renamed to "Player Duct Tape" as the only this it does is affect the PCs ability to cast vocal spells.
Right now there's only really one option for a Beast Master, since Larian has decided to drastically deviate from 5e rules (shocker). You have a choice between 0 CR beasts (Raven with 1 HP, WTF) to a 1 CR über spider beast companion.

5e rules for ranger companion:
It's has a 1/4 CR or lower.
Medium size or smaller.
Add your proficiency bonus to their AC, attack and damage rolls.
Also add your proficiency bonus to skills and saves they're proficient in.
And their HP total is their normal max total, or 4 times your level, whichever is higher.

Larian ignores virtually all these rules with their beast master, ranger companion.
for the Ranger:Hunter subclass
Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker are not limited to once per turn. Which is a pretty solid buff, especially for dual wield and extra attack at level 5
Another thing, all classes can swap prepared spells at any time including combat. (hope this is a bug)
Dipping/coating your weapon takes a bonus action instead of an action. Also you can use fire to add 1d4 fire damage instead of poison. (Yes, Basic Poison is described in the PHB and explicitly says you can coat your weapon with it as an Action for additional 1d4 damage added to the attack.)
Originally Posted by Msciwoj
Dipping/coating your weapon takes a bonus action instead of an action. Also you can use fire to add 1d4 fire damage instead of poison. (Yes, Basic Poison is described in the PHB and explicitly says you can coat your weapon with it as an Action for additional 1d4 damage added to the attack.)


Brilliant! Adding now.
- Rogue sneak attack damage. There's another thread about the calculation, but essentially it's 1d6 * number of dice, not Xd6. So you have sneak attack of 3d6, it rolls 1d6 and multiples the result by 3, rather than rolling 3d6. If this isn't changed, I assume this will also affect paladin smites once the paladin is added.
- Rogue sneak attack is also a separate action. In the pen and paper, you don't have to say "I sneak attack". It just gets automatically applied on your first hit of the round as long as you meet the requirements (finesse or ranged weapon; advantage or ally within 5 feet of the target).
- Also, can't dual wield with all one-handed light weapons. You should be able to dual wield a rapier and shortsword/dagger. Technically, you should be able to dual wield rapiers.
Too bad i can't coat my sword with bottled light/darkness yet but my magic missiles sure do have awful pathfinding.
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Too bad i can't coat my sword with bottled light/darkness yet but my magic missiles sure do have awful pathfinding.



Maybe you will be able to coat your weapon in barrelmancy for act 2.

Originally Posted by Tomoya
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Too bad i can't coat my sword with bottled light/darkness yet but my magic missiles sure do have awful pathfinding.



Maybe you will be able to coat your weapon in barrelmancy for act 2.


They should just let my wizard conjure them out of thin air.
Originally Posted by JDCrenton

Originally Posted by Tomoya
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Too bad i can't coat my sword with bottled light/darkness yet but my magic missiles sure do have awful pathfinding.



Maybe you will be able to coat your weapon in barrelmancy for act 2.


They should just let my wizard conjure them out of thin air.


That might be too much. They already can learn divine spells with scrolls.

Maybe a warlock pact.. with Larian Studios, devils of barrelmancy
Originally Posted by Tomoya
Originally Posted by JDCrenton

Originally Posted by Tomoya
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Too bad i can't coat my sword with bottled light/darkness yet but my magic missiles sure do have awful pathfinding.



Maybe you will be able to coat your weapon in barrelmancy for act 2.


They should just let my wizard conjure them out of thin air.


That might be too much. They already can learn divine spells with scrolls.

Maybe a warlock pact.. with Larian Studios, devils of barrelmancy


Wait till i can craft/combine my 1000 empty botles with the oil barrel. That'll show ya!
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Originally Posted by Tomoya
Originally Posted by JDCrenton

Originally Posted by Tomoya
[quote=JDCrenton]Too bad i can't coat my sword with bottled light/darkness yet but my magic missiles sure do have awful pathfinding.



Maybe you will be able to coat your weapon in barrelmancy for act 2.


They should just let my wizard conjure them out of thin air.


That might be too much. They already can learn divine spells with scrolls.

Maybe a warlock pact.. with Larian Studios, devils of barrelmancy


Just don't craft them ahead of time. They don't weight all that much but 1000 of them would add up. Just spam them out during combat as you need. Im sure combining will be left out of the action economy, wouldn't want to prevent players from being creative.
On Two Weapon Fighting

In PHB weapons are declared wielded, but no clarification is made that one hand is main and the other is off-hand.

This has a few implications.
Say a character rogue is holding a dagger and a club and fighting foes weak to bludgeoning. Upon declaring the attack action the player must... choose with which weapon to attack. After that attack hits or misses, the player can choose to use Two-Weapon Fighting to attack with the other, or use any other bonus action.

At level 5 when extra attack enters the mix things get interesting. Now Extra Attack allows you to use the attack action to attack with the same weapon twice, or each weapon once. Doing this opens the bonus action to use either weapon.



On Rogue > Sneak attack

Sneak attack in 5e is not an action but rather a rider on every attack. this is important as a thief dual wielding should be able to land a sneak attack on an attack made with the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action if they were to miss with the Attack Action.


On Rogue > Thief > Fast Hands / Potion of speed / Haste?

Thief's should not have a second bonus action. this entirely changes the feel of the class. In D&D 5e they have another option to use their bonus action not a second one. The bonus action is highly valued and while fighters can get a second action (action surge) there are no ways to get a second bonus action.

On Rogue > Cunning Action / Hide
Hide is an action not a bonus action.
Originally Posted by CaryMiller09
. Grease is flammable (Have to test myself, Sage Advice, states it is not, might be an intentional buff / return to older rulings on Grease, also it might just make the spell that much more useful).


I can't show you in the rulebook where it says that grease is flammable, but I can show you on a fire extinguisher.

I'm not sure about 5e, but I think lantern oil can be set alight for 2d6 damage in 3e. The damage flammable surfaces do seems to be on par with that.
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk


Mod edit: title changed to reflect new megathread status. Old title: "Please, please, please, make it more true to the core rules. Please."
The core rules of the most enigmatic fantasy universe that only reallifer play with their friends normally? wink
[color:#990000]They already said that they tried sticking to the core rules, but that it didn't work in a video game medium. Personally I think they're doing a great job of balancing the rules vs video game issue.[/color]
Lol, they either lied or failed if they really tried to make it closer to the core rules and decided it didn't work. Solasta is another 5e CRPG and it nails the core rules that people keep asking Larian to change back to 5e, most notably the action economy of 5e. Solasta lacks the polish of BG3 but the tactical combat is far better and a hell of a lot more fun than BG3, IMO. If you have a chance you should check out a gameplay video of Solasta and see for yourself that the core 5e rules are easily implemented and entertaining. Hell they even included the 1 free action per round but they gave players a bit of headroom in that you can use the free action to swap a weapon set, so you can switch from sword and board to two hander as a free action, where you can't do that in table top.
Originally Posted by Khultak
Lol, they either lied or failed if they really tried to make it closer to the core rules and decided it didn't work.
Yeah, it seems they had some preconceptions about what works. I doubt they tried.
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?
I usually dont mind if videogame dev deviates from source material because some thing indeed could work better in videogame, but atm im not convinced and fun is relative. For me, fun in a tactical turn based game is the need to carefully position my party members so i dont get attack of opportunities, or my wizad is not surrounded (and i cannot just jump away), i need to use class-specific, diverse actions and combat stays tense and exciting on long term (bg3 has huge potential but some actions like hide and shove atm are an every-class, every-round spam), resource planning before the fight (maybe its my problem but if i can refill anytime with a long rest my mind simply doesnt care about this part and challenge is gone) and clever enemy AI behaviour (where it needs to be clever, i dont expect goblins do too smart tactics).
I think this game could benefit from alternative game rules modes to choose from, with small but meaningful changes to some of the core mechanics. They cannot satisfy everyone and yes there will be mods but this is a flagship game of dnd atm, they need to at least keep an eye on the hardcore RPG community's feedback. And i have the feeling they do (i believe they are a great company who really listens to the fanbase), so fingers crossed for a balance patch in the near future.
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Originally Posted by HarmAssassin
They already said that they tried sticking to the core rules, but that it didn't work in a video game medium. Personally I think they're doing a great job of balancing the rules vs video game issue.


Solasta has already proven that the core rules can be WAY better implemented.
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?


Damn, that's a lot of stuff. Some examples include even the enemies, they have very different HP numbers, AC numbers, CR (challenge rating) and abilities. Then there's the weird stuff with advantages/disadvantages based on height, how "backstabbing" works, and spells are sometimes quite different too, and the class implementation is far from faithful, aswell as many actions that are bonus actions instead of full actions, and lots of actions like Dodge, Ready and Disengage missing. Then there's how reactions are implemented, aswell as how some abilities and actions should be able to be applied upon a hit, and so on and so forth. Honestly, the list goes on but these are certainly some of the main points.
Thats kind of an over general cop out excuse by them imo... especially with some of the issues i see as major...

How they deviated from disengage... marrying it to the jump and making it a free action(just bad)... how for some reason you can walk up to someone holding a sword and shove them off a cliff without an attack... i dont agree it should be without repercussion(AOO) either but that at least was legit according to the rules... another water down form 3.5ed... like so many other things... currently, attacks of opportunity might as well not even exist... tactics other than "high ground" with them...

These arent things that wouldnt work... more like things they didnt/couldn't make work... leading to combat in general being kinda meh... imo... i try to separate game issues here from my general reservations on 5ed, but it seems including these things would vastly improve/add to combat... and immersion for that matter...
I doubt that Larian really tried.
They just used the DOS combat engine with all its quirks and special abilities and added a D20 to it. But the core is not D&D
Originally Posted by Ixal
I doubt that Larian really tried.
They just used the DOS combat engine with all its quirks and special abilities and added a D20 to it. But the core is not D&D

That’s my impression. They spent the majority of time on their graphics and it shows. The game is beautiful.

5e ruleset is heavily designed on action economy (you can’t do a bunch of things at once without very specific special abilities) and bounded accuracy (to hit bonuses and AC are limited). Those two things must be in check in order to maintain balance in combat otherwise you get what you see in BG3.
Originally Posted by Tav22
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Any class can hide and pick locks in 5e D&D (in fact this has been true in all editions since 3e.) You don't even need proficiency. And this is a good thing - otherwise players would be forced to take specific classes. It makes logical sense, too, since most of the locks in the setting are not terribly complex.

Anyway the tabletop rules are designed to be easy to adjudicate for tabletop purposes. It would be a mistake to rigidly adhere to them in a computer game, which runs very differently. In particular the game's engine has access to complex field interactions that would be unreasonable to track on tabletop - are you suggesting they should rip that lovely system out? And with it, naturally aspects of the game have to be rebalanced. Similarly, there are some abilities and interactions that can only be adjudicated by a human DM, which requires that a computer game handle them differently.

Computer games should be designed with an eye towards what computers can do well, not what a human DM could do well.
Originally Posted by ZetaZeta
Originally Posted by Tav22
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Any class can hide and pick locks in 5e D&D (in fact this has been true in all editions since 3e.) You don't even need proficiency. And this is a good thing - otherwise players would be forced to take specific classes. It makes logical sense, too, since most of the locks in the setting are not terribly complex.

Anyway the tabletop rules are designed to be easy to adjudicate for tabletop purposes. It would be a mistake to rigidly adhere to them in a computer game, which runs very differently. In particular the game's engine has access to complex field interactions that would be unreasonable to track on tabletop - are you suggesting they should rip that lovely system out? And with it, naturally aspects of the game have to be rebalanced. Similarly, there are some abilities and interactions that can only be adjudicated by a human DM, which requires that a computer game handle them differently.

Computer games should be designed with an eye towards what computers can do well, not what a human DM could do well.

Do you mean they should, in.exemple implement rounds of 6 Real Time seconds ? :P
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..


Great examples!
On first glance it appears they implemented 5e with minor changes to classes (ranger/rogue the most changed), but once the combat starts you can't call it 5e anymore. Their 'minor' changes that accoridng to them were necessary to make it work in a video game have such deep rooted effects that they completely broke the action economy. Every change they made are based on their DOS-philosophy and are absoutely not necessary to make it work in a digital medium. Action economy, surfaces, far too many advantages/disadvantges, grenades and special arrors being the most common thingin the game, barrelmancy...

You will see that a significant part of the AI's action are based on Larian's changes - in other words they unbalanced the game by adding stuff that is more efficient than D&D 5e options you can do. So I call them out on either lying to the players - or worse to themselves - that those changes were necessary. The made the game unbalanced and worse. Sprinkling D&D with DOS2 didn't improve anything and pretty much all the changes are bad as of now and their ripples will disrupt the next classes as well as higher levels even more than they already did.
They spent a ton of money to make the game pretty. Voice acting is top notch. Body motion capture is good. The graphics are beautiful.

In three years they put a ton of resources to make it pretty.

But time is limited so they skimped on combat mechanics. They already had DOS so why create a whole new one? Just tweak it a bit and work on making things pretty.

If explosions are bad now, imagine stuff happening at level 10. MOAB barrels here we come!
Though I do think they should definitely remove the one-summon limit. Changes from the base rules, when they're going to make them, should be:

1. Stuff that improves the core game - taking advantage of stuff you can do with a computer handling the rules. Limiting people to one summon makes things worse.

2. Stuff that is necessary because it can't be done without a DM to handle things. Obviously that's not the case here.

3. Stuff that doesn't break core, iconic D&D stuff. Limiting summons basically guts the entire concept and gameplay style of D&D summoners; summoning hordes is very much central to many iconic classes, builds, and spells.

4. Stuff that is intuitive or which makes the game more intuitive. The summon limit is awkward, game-y, and makes no in-universe sense.

Seriously this is an inexplicable change. Back in D:OS2 they argued it made the game easier to balance, but D&D is already balanced around having multiple summons, so in this case they broke the game's balance in order to make things less interesting and less fun, while losing an iconic part of the source material in the process. What an awful decision.
Yeah, you should be able to summon either one creature of a higher CR or more creatures of a lower CR.
+1 I believe Larian had good intentions with with their changes, but at this point it's pretty plain to see that a lot of them didn't pan out as planned.

They tried giving all classes more to do at early levels to elevate the excitement of essentially tutorial levels, but when you make everyone special, no one is special.
Good intention to please who ?
Probably not those that buy this game as a D&D game...

Just check at 6:40. That's so ridiculous...

Wow. I kinda swore off most of the grenade type weapons early on...

the fights in the video were actually very challenging and draining for me... especially the gith...

crazy to see what they can really do with some attention to using them tactically...
Originally Posted by Llev
Wow. I kinda swore off most of the grenade type weapons early on...

the fights in the video were actually very challenging and draining for me... especially the gith...

crazy to see what they can really do with some attention to using them tactically...

That's how combats works at the moment : just learn a few OP custom mechanics and everything that was more or less hard just become (very) easy...

I had the same experience than you on the first time. Everything was very hard and frustrating. Then I learned about backstab, highground, dipping, jumping,... And every combats became easy, uninterresting and determined by a few things that doesn't belong to D&D.
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

D&D is supposed to be the tool of BG3 wink
Nothing in this video belongs to D&D, but I guess you just don't know a thing about it.
Yet, you fail in using them. Ironic, huh?
Yeah, im admittedly trying to get the d&d feel out of this game... so im kinda trying to play it as best i can in that...

I go the stealth/position/dip route, seems to be enough to make it appropriately challenging with a group... 9th-10th run through, almost all combat isnt too bad with preparation... this is where im missing the tactical side of combat they seem to have inadvertently removed...

...and i hate jumping all over the place.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

D&D is supposed to be the tool of BG3 wink
Nothing in this video belongs to D&D, but I guess you just don't know a thing about it.


Yeah, I truly don't like the fact that it's ... just not DnD. I *REALLY* hope they change shit around to make it far more true to DnD core rules!!!
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Good intention to please who ?
Probably not those that buy this game as a D&D game...

Just check at 6:40. That's so ridiculous...



Damn, I almost wish I hadn't seen that video. Perfect examples of so many development choices going wrong, if you're doing a DnD ruleset game.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

D&D is supposed to be the tool of BG3 wink
Nothing in this video belongs to D&D, but I guess you just don't know a thing about it.

wow, probably because it's a game? you dnd fans here have forgotten one important thing, this is a video game, and video games are not only played by dnd players. you forget that some people have never played dnd at all and don't know what it is, but still play role-playing games. that's why, it's quite possible that for a video game, it's not that important.

surely Larian will take some wishes and change some mechanics (they have already done this at some points), but cry because we dont have of the cycle of day and night???? my God...
Larian are making this game appealing to the widest audience possible - so you have the full extreme player base from super D&D elitists who believe that anything not exactly 5e is outrageous to the I hate D&D it’s so boring & everyone in between.
You just have to roll with it - let’s face it the only person the game really has to suit is yourself. Play the way you want to and enjoy it.
I find this game to be very D&D personally - a bit of self policing & it’s an awesome experience already.
104 hours in and I still get wiped by some of the tougher encounters- I could use certain mechanics to make it a lot easier but who wants that ?
Edit: this comment is meant for the Solarian game ...

the thing I don't like is how Solarian does darkvision. But it IS Core. Darkvision doesn't really work in Dim light, which is pretty counter intuitive, but that is RAW.
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

D&D is supposed to be the tool of BG3 wink
Nothing in this video belongs to D&D, but I guess you just don't know a thing about it.

wow, probably because it's a game? you dnd fans here have forgotten one important thing, this is a video game, and video games are not only played by dnd players. you forget that some people have never played dnd at all and don't know what it is, but still play role-playing games. that's why, it's quite possible that for a video game, it's not that important.

I'm not a fan of D&D. I never played D&D.

But I read the PHB a lot to understand what this game is about and video games or not... It's not hard to understand that D&D combats are way more interresting and deep than those customized by Larian.

You don't have to be a D&D player to enjoy video games that looks a bit serious and that offer more possibilities/strategies in combats instead of a few (sometimes silly) OP mechanics.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
You don't have to be a D&D player to enjoy video games that looks a bit serious and that offer more possibilities/strategies in combats instead of a few (sometimes silly) OP mechanics.

This exactly... im still dealing with 5ed not being as deep as 3.5ed... i try to keep that in mind while playing this to not make my 5ed complaints into to BG3 complaints.

Most of us d&d players realize how much a few of the changes needlessly took out of the game... this isnt about it just being d&d rules, its about the d&d rules making a better combat system with more possibility like you say... they put AOO in the game to allow for more strategic possibilities in positioning... choke points... etc. Then went and completely negated this aspect with things like free action jump disengage... there are other things but this imo is the biggest single...

...and any company who takes on a d&d title knows what they are getting with us and they still go ahead... we must be worth it! ;D
I think there have been many things pointed out that contradict and hinder the DnD ruleset in this thread, but let's not think about that and just yell the killer argument "gEt goOd At iT!!!". One could wonder how humanity ever came so far. Why would you want to hunt with a spear, bow or traps? Just get good at hunting bare handed!

I also don't see the point being made that not every player is a DnD veteran. So what? So is not every DnD player. Afaik people starting playing DnD are neither born DnD veterans nor have they studied hundreds of pages of reference material to prepare themselves. They are just new to it and start playing and get everything explained and taught to them on the go. Same you can do in a video game with (good) tutorials.

But back to topic: +1

You can make fun additions to an existing game system such as DnD that enhance it or you can make additions that contradict it. As stated many times already the dipping mechanic makes zero sense and just bloats the system even more by unneccesarilly adding elemtal damage to your weapon for zero costs and making it spamable. It doesn't enhance the player's experience the same way it hinders and contradicts the already existing DnD rules and diminishes many spells and effects of many items. Why should I feel lucky for finding this flaming sword when all it does is just saving me the time of dipping my regular longsword in a torch for a second? There are many more things already mentioned that Larian added (or took from DOS 2) that might look interesting at first glance but fall apart quickly when you compare them to the existing rules and mechanics of DnD. These issues will only get much more obvious the more content gets added to the game, such as classes, spells, items and so on.

And I'm not saying this as a "DnD elitist" or "hardcore PnP player". I only have a basic understanding of DnD, not having played an actual pen & paper game, but having played many RPGs and being interested in things like game design.
+1, I agree with the OP.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Disclaimer: I use the D&D Rebalancing Mod, which fixes a lot of these issues.

1. Agree on Bonus Actions.
2. Jump is supposed to be tied to the Tadpole, so I can forgive them taking some liberty with it.
3. If you "dip" your bow in real life, it would catch fire not add fire damage to opponents. Swords would not catch fire, unless they were oiled up, then you'd probably burn your hands. Though, there are many examples of archers dipping their arrows, in real life and fantasy. I just don't use the sword dipping, rarely use bow dipping, and I don't use exploding barrels either.
4. Shove, hide and disengage- completely agree. And it diminishes Rogue's Cunning Action greatly.
5. I use food to fix another problem, Long Rests. If I don't have a unit of food for every party member, I won't take a long rest. This makes the game more challenging, as I'm not at full strength for most combats. Though later in the game, I'd imagine this becomes less of an issue. I'll just have to limit how much food I can carry until it spoils.
6. Agree on magic scrolls.
7. You shouldn't gain "Advantage" from high ground. I've played D&D TT from Basic and Expert box sets through 2e. We never used a z axis. But throughout military history taking the high ground, always gave significant advantage to that side. And Larian was highlighting the verticality of the game early on. So I agree with people who think that Advantage should be replaced by some +/- to hit system.
8. Yeah but if you can't turn and face the opponent behind you, what good does it do you to know they are there. Not advantage but maybe a minor (+1?) bonus to hit. Once my group started using miniatures, vinyl maps, and erasable markers; we starting using a facing and flanking system.
9. When and what reactions to use. This is a serious flaw in Larian's combat system.
10. They use line of sight. But I wish they would use cover and half cover.
11. Larian's version of the Help Action, makes familiars much less useful than they should be. Speaking of which, I really want Ritual Spells.
12. Well low level monsters do have way too many grenades.
13. Actually 5e is supposed to be balanced around a 4 person party, to make combat flow faster. Personally I've always found 5 to be the perfect number.
14. "healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons" I haven't experienced this "bug" yet.
15. They tried to give us a sense of time passing. Companions complaining about wasting time resting, wondering why we haven't changed yet. It's always dark when you go to camp. But I agree a day/ night cycle would be better. But Larian has stated that's not going to happen. So I'll settle for a long rest fix.
Originally Posted by Merlex
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Disclaimer: I use the D&D Rebalancing Mod, which fixes a lot of these issues.

1. Agree on Bonus Actions.
2. Jump is supposed to be tied to the Tadpole, so I can forgive them taking some liberty with it.
3. If you "dip" your bow in real life, it would catch fire not add fire damage to opponents. Swords would not catch fire, unless they were oiled up, then you'd probably burn your hands. Though, there are many examples of archers dipping their arrows, in real life and fantasy. I just don't use the sword dipping, rarely use bow dipping, and I don't use exploding barrels either.
4. Shove, hide and disengage- completely agree. And it diminishes Rogue's Cunning Action greatly.
5. I use food to fix another problem, Long Rests. If I don't have a unit of food for every party member, I won't take a long rest. This makes the game more challenging, as I'm not at full strength for most combats. Though later in the game, I'd imagine this becomes less of an issue. I'll just have to limit how much food I can carry until it spoils.
6. Agree on magic scrolls.
7. You shouldn't gain "Advantage" from high ground. I've played D&D TT from Basic and Expert box sets through 2e. We never used a z axis. But throughout military history taking the high ground, always gave significant advantage to that side. And Larian was highlighting the verticality of the game early on. So I agree with people who think that Advantage should be replaced by some +/- to hit system.
8. Yeah but if you can't turn and face the opponent behind you, what good does it do you to know they are there. Not advantage but maybe a minor (+1?) bonus to hit. Once my group started using miniatures, vinyl maps, and erasable markers; we starting using a facing and flanking system.
9. When and what reactions to use. This is a serious flaw in Larian's combat system.
10. They use line of sight. But I wish they would use cover and half cover.
11. Larian's version of the Help Action, makes familiars much less useful than they should be. Speaking of which, I really want Ritual Spells.
12. Well low level monsters do have way too many grenades.
13. Actually 5e is supposed to be balanced around a 4 person party, to make combat flow faster. Personally I've always found 5 to be the perfect number.
14. "healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons" I haven't experienced this "bug" yet.
15. They tried to give us a sense of time passing. Companions complaining about wasting time resting, wondering why we haven't changed yet. It's always dark when you go to camp. But I agree a day/ night cycle would be better. But Larian has stated that's not going to happen. So I'll settle for a long rest fix.


Great points!
Originally Posted by ZetaZeta
Originally Posted by Tav22
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Any class can hide and pick locks in 5e D&D (in fact this has been true in all editions since 3e.) You don't even need proficiency. And this is a good thing - otherwise players would be forced to take specific classes. It makes logical sense, too, since most of the locks in the setting are not terribly complex.

Anyway the tabletop rules are designed to be easy to adjudicate for tabletop purposes. It would be a mistake to rigidly adhere to them in a computer game, which runs very differently. In particular the game's engine has access to complex field interactions that would be unreasonable to track on tabletop - are you suggesting they should rip that lovely system out? And with it, naturally aspects of the game have to be rebalanced. Similarly, there are some abilities and interactions that can only be adjudicated by a human DM, which requires that a computer game handle them differently.

Computer games should be designed with an eye towards what computers can do well, not what a human DM could do well.

I disagree with your second point completely. The 5e rules are streamlined and simplified, and they function like a flowchart which is perfect for making a computer simulation particularly because you have the whole flowchart in front of you. The programmers get to be the DM when it comes to making the rulings on rules as written or rules as intended as they see fit, but that shouldn't change the fundamental way in which the game works (action economy, bounded accuracy). It is quite literally the simplest of the hardbound rulesets to date, if programmers could successfully make previous editions of the game both fun to play and sticking to the basic rules of the game(they did BTW), then this should be a no-brainer. And it really is a no-brainer because the Solasta team has done it. You can argue about the polish and the presentation, but at the end of the day the gameplay of Solasta is 5e. There are no abilities or interactions in the game that can't be done via computer, because the roll 20 system ultimately arbitrates a simple boolean answer to any interaction: True or False - did you succeed? Beautiful dialogue, story, etc.. it's all based on that simple answer and exactly what computers are designed to do, and do well.
Originally Posted by Khultak
Originally Posted by ZetaZeta
Originally Posted by Tav22
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Any class can hide and pick locks in 5e D&D (in fact this has been true in all editions since 3e.) You don't even need proficiency. And this is a good thing - otherwise players would be forced to take specific classes. It makes logical sense, too, since most of the locks in the setting are not terribly complex.

Anyway the tabletop rules are designed to be easy to adjudicate for tabletop purposes. It would be a mistake to rigidly adhere to them in a computer game, which runs very differently. In particular the game's engine has access to complex field interactions that would be unreasonable to track on tabletop - are you suggesting they should rip that lovely system out? And with it, naturally aspects of the game have to be rebalanced. Similarly, there are some abilities and interactions that can only be adjudicated by a human DM, which requires that a computer game handle them differently.

Computer games should be designed with an eye towards what computers can do well, not what a human DM could do well.

I disagree with your second point completely. The 5e rules are streamlined and simplified, and they function like a flowchart which is perfect for making a computer simulation particularly because you have the whole flowchart in front of you. The programmers get to be the DM when it comes to making the rulings on rules as written or rules as intended as they see fit, but that shouldn't change the fundamental way in which the game works (action economy, bounded accuracy). It is quite literally the simplest of the hardbound rulesets to date, if programmers could successfully make previous editions of the game both fun to play and sticking to the basic rules of the game(they did BTW), then this should be a no-brainer. And it really is a no-brainer because the Solasta team has done it. You can argue about the polish and the presentation, but at the end of the day the gameplay of Solasta is 5e. There are no abilities or interactions in the game that can't be done via computer, because the roll 20 system ultimately arbitrates a simple boolean answer to any interaction: True or False - did you succeed? Beautiful dialogue, story, etc.. it's all based on that simple answer and exactly what computers are designed to do, and do well.


Agreed!! =)
HONESTLY, just do more things like they do in Solasta!!!! <3
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

We can do without the "git good" assertion, thank you. It's not very helpful and annoys the moderators.
I'm going to offer some suggestions as I have been pretty critical of BG3 combat. I realize huge changes are impossible at this point so my suggestions will be realistic considering the current state of the game.

1. Remove the current height advantage. If you must, reduce it to +1 and no more.
2. Remove acid, ice, fire ground effects from arrows and other elemental attacks (unless specified in 5e). Each attack offers a special condition so there's no reason to create additional difficult terrain. Fire does pure damage so it does the most damage. Acid reduces armor (it should just be a splash but whatever), ice slows you down, necrotic prevents healing...etc, so no reason to provide even more bonuses.
3. Nerf barrels and make it more difficult to carry them.
4. Bring back action economy. You shouldn't be able to disengage and attack in the same round. That's a core rogue ability and allowing any class to do so, takes away the reason to keep a rogue. Shove shouldn't be a bonus action either. Try to stick with 5e rules if possible.
5. Remove advantage just because you can move your character behind something. I don't mind if you use variant flanking rules so fighting two creatures (they should be in opposite sides but to make it simple just make it two creatures anywhere), they both get advantage to attack.
6. Food shouldn't heal. And if you must, only heal out of combat.
7. Remove the jumping sound effect or change it. Our characters sound like the Hulk jumping from far away when they land.
8. Remove dipping. Seriously, it's ridiculous. Flame weapons from candles? Additional effects are significant in 5e which is why Flame Tongue doesn't have any hit/damage bonuses.

Some people will like my suggestions and some will hate it. I just hope Larian takes a look and makes a critical assessment.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk

More than likely a lot of the changes to the game that seems like DOS atm are probably placeholders, last patch or patch before that already removed barrelmancy or whatever, it's EA give them time.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk

More than likely a lot of the changes to the game that seems like DOS atm are probably placeholders, last patch or patch before that already removed barrelmancy or whatever, it's EA give them time.

They are not placeholders. You can't simply copy and paste code into a completely different game ruleset. Yeah, some basic code lines are the same, but its in no way less work then implementing the already existing D&D rules. Every part of the gameplay is something Larian had to actively decide they want in there and add it. The whole action economy - basically the whole game mechanics - have nothing to do with what was in DOS2. Every ability, every skill, every attack or other action had to be written from ground up - and yet they made key changes based on DOS2 ideas.


Them correcting it based on player feedback is what the EA should be for. If they wouldn't listen at all to palyer feedback what would be the point of all this? wink
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I'm going to offer some suggestions as I have been pretty critical of BG3 combat. I realize huge changes are impossible at this point so my suggestions will be realistic considering the current state of the game.

1. Remove the current height advantage. If you must, reduce it to +1 and no more.
2. Remove acid, ice, fire ground effects from arrows and other elemental attacks (unless specified in 5e). Each attack offers a special condition so there's no reason to create additional difficult terrain. Fire does pure damage so it does the most damage. Acid reduces armor (it should just be a splash but whatever), ice slows you down, necrotic prevents healing...etc, so no reason to provide even more bonuses.
3. Nerf barrels and make it more difficult to carry them.
4. Bring back action economy. You shouldn't be able to disengage and attack in the same round. That's a core rogue ability and allowing any class to do so, takes away the reason to keep a rogue. Shove shouldn't be a bonus action either. Try to stick with 5e rules if possible.
5. Remove advantage just because you can move your character behind something. I don't mind if you use variant flanking rules so fighting two creatures (they should be in opposite sides but to make it simple just make it two creatures anywhere), they both get advantage to attack.
6. Food shouldn't heal. And if you must, only heal out of combat.
7. Remove the jumping sound effect or change it. Our characters sound like the Hulk jumping from far away when they land.
8. Remove dipping. Seriously, it's ridiculous. Flame weapons from candles? Additional effects are significant in 5e which is why Flame Tongue doesn't have any hit/damage bonuses.

Some people will like my suggestions and some will hate it. I just hope Larian takes a look and makes a critical assessment.


Agreed!!!
Originally Posted by biomag
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk

More than likely a lot of the changes to the game that seems like DOS atm are probably placeholders, last patch or patch before that already removed barrelmancy or whatever, it's EA give them time.

They are not placeholders. You can't simply copy and paste code into a completely different game ruleset. Yeah, some basic code lines are the same, but its in no way less work then implementing the already existing D&D rules. Every part of the gameplay is something Larian had to actively decide they want in there and add it. The whole action economy - basically the whole game mechanics - have nothing to do with what was in DOS2. Every ability, every skill, every attack or other action had to be written from ground up - and yet they made key changes based on DOS2 ideas.


Them correcting it based on player feedback is what the EA should be for. If they wouldn't listen at all to palyer feedback what would be the point of all this? wink

So they couldn't say take previous code and build on top of it say a new game and leave elements of that said previous code for I don't know EA? Well call this code placeholders where they will replace that eventually down the road.
Originally Posted by fallenj
...

So they couldn't say take previous code and build on top of it say a new game and leave elements of that said previous code for I don't know EA? Well call this code placeholders where they will replace that eventually down the road.

Examples for placeholders would be the way they handle inventory, some of UI, the basic player profile approach (having save files connected to profiles), the re-used containers and artworks - things that can be plugged in and work even if the mechanics of the game are different. So for example you don't need to worry about how the weapon stats work as long as they have a weight and an icon you can put them into the inventory (and containers) probably with little change (if any at all) to what they had in DOS2-code.

When it comes to gameplay, DOS and D&D work too differently in detail (in the sense that you ain't damaging proctetive values before you can hit health, the abilities are not on cool-downs but connected to D&D resources in-between-rests,...). So when you want to have barrels & surfaces the changes might not be huge to the code, but in truth adding these things is simple in the first place. Wether you copy and paste them or just rebuild them to fit the new code structure won't be a big difference (I would assume) - the bigger question is how or if you would use them and this is where DOS2-mentality comes into play. You had explosive grenades in BG2 as well as far as I remember, but they were not omi present and did not offer as waste possibilties to cheese the game.


If you are talking about placeholders in the sense of 'balancing left to do' then I see what you mean. But in this case I would go and call most of the EA as placeholder since it might be tweaked smile
Originally Posted by biomag
call most of the EA as placeholder since it might be tweaked smile

This, there has already been adjustments to animations, character creation skill info, voice lines, barrelmancy, and whatever else.

Imagine they cut corners purposely to get the EA version out the door asap for deadline & testing purposes.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by biomag
call most of the EA as placeholder since it might be tweaked smile

This, there has already been adjustments to animations, character creation skill info, voice lines, barrelmancy, and whatever else.

Imagine they cut corners purposely to get the EA version out the door asap for deadline & testing purposes.

+1 to those asking for a more faithful implementation of the ruleset.

I'm not as sure as @fallenj is about the placeholder, in a recent interview Larian claimed that WotC gave them carte blanche and left them without an approval process:

https://wireframe.raspberrypi.org/
If they wanted to cut corners it would have been far less work to take D&D 5e rules and implement them instead of reworking the basics of the action economy and thus forcing themselves to rebalance all classes through all levels to make up for it.

When it comes to gameplay they have tweaked pretty much nothing except for reducing surfaces and fixing some minor bugs. That's not even close to what would be necessary to give the combat system some resemblance of balance after they 'cut corners' by implementing their vision.

Anmations, character customisation, UI... yeah these are WIP and pretty much everybody here knows that those are being finished as times goes on. I don't even see there any complains from people on this board (except for the aweful party controls).
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

All great points. I agree with you, all of those changes would make this game way better and I dont play D&D. However watching many games I would argue I have seen advantage given to backstabs/flanking enemies during their attack even when in plain sight.

Id like to double down on dipping weapons, that is a fun mechanic but its very powerful and magical and should a spell of sorts. In no way shape or forms should every character be given an ultimate power of dipping their weapons making them magical flaming swords/bows.

Also I'd like to double down on items that make no sense and have no immersion like healing characters grants your weapon poison. They really should give items some lore and backstory and make them harder to earn or achieve. Not just random high tier loot just in corners or on low level enemies.
Generally a idea been thinking about for a while now.

Couple examples would be combining disengage with jump making it one ability. Sneak attack not actually being additional dice roll but a math formula based on level.

@biomeg changes are not just going to happen over night. Also they don't include all changes in the patch notes.

People complain about everything, why we got toned down companions recently.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

This is a great comprehensive list.

I think the ones that bug me the most is dip, because I feel like it will make the game to DOS-like, which is not a bad thing. But I just feel the design of the game is going to be plagued in environmental effects now, and I don't want BG3 to remind me of DOS. And jump... I feel the jump as is, may be a little to overpowered, and unless I am missing something does not require a athletics skill check. If it does not require a check, than I feel that takes away from higher strength characters being able to more easily do things like climb, and jump, and allows low strength characters like rogues and mages to use what I think is going to become a cheese tactic of getting height advantage. IMO, if you want to be a mage that climbs or jumps to get advantage you might want to invest in some strength, for instance.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'm not as sure as @fallenj is about the placeholder, in a recent interview Larian claimed that WotC gave them carte blanche and left them without an approval process:

https://wireframe.raspberrypi.org/

You know what really worries and concerns me most?

The comments we see in virtually all of their interviews that reference their play data collection and what it 'obviously' means.

For example - in that interview, the speaker from Larian talks about how they could look at the play data and see that few people were ever using buffing or debuffing spells like bless... and drawing the conclusion from that that people didn't like or want buffing spells and that they wanted spells with impact and damage instead.

They just... see some data and then decide what THEY want it to mean, and they seem to do this everywhere.

Never mind that people don't use spells like bless right now because it's functionally impossible to use effectively, given how the AI will always abuse tricks to automatically break your concentration, and specifically give high priority to to concentrating character - that all they need to do is knock you down to break the spell. Never mind that debuffing spells are equally impossible to use effectively right now because you'll often get no effect from them when the enemy saves out at the start of their turn, even after failing the initial save, and is never detrimented at all. Never mind that saving throw spells have multiple layers of mechanical changes making them weaker, less effective and harder to use than direct attack roll spells, in the current system... Never mind that they've lowered ACs, increased hit points and given free advantage all the time for everyone - we don't need Bless as much because of their system changes that detract from the strategy element of the game...

No, no, no... obviously we're not using buffing and debuffing spells very often because we don't *Want* to use them... that's obviously the reason, of course...

This is a really insidious underlying problem that I've seen pop up in the background of every public interview and every community announcement they've made, and it's really bothering me.
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'm not as sure as @fallenj is about the placeholder, in a recent interview Larian claimed that WotC gave them carte blanche and left them without an approval process:

https://wireframe.raspberrypi.org/

You know what really worries and concerns me most?

The comments we see in virtually all of their interviews that reference their play data collection and what it 'obviously' means.

For example - in that interview, the speaker from Larian talks about how they could look at the play data and see that few people were ever using buffing or debuffing spells like bless... and drawing the conclusion from that that people didn't like or want buffing spells and that they wanted spells with impact and damage instead. . . .

I agree strongly. Data is meaningless outside of context. The designeers have created a situation where buffing is discouraged and assumed that people don't buff because it's boring. I think the devs should try playing IWD a few times. "potion of strength, prayer spell, bless -- okay, time to take on the demon . . ." Or BG2 for that matter where spells like "breach" -- a debuff -- were critical parts of combat.

I like Larian but I don't like their attitude towards the DnD ruleset -- devs that had more confidence in and commitment to the ruleset would ask themselves "people aren't using buffs, how can we encourage them to do so" instead of concluding "bless is boring, that's why no one is using it"
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'm not as sure as @fallenj is about the placeholder, in a recent interview Larian claimed that WotC gave them carte blanche and left them without an approval process:

https://wireframe.raspberrypi.org/

You know what really worries and concerns me most?

The comments we see in virtually all of their interviews that reference their play data collection and what it 'obviously' means.

For example - in that interview, the speaker from Larian talks about how they could look at the play data and see that few people were ever using buffing or debuffing spells like bless... and drawing the conclusion from that that people didn't like or want buffing spells and that they wanted spells with impact and damage instead. . . .

I agree strongly. Data is meaningless outside of context. The designeers have created a situation where buffing is discouraged and assumed that people don't buff because it's boring. I think the devs should try playing IWD a few times. "potion of strength, prayer spell, bless -- okay, time to take on the demon . . ." Or BG2 for that matter where spells like "breach" -- a debuff -- were critical parts of combat.

I like Larian but I don't like their attitude towards the DnD ruleset -- devs that had more confidence in and commitment to the ruleset would ask themselves "people aren't using buffs, how can we encourage them to do so" instead of concluding "bless is boring, that's why no one is using it"


Exactly!!
Honestly if it cost a bottle of oil or alchemist's fire or something I wouldn't mind it.
Originally Posted by gametester1
Also I'd like to double down on items that make no sense and have no immersion like healing characters grants your weapon poison. They really should give items some lore and backstory and make them harder to earn or achieve. Not just random high tier loot just in corners or on low level enemies.

I do mostly agree the other things you said but particularly this... i dont mind poisons on a level appropriate basis... we shouldn't have access to 7di6 stuff imo... not at 2nd-3rd level...

Their are plenty of items already on paper that do make sense... better judgement on when we should get which ones needs to be present also though... haven't seen that thus far... and its hard to explain why all these things make the game not feel "right"...
+1 to this - im loving BG3 but - i don't know how larian can say that they tried 5e rules and it didn't work when i own Solasta also and it most Definitely works. And works well
Exactly, clearly they weren't too interested in actually implementing true DnD rulesets. Solasta does that amazingly well, and with ease.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Data is meaningless outside of context.

This so much. So many people forget that statistics are just mathematical 'facts', but the conclusion you derive from them are just opinions (I guess that's the root of the joke of people doing statistics always tell 'never trust a stat that you have not falsified yourself').

Larian doesn't sound like they understood that and that's what makes me so frustrated with them dropping 5e extensive playtesting to implement their solutions that completely lack the view of longterm effects they bring with them thus creating this sub par combat experience that will only get worse with more classes and levels.
I agree it does seem they very much had their own agenda from the get-go, not necessarily being too invested in making this a DnD experience. I do love Larian though, and I freaking love their games, but I just hoped this one would be faaaar more faithful to the 5th edition ruleset as I think they are amazing. Truly hoping they will make some changes in the end.
The game has a great D&D feel to it already despite the mix of 5E & Larian rule implementation - you cant expect them to ditch all their IP - take a very close look at whats happening to Cyberpunk - get to over ambitious from the ground up & unless you have millions & millions of dollars & patient financial backers you get a poor outcome.
I want them to take their time & spend the money on developing the game - not on ensuring that every single D&D 5E rule is perfect - this is not a requirement for the wider audience for the game (including D&D players - apart from the extreme few) - personally im loving the direction the game is going & where its at, Im worried they try to implement to much & we lose the quality right through till the end.
Originally Posted by Tarorn
The game has a great D&D feel to it already despite the mix of 5E & Larian rule implementation - you cant expect them to ditch all their IP - take a very close look at whats happening to Cyberpunk - get to over ambitious from the ground up & unless you have millions & millions of dollars & patient financial backers you get a poor outcome.
I want them to take their time & spend the money on developing the game - not on ensuring that every single D&D 5E rule is perfect - this is not a requirement for the wider audience for the game (including D&D players - apart from the extreme few) - personally im loving the direction the game is going & where its at, Im worried they try to implement to much & we lose the quality right through till the end.

I guess there's a lot of place in D&D for proper and balanced (Larian's) custom mechanics.
It's not about the game being 100% D&D accurate and nothing more... It's about not having a few OP mechanics that totally determine combats and the difficulty of the game.

It would be awesome to have MORE things to do than in D&D... But if those new options are too powerfull this is no longer options but what you have to do.
Custom combat mechanics need tweaks to become part of D&D's combats mechanics.
I agree. Higher AC, lower HP.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..


Great examples!
While I might get some hate for this. Dungeons Dragons 5 after reading more of it is better for me then Dungeons Dragons 4.

That being said Dungeons Dragons 5 is not my favorite edition.
Cleric was like a one persons army in DD 3.5 overpowered however Advanced Dungeons Dragons i.e Baldurs
Gate 1 and 2 propably got it quite right.

In DD5 I feel Cleric has been nerfed to King Dome Come (from 3.5) hell it takes even some effort for me to create a Cleric that is ok for the party. In neither pen or paper or this game do I want to take LIFE Domain I do not like being heal bot.

My favorite PHB domain Tempus has not been included so for this ALPHA I created a Light Domain Cleric.

There are 4 characters not 6. You could argue that Neverwinter Nights only one character but that was DD 3.5 I could create my Cleric demigod in powerlevel in Neverwinter Nights that also had lots of powerful magical items.

I feel that order to have food not healing you need to have more HEALING power then Shadowheart Trickery domain Cleric.

In all seriousness I do not think it will happen in this game if they remove food does not heal it will need a lot of balancing and changes. They like their environment stuff call it DOS2 (Divinity Original Sin 2) adapation to DD5.
Day and night and weather things hell yes want them in game and most other things you mentioned I am ok with them but I doubt they will be changed except some exceptions maybe.

I have played lots of Pen and Paper including Dungeons Dragons. Tell me which low level party of level 3 and 4 characters want to risk and attack a Goblin Temple fortress? There is no load/save in Pen and Paper but I doubt they want to assassinate all the Goblin leaders in a fortress at level 3 with rumors the Goblin might have allies (Ogres, Drow leader etc. and NPC party etc)?

I feel that food healing is there to make it possible in the games current state. You could still remove food healing but then maybe example increase party size to 5 or 6 and give us access to more healer companions that can join the party.

This is my estimation and I do not complain game is difficult in current state. In fact I want to play the game likely one difficulty level above Normal when released I feel Normal does not yet give enough challenge. I killed all the Goblin leaders and then went to courtyard and killed everyone in courtyard and fortress on first try no load. I was level 3 when fought Gut and Drow leader etc.. but became level 4 inside the Temple and then went out and killed everyone as level 4 party on first try all this no load needed. I would not call it very easy, but I guess I like challenge specially when there is even load option.

In addition do not know if DD5 has it but instead of potions a thing would be like a healing wand with say 50 charges....
speculated how game could be without food healing. Well that or I guess they get lots of healing potions.
Food healing is just weird, especially DURING combat. Absolutely ludicrous. And clerics, even in 5th edition, are still beastmode man. Particularly once you get spells like Spirit Guardians and sick shit like that.
I remember playing DOS2 with a friend, and she asks "well, go, what are you doing?" And I tell her, " Wait, I'm eating bread." That was fun.
They've taken a lot of DOS stuff and put it in. I am not too pleased about it, but at least they've already changed some stuff, so hopefully they will change lots more =)
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Food healing is just weird, especially DURING combat. Absolutely ludicrous. And clerics, even in 5th edition, are still beastmode man. Particularly once you get spells like Spirit Guardians and sick shit like that.
Spirit Guardian is not included to this game.

Well I have a question for you Dungeons Dragons 5th edition GURUS.
I did not find answer to this in google.

How does saving throws vs spells work in:
A. Dungeons Dragons 5th edition Pen and Paper?
B. Baldurs Gate 3?


Here is what I assume.
The DC to roll is:
10+ATTRIBUTE example WIS for Clerics bonus+ Spell level as cast you can cast also lower level spell as high level spell slot.

That is the resistance roll regardless if it is say mental attack Hold Person or say some kind of direct damage
and they roll to resist.

What I do NOT understand is what + do the resistance roller get? In DD older version there was a table + according to level
but I have not found any info such exist in DD5th.

The attribute + they do get to the resistance roll I guess WISDOM bonus + to mental attacks like Charm Person or Hold Person...
and in case of direct damage it usually says example do a Dexterity bonus or perhaps even Constitution bonus.

Do the resistance roll get any other + in addition to attribute bonus according to say a table that was according to level as it was in older Dungeons Dragons editions?
In 5e RAW: Spell save DC is 8 + proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier (WIS modifier, for clerics)

It is not affected by the level of the spell or spell slot used.

The save that the target rolls depends on the spell. Hold Person has them make a WIS save, for example. This means that the target rolls a d20, adds their WIS modifier and, if they have proficiency in WIS saves, adds their proficiency bonus. If it's equal to or higher than the caster's spell save DC, they pass the save (which might mean they shrug off the effects or take half damage or something; it depends on the spell)
And different classes have proficiency in different attribute saving throws. Fighters for example are proficient in STR and CON saving throws, while Rogues are proficient in DEX and INT saving throws.
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Food healing is just weird, especially DURING combat. Absolutely ludicrous. And clerics, even in 5th edition, are still beastmode man. Particularly once you get spells like Spirit Guardians and sick shit like that.
Spirit Guardian is not included to this game.

Well I have a question for you Dungeons Dragons 5th edition GURUS.
I did not find answer to this in google.

How does saving throws vs spells work in:
A. Dungeons Dragons 5th edition Pen and Paper?
B. Baldurs Gate 3?


Here is what I assume.
The DC to roll is:
10+ATTRIBUTE example WIS for Clerics bonus+ Spell level as cast you can cast also lower level spell as high level spell slot.

That is the resistance roll regardless if it is say mental attack Hold Person or say some kind of direct damage
and they roll to resist.

What I do NOT understand is what + do the resistance roller get? In DD older version there was a table + according to level
but I have not found any info such exist in DD5th.

The attribute + they do get to the resistance roll I guess WISDOM bonus + to mental attacks like Charm Person or Hold Person...
and in case of direct damage it usually says example do a Dexterity bonus or perhaps even Constitution bonus.

Do the resistance roll get any other + in addition to attribute bonus according to say a table that was according to level as it was in older Dungeons Dragons editions?


Spirit Guardians is a level 3 spell, so we wouldn't know whether or not it's implemented yet as a cleric only gets that spell at level 5 and the EA doesn't have level 5 yet.
The other questions you had were answered by the others.
I didn't even know you could eat food during combat wink

As for clerics, as long as you can maintain concentration, then spirit guardians is great *and* you can upcast it to make it even better. I use it quite a bit in table top and my cleric can definitely hold his own in a fight - 5E seems about what I'd expect for a cleric (3.5E and PF they def became quite a bit more powerful). I hope they include many more 5E domains than the few that are in now. I was really hoping that EA would include level 5, just so we could see how more powerful class abilituies work, but we'll have to wait.
Yeah tabletop I am playing a dwarven tempest cleric and I feel like I am OP, to be honest. Spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, destructive wrath, wrath of the storm... it's just insane.
Originally Posted by booboo
I didn't even know you could eat food during combat wink

I didn’t either until I played my second time through when I started messing around. It never occurred to me such an absurd mechanic would be in place.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by booboo
I didn't even know you could eat food during combat wink

I didn’t either until I played my second time through when I started messing around. It never occurred to me such an absurd mechanic would be in place.

Yeah, I never even tried it myself, just heard about it and flat out refuse to do it since it's so stupid.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by booboo
I didn't even know you could eat food during combat wink

I didn’t either until I played my second time through when I started messing around. It never occurred to me such an absurd mechanic would be in place.

Yeah, I never even tried it myself, just heard about it and flat out refuse to do it since it's so stupid.

Correct but this is where they are looking to pander to a wider audience. I skip a number of Larian style rules and play the way Im comfortable with. I think stuff like the wyvern poisons are to bring some balance to tougher encounters with low level characters i.e Underdark ...

I dont disagree with the OP I just think that Larian will look to tweak the D&D rules where the most of the feedback comes in if it isnt either to expensive to implement, or outside of Larians belief on how certain stuff should be implemented in a video game - we are still in early days yet - much to come I think.
Pander to a wider audience? Is there a large contingent of folks out there saying things like "You know, I really wasn't too interested in this game, but I turned right around when I heard that you could eat an entire wheel of cheese in the middle of a battle."?
I think it is more like a lot of people want things to be always easy mode and don't want to have to do any tactical thinking in games nowadays. These are the people who would happily buy the game if food heals but would hate it if they had to actually think when to use healing spells or potions since these are more limited.
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Pander to a wider audience? Is there a large contingent of folks out there saying things like "You know, I really wasn't too interested in this game, but I turned right around when I heard that you could eat an entire wheel of cheese in the middle of a battle."?


Hahaha! Oh god, that had me laughing out loud. laugh
Originally Posted by Zarna
I think it is more like a lot of people want things to be always easy mode and don't want to have to do any tactical thinking in games nowadays. These are the people who would happily buy the game if food heals but would hate it if they had to actually think when to use healing spells or potions since these are more limited.


I fully agree with you. There is one post on here that thinks we should start at Level 7 or 10 I think it was and I'm like why? True some fights take a little bit of thinking and planning out but they are not completely overpowered. Except for the Matriarch spiders that are around level 10 or 12 that continues to kick my ass' Or them Mephits in the swamp that keep multiplying like rabbits
Yeah but many of the changes are not even making things "easier", for instance there is no Dodge action right now, something that would greatly improve survivability in some cases, and rogues' expertise and such would help a lot too (easy to implement aswell, right?). It's just weird and bad how many things that didn't need to be changed, have still been changed.
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Pander to a wider audience? Is there a large contingent of folks out there saying things like "You know, I really wasn't too interested in this game, but I turned right around when I heard that you could eat an entire wheel of cheese in the middle of a battle."?

some people want things easy.....some people want Ironman or permanent death mode...most want it somewhere inbetween....
Originally Posted by Tarorn
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Pander to a wider audience? Is there a large contingent of folks out there saying things like "You know, I really wasn't too interested in this game, but I turned right around when I heard that you could eat an entire wheel of cheese in the middle of a battle."?

some people want things easy.....some people want Ironman or permanent death mode...most want it somewhere inbetween....

That's what difficulty settings are for. Make things easier/harder by decreasing the difficulty of challenges or adjusting the availability of useful items. Eating food to heal is silly at any difficulty and eating food to heal in the middle of battle is just ridiculous.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah but many of the changes are not even making things "easier", for instance there is no Dodge action right now, something that would greatly improve survivability in some cases, and rogues' expertise and such would help a lot too (easy to implement aswell, right?). It's just weird and bad how many things that didn't need to be changed, have still been changed.

Exactly dodge, ready attack, reactions . . . Personally I liked the Minotaur fight as it stands but lots of people complain about it but I suspect those complaints would diminish if "ready attack" were an option.

"Okay I know you are going to charge at me but I've got my spear at the ready so lets see how well your 'charge blindly on' strategy works now"

Edit: I forgot that delay didn't make it into 5th.
Yeah Ready action seems to be implemented, more or less, in Solasta too... and Dodge would help the crap outta mages and squishies in lots of fights! And pleeease make reactions selectable like in Solasta!!!!
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Originally Posted by Zarna
I think it is more like a lot of people want things to be always easy mode and don't want to have to do any tactical thinking in games nowadays. These are the people who would happily buy the game if food heals but would hate it if they had to actually think when to use healing spells or potions since these are more limited.


I fully agree with you. There is one post on here that thinks we should start at Level 7 or 10 I think it was and I'm like why? True some fights take a little bit of thinking and planning out but they are not completely overpowered. Except for the Matriarch spiders that are around level 10 or 12 that continues to kick my ass' Or them Mephits in the swamp that keep multiplying like rabbits

My opinion only:

This flies in the face of how the game is actually balanced. Sure, you can exploit the deficient AI and non-D&D elements to beat some of the worst offenders, but the fights are way over-tuned to the character levels. 5e uses a challenge rating system, that is enemies are assigned a challenge rating which reflects the level of a group of 4 it would take to make it a balanced fight. An ogre has a challenge rating (cr) of 2, so 1 ogre makes a balanced fight (some risk but character death isn't more likely than not) for 4 2nd level characters. 2 ogres is a cr 4 encounter and the 3 ogre encounter that you can hit at level 2 (I did) is a CR 6 or better because the 3rd ogre is more powerful than a standard ogre. That is worse than deadly, it simply will end in a total party kill without DM exploits. With ~60 hps, a +6 to hit and 2d8+4 damage per attack (ave 13) they will one hit kill a lot of players at 2nd level. Goblins are 1/4 cr, so at 2nd level 4-5 goblins are a medium(balanced fight), 6 are a hard fight, and anything 7 or over is a deadly fight for 2nd level characters. That isn't including goblin bosses or the like which makes things even more difficult. And yeah, sure you can use the broken AI and broken action economy to cheese the fights, but that isn't strategy and it really doesn't qualify as good tactics either because again it is relying on broken implementations (like shooting from a high spot then hiding and watching the AI stand around and yell at you while doing absolutely nothing). This isn't about easy mode, it's about facing a surmountable challenge. CR isn't the be all, end all of encounter dynamics, but it gives a good idea of how lethal the encounter can be particularly at lower levels. I've had a CR 2 encounter almost kill off an entire party of 4th level characters because of dice rolls; I'm pretty sure the module designer expected that fight to be a throw away encounter to introduce one of the minor villains but it nearly ended the campaign.

The minotaurs are another example of this, 2 cr 3 monsters is a deadly encounter to a party of 4 4th level characters. Now if the DM is handing out magic items like candy then it becomes a different story, but generally speaking a common character of 4th level with a +2 con bonus is going to have about 31 hps (I'm basing this off d8 hit dice because I think it is the most common) and likely 15-17 AC give or take. A minotaur has a +6 to hit so about a 50% chance of hitting AC 16. Using the great axe they deal an average of 17 damage per hit. They can also use reckless attack which gives them advantage and that is absolutely huge, at 50% probability to hit it gives a 25% increase or essentially a flat +5 and it drops off at the edges to an overall +3 on the dice roll. Well now that minotaur has a 75% chance to hit anyone with a 16 AC when it does reckless attack, and 70% for 17 AC, so it will hit most characters on its turn. With an average of 76 hit points they can afford to take a few hits in return because 2 hits will likely put the average character into death saves (34 damage, but 39 if it successfully charges as its first action). Can the characters reasonably expect to deal 158 damage before the minotaurs deal 124?

Readied actions would help a lot in burning down one of the minotaurs quickly if they characters can choose which minotaur they focus on. Dodge won't help because dodge is an action, so you give up most of your ability to do damage except through bonus actions (barring monks which can do it as a bonus action for 1 ki) and if the minotaur is recklessly attacking it simply negates the advantage (still huge, but for someone with an AC lower than 16 you're still more likely than not to get hit). Now when the level caps are lifted some of these fights will become easier if you encounter them at a higher level, but right now with level caps in play they are not even remotely fair to the player that doesn't abuse verticality and line of sight mechanics against the broken AI.
Yeah, this is why I am hoping for a more faithful interpretation of the core ruleset, among other things. I am just hoping that happens smirk
The minotaurs are actually worse than regular minotaurs because they have this new leaping ability which knocks characters prone where they land (so they are in effect higher than normal CR). Not sure if leaping in would invalidate the ready action, with melee at least - they are not simply charging but almost 'flying' in (!) I suspect implementing ready would have all sorts of edge cases (which may be harder to program?), but it only gets worse the further you stray from the actual rules. Just implementing RAW (as far as possible - which is much further than now) would make the things easier to balance - I really hope this all changes.
Originally Posted by Khultak
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Originally Posted by Zarna
I think it is more like a lot of people want things to be always easy mode and don't want to have to do any tactical thinking in games nowadays. These are the people who would happily buy the game if food heals but would hate it if they had to actually think when to use healing spells or potions since these are more limited.


I fully agree with you. There is one post on here that thinks we should start at Level 7 or 10 I think it was and I'm like why? True some fights take a little bit of thinking and planning out but they are not completely overpowered. Except for the Matriarch spiders that are around level 10 or 12 that continues to kick my ass' Or them Mephits in the swamp that keep multiplying like rabbits

My opinion only:

This flies in the face of how the game is actually balanced. Sure, you can exploit the deficient AI and non-D&D elements to beat some of the worst offenders, but the fights are way over-tuned to the character levels. 5e uses a challenge rating system, that is enemies are assigned a challenge rating which reflects the level of a group of 4 it would take to make it a balanced fight. An ogre has a challenge rating (cr) of 2, so 1 ogre makes a balanced fight (some risk but character death isn't more likely than not) for 4 2nd level characters. 2 ogres is a cr 4 encounter and the 3 ogre encounter that you can hit at level 2 (I did) is a CR 6 or better because the 3rd ogre is more powerful than a standard ogre. That is worse than deadly, it simply will end in a total party kill without DM exploits. With ~60 hps, a +6 to hit and 2d8+4 damage per attack (ave 13) they will one hit kill a lot of players at 2nd level. Goblins are 1/4 cr, so at 2nd level 4-5 goblins are a medium(balanced fight), 6 are a hard fight, and anything 7 or over is a deadly fight for 2nd level characters. That isn't including goblin bosses or the like which makes things even more difficult. And yeah, sure you can use the broken AI and broken action economy to cheese the fights, but that isn't strategy and it really doesn't qualify as good tactics either because again it is relying on broken implementations (like shooting from a high spot then hiding and watching the AI stand around and yell at you while doing absolutely nothing). This isn't about easy mode, it's about facing a surmountable challenge. CR isn't the be all, end all of encounter dynamics, but it gives a good idea of how lethal the encounter can be particularly at lower levels. I've had a CR 2 encounter almost kill off an entire party of 4th level characters because of dice rolls; I'm pretty sure the module designer expected that fight to be a throw away encounter to introduce one of the minor villains but it nearly ended the campaign.

The minotaurs are another example of this, 2 cr 3 monsters is a deadly encounter to a party of 4 4th level characters. Now if the DM is handing out magic items like candy then it becomes a different story, but generally speaking a common character of 4th level with a +2 con bonus is going to have about 31 hps (I'm basing this off d8 hit dice because I think it is the most common) and likely 15-17 AC give or take. A minotaur has a +6 to hit so about a 50% chance of hitting AC 16. Using the great axe they deal an average of 17 damage per hit. They can also use reckless attack which gives them advantage and that is absolutely huge, at 50% probability to hit it gives a 25% increase or essentially a flat +5 and it drops off at the edges to an overall +3 on the dice roll. Well now that minotaur has a 75% chance to hit anyone with a 16 AC when it does reckless attack, and 70% for 17 AC, so it will hit most characters on its turn. With an average of 76 hit points they can afford to take a few hits in return because 2 hits will likely put the average character into death saves (34 damage, but 39 if it successfully charges as its first action). Can the characters reasonably expect to deal 158 damage before the minotaurs deal 124?

Readied actions would help a lot in burning down one of the minotaurs quickly if they characters can choose which minotaur they focus on. Dodge won't help because dodge is an action, so you give up most of your ability to do damage except through bonus actions (barring monks which can do it as a bonus action for 1 ki) and if the minotaur is recklessly attacking it simply negates the advantage (still huge, but for someone with an AC lower than 16 you're still more likely than not to get hit). Now when the level caps are lifted some of these fights will become easier if you encounter them at a higher level, but right now with level caps in play they are not even remotely fair to the player that doesn't abuse verticality and line of sight mechanics against the broken AI.


Yup. Very well put together argument. Couldn't agree more.
Honestly, deviating from D&D's static slugfests is a GOOD thing. The surfaces, added mobility and increased bonus action options work well.
Surfaces just screw everything up and make every combat a predictable mess of everything burning, everyone slipping on ice and barrels exploding.
Mobility that's added? Well, it doesn't really matter since every battle is pretty much centered around who can reach the high ground, so you can have all the mobiity in the world, but if you're playing a melee-centered character and you have to run up fifty stairs or huge hills every time goblin archers get advantage on you with the Larian ruleset, mobility wont cut it.
As for the bonus actions, they take away from classes that would otherwise be uniquely equipped with those abilities, like rogues.
Yeah, and mobility is one of the things that makes the 5th ed rogue stand apart from other classes. Rogues can run into battle, sneak attack use a cunning action to retreat to safety. Or they can dash across the battlefield twice while everyone else stays in place.

And if 5th ed feels like a slugfest you need to use casters more often. 5th ed has lots of fascinating spells.
I think 5th edition is insanely good, which is why I am perplexed one would muck around too much with it. smirk
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Honestly, deviating from D&D's static slugfests is a GOOD thing. The surfaces, added mobility and increased bonus action options work well.

Based on this statement alone I really doubt you play 5e, or if you do it's an issue with your table.
5e isn't exactly a slugfest, but some of what was added I appreciate. I do think surfaces mattering can be good and adds something to combat similar to a player asking "Can I target the ground below the orc with my ice spell so he slips?". But the bonus action options feel... off to me, especially shove. That should be an action if anything. And jump and disengage being bonus gimps some things future things right now, so while some extra options to bonus actions is cool I think that needs to be scaled back. Overall I think BG3 needs to get closer to a middle ground between adapting for a videogame and translating 5e.

Also they 100% need to get more to core on summons cause I don't want to lose my cute imp whenever I throw down a summoning power.
Originally Posted by Khultak
My opinion only:

This flies in the face of how the game is actually balanced. Sure, you can exploit the deficient AI and non-D&D elements to beat some of the worst offenders, but the fights are way over-tuned to the character levels. 5e uses a challenge rating system, that is enemies are assigned a challenge rating which reflects the level of a group of 4 it would take to make it a balanced fight. An ogre has a challenge rating (cr) of 2, so 1 ogre makes a balanced fight (some risk but character death isn't more likely than not) for 4 2nd level characters. 2 ogres is a cr 4 encounter and the 3 ogre encounter that you can hit at level 2 (I did) is a CR 6 or better because the 3rd ogre is more powerful than a standard ogre. That is worse than deadly, it simply will end in a total party kill without DM exploits. With ~60 hps, a +6 to hit and 2d8+4 damage per attack (ave 13) they will one hit kill a lot of players at 2nd level. Goblins are 1/4 cr, so at 2nd level 4-5 goblins are a medium(balanced fight), 6 are a hard fight, and anything 7 or over is a deadly fight for 2nd level characters. That isn't including goblin bosses or the like which makes things even more difficult. And yeah, sure you can use the broken AI and broken action economy to cheese the fights, but that isn't strategy and it really doesn't qualify as good tactics either because again it is relying on broken implementations (like shooting from a high spot then hiding and watching the AI stand around and yell at you while doing absolutely nothing). This isn't about easy mode, it's about facing a surmountable challenge. CR isn't the be all, end all of encounter dynamics, but it gives a good idea of how lethal the encounter can be particularly at lower levels. I've had a CR 2 encounter almost kill off an entire party of 4th level characters because of dice rolls; I'm pretty sure the module designer expected that fight to be a throw away encounter to introduce one of the minor villains but it nearly ended the campaign.

The minotaurs are another example of this, 2 cr 3 monsters is a deadly encounter to a party of 4 4th level characters. Now if the DM is handing out magic items like candy then it becomes a different story, but generally speaking a common character of 4th level with a +2 con bonus is going to have about 31 hps (I'm basing this off d8 hit dice because I think it is the most common) and likely 15-17 AC give or take. A minotaur has a +6 to hit so about a 50% chance of hitting AC 16. Using the great axe they deal an average of 17 damage per hit. They can also use reckless attack which gives them advantage and that is absolutely huge, at 50% probability to hit it gives a 25% increase or essentially a flat +5 and it drops off at the edges to an overall +3 on the dice roll. Well now that minotaur has a 75% chance to hit anyone with a 16 AC when it does reckless attack, and 70% for 17 AC, so it will hit most characters on its turn. With an average of 76 hit points they can afford to take a few hits in return because 2 hits will likely put the average character into death saves (34 damage, but 39 if it successfully charges as its first action). Can the characters reasonably expect to deal 158 damage before the minotaurs deal 124?

Readied actions would help a lot in burning down one of the minotaurs quickly if they characters can choose which minotaur they focus on. Dodge won't help because dodge is an action, so you give up most of your ability to do damage except through bonus actions (barring monks which can do it as a bonus action for 1 ki) and if the minotaur is recklessly attacking it simply negates the advantage (still huge, but for someone with an AC lower than 16 you're still more likely than not to get hit). Now when the level caps are lifted some of these fights will become easier if you encounter them at a higher level, but right now with level caps in play they are not even remotely fair to the player that doesn't abuse verticality and line of sight mechanics against the broken AI.


Despite the shared system, there is an issue with simply balancing a 5e videogame with the 5e Tabletop CR system. This is because every PnP game is by default a "no-reload, ironman campaign".

When you adapt that into the videogame world, where reloads are expected, that is a massive layer of difficulty completely removed.

Most PnP encounters are balanced in a way that your chance of losing as a party (TPKing) is actually extremely low. "Deadly" encounters are scary in the context of a "you only live once, no reload mode", because there's a chance of an entire campaign ending. In a videogame, that's closer to the baseline requirement for challenge. BG3 needs to be balanced against the playstyle of videogames (i.e. with reloads), not ironman mode.

Per the encounter descriptions in the DMG (pg 81):
  • Easy: An easy encounter doesn't tax the characters' resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed.
  • Medium: A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
  • Hard: A hard encounter can go badly for the adventurers. Weaker characters might get taken out of the fight, and there's a slim chance where one or more character may die.
  • Deadly: A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more character players. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.


In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

Even "hard" encounters are designed for parties to never lose - at most, those drain your resources (which is why they should be in the game, as they do offer a strategic decision). If you factor in the extra loot and infinite resting in BG3, it's clear why Larian needs to use more "deadly" encounters* under 5e to ensure there is a degree of actual challenge sprinkled throughout.


*As long as it's "deadly" within a reason - i.e. the Minotaur encounter is a 2100 xp encounter vs. the 2000 xp threshold of a 4 people level 4 party, which is still fair.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Despite the shared system, there is an issue with simply balancing a 5e videogame with the 5e Tabletop CR system. This is because every PnP game is by default a "no-reload, ironman campaign".

When you adapt that into the videogame world, where reloads are expected, that is a massive layer of difficulty completely removed.

Most PnP encounters are balanced in a way that your chance of losing as a party (TPKing) is actually extremely low. "Deadly" encounters are scary in the context of a "you only live once, no reload mode", because there's a chance of an entire campaign ending. In a videogame, that's closer to the baseline requirement for challenge. BG3 needs to be balanced against the playstyle of videogames (i.e. with reloads), not ironman mode.

Per the encounter descriptions in the DMG (pg 81):
  • Easy: An easy encounter doesn't tax the characters' resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed.
  • Medium: A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources.
  • Hard: A hard encounter can go badly for the adventurers. Weaker characters might get taken out of the fight, and there's a slim chance where one or more character may die.
  • Deadly: A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more character players. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.


In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

Even "hard" encounters are designed for parties to never lose - at most, those drain your resources (which is why they should be in the game, as they do offer a strategic decision). If you factor in the extra loot and infinite resting in BG3, it's clear why Larian needs to use more "deadly" encounters* under 5e to ensure there is a degree of actual challenge sprinkled throughout.


*As long as it's "deadly" within a reason - i.e. the Minotaur encounter is a 2100 xp encounter vs. the 2000 xp threshold of a 4 people level 4 party, which is still fair.

No-reload, ironman settings do not increase the difficulty of the game, they increase the cost of failing. The ability to reload or to save scum your way through the game has zero impact on the actual difficulty of an encounter, it just means you can inevitably make your way through it if you spend enough time replaying it. And ultimately it means that you always have the potential to finish the story regardless of the difficulty given enough time. So I completely disagree on your video game adaption theory.

I agree that most pnp adventures are balanced around challenges appropriate to the level of the adventurers, but you must not play much if you think that player deaths are uncommon even on a medium difficulty encounter. That is why spare the dying is a cantrip and revivify is a 3rd level spell. I've recently DM Lost Mines and had a Red Brand thug (1/2cr) take down 1 2nd level PC and put another down to 4 hp at the top of the first round of combat because of lucky crit on the first attack and a high damage roll on the second attack. In that encounter there are 4 1/2cr thugs making it a medium encounter and it ended with 2 players down and the other 2 severely injured. This is not uncommon, particularly at lower levels. In fact I'm pretty sure that you noticed that big text box underneath the descriptions you quoted talking specifically about this issue particularly at lower levels, and that how some monsters challenge rating doesn't reflect that some of their abilities can make it almost impossible for lower level characters to overcome. I love how the guide specifically points out that a CR 2 ogre can 1 shot a 1st level wizard, which goes right back to my point on how the minotaur fight works in terms of a numbers game.

In terms of the tactical model of the game, it's not difficult, it's just broken IMO. I think the increased level cap will deal with a lot of these issues, because the players will have the tools and hp to deal with the encounters. That won't fix the AI, and the fight cheese strategy of using height, line of sight and hide to kill your enemies, or infinite resting, or barrelmancy, etc.. but maybe it will make it a bit less save scummy.
Good points! =)
Originally Posted by Khultak
[quote=Topgoon]

In terms of the tactical model of the game, it's not difficult, it's just broken IMO. I think the increased level cap will deal with a lot of these issues, because the players will have the tools and hp to deal with the encounters. That won't fix the AI, and the fight cheese strategy of using height, line of sight and hide to kill your enemies, or infinite resting, or barrelmancy, etc.. but maybe it will make it a bit less save scummy.

I agree, but want to add: higher levels won't fix anything, when the issues with the incorrectly used DnD rules persist. You may get more hitpoints, more abbilites, etc. but as many people in this forum have already showed, is that most DnD spells, abilities will just not be useful, as you get the same effects (Advantage) by just running around an enemy or getting a little bit Higher.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

100% disagree with that.
This game need morz challenging encounter but it also need trash combats.

TB is very slow and players have to go forth while playing. Those playing 1 or 2h/day probably won't enjoy having only 2 combats because they're all "challenging".
You also have sometimes to feel that you're powerfull and if everything is a challenge : you're not.

Nearly every TB rpg I know have "trash combats".
Usually random encounter are trash combats but not only.

I would enjoy the game if it was more strategic and challenging (bosses, specific combats,...) so I agree with you on some points...
But I'll also love to feel that some ennemies aren't any danger.

BG3 is not XCOM. Combats are one of the most important part of the game to me (and I don't really like them at the moment) but it's first a RPG....

And in RPGs I don't want to be challenged each time I face the weakest creatures of the world.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

100% disagree with that.
This game need morz challenging encounter but it also need trash combats.

TB is very slow and players have to go forth while playing. Those playing 1 or 2h/day probably won't enjoy having only 2 combats because they're all "challenging".
You also have sometimes to feel that you're powerfull and if everything is a challenge : you're not.

Nearly every TB rpg I know have "trash combats".
Usually random encounter are trash combats but not only.

I would enjoy the game if it was more strategic and challenging (bosses, specific combats,...) so I agree with you on some points...
But I'll also love to feel that some ennemies aren't any danger.

BG3 is not XCOM. Combats are one of the most important part of the game to me (and I don't really like them at the moment) but it's first a RPG....

And in RPGs I don't want to be challenged each time I face the weakest creatures of the world.


Exactly! It's good to feel that you can steamroll some enemies, and those battles don't need to be long either! Just a handful of trash mobs or even one enemy can be over quite quickly unless a million of their friends join in. So "trash mob fights" are quite quick and can feel very rewarding too!
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the context of a videogame, anything below hard can be considered a "Trash Mob". Encounters of this difficulty is bad in a RTwP game, but at least there, you can turn on the AI and just watch it play out quickly in real-time. It's basically unacceptable in a slower, turn-based combat game with no "auto-resolve".

100% disagree with that.
This game need morz challenging encounter but it also need trash combats.

TB is very slow and players have to go forth while playing. Those playing 1 or 2h/day probably won't enjoy having only 2 combats because they're all "challenging".
You also have sometimes to feel that you're powerfull and if everything is a challenge : you're not.

Nearly every TB rpg I know have "trash combats".
Usually random encounter are trash combats but not only.

I would enjoy the game if it was more strategic and challenging (bosses, specific combats,...) so I agree with you on some points...
But I'll also love to feel that some ennemies aren't any danger.

BG3 is not XCOM. Combats are one of the most important part of the game to me (and I don't really like them at the moment) but it's first a RPG....

And in RPGs I don't want to be challenged each time I face the weakest creatures of the world.


Exactly! It's good to feel that you can steamroll some enemies, and those battles don't need to be long either! Just a handful of trash mobs or even one enemy can be over quite quickly unless a million of their friends join in. So "trash mob fights" are quite quick and can feel very rewarding too!

Totally agree. There's lots of room for some small goblin patrols for us to run into. It feels really weird that Minthara is super concerned about finding this encampment but hasn't, say, sent anyone out to look for it.
Some aspects are broken homebrew.

Backstab in BG3-EA (hitting around the rear of a target) is a logic that is incompatible with 5e rules unless you add other homebrew rules around it.

In 5e, there is no facing logic (you defend 360) and any creature can run around a target without any risks (no Opportunity Attack risk for moving around a target if you stay in melee).

So, in BG3-EA, if you want to backstab each round, you can most times without risk. I have seen mobs move a few feet to hit me in the back and then move back in front on the same turn :P LOL. I presume most players do not use it every turn just to save time and it would get crazy boring, unless the character has the Sneak Attack feature.

Anyhow, with easy Flanking (with an ally), remove the Backstab unless the BG3 combat system is adapted fully for it (ie. therefore not saying BG3 must be like 5e).
Originally Posted by Baraz
So, in BG3-EA, if you want to backstab each round, you can most times without risk. I have seen mobs move a few feet to hit me in the back and then move back in front on the same turn :P LOL. I presume most players do not use it every turn just to save time and it would get crazy boring, unless the character has the Sneak Attack feature.

Anyhow, with easy Flanking (with an ally), remove the Backstab unless the BG3 combat system is adapted fully for it (ie. therefore not saying BG3 must be like 5e).

I think players use backstab each turn to improve their %to hit but often with the jump/disengage bonus action. As you said we can move arround targets without any AOO but we have to do it step by step, which is tedious.

Totally agree with flanking.
I hope they'll get rid of backstab to add flanking.

This would increase synergies between companions, this would add a lot of utility to "tank classes" and this would avoid jumping all the time to have a free advantage.
+1 to add flanking
there is a lot of complaint that combat feels slow and tedious, i think part of the reason is because of the every turn jumping by all chars to improve the %hit. So i agree some tweaking here would be nice
Yeah exactly! Otherwise it just becomes repetitive!
The backstab thing is another weird one really. I know it's "turn-based" but it's still supposed to reflect a fight happening, and no enemy would let you "circle them" to "backstab them". I much prefer having an ally close to the enemy giving you the ability to sneak attack, and that's it. Swashbucklers and Inquisitives are subclasses that can get sneak attack without having to have an ally close or having an advantage.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
The backstab thing is another weird one really. I know it's "turn-based" but it's still supposed to reflect a fight happening, and no enemy would let you "circle them" to "backstab them". I much prefer having an ally close to the enemy giving you the ability to sneak attack, and that's it. Swashbucklers and Inquisitives are subclasses that can get sneak attack without having to have an ally close or having an advantage.

Exactly. The flanking rule implies a person cannot fully defend themselves if they are being assaulted from opposite sides. If only one person is attacking, surely you can turn with the person.

The 5e rule requires opposite sides for flanking but to make it simple in the game, just require two foes in melee range and both get advantage. It’s simple, tactical and more realistic and reduces the silly jumping while maintaining action economy.
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).

It’s a variant rule in the DMs Guide. I think it depends. In TT I wouldn’t give advantage if two guys were standing right next to each other. But opposite sides? I can see that.

Three guys surrounding you? Absolutely.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).

It’s a variant rule in the DMs Guide. I think it depends. In TT I wouldn’t give advantage if two guys were standing right next to each other. But opposite sides? I can see that.

Three guys surrounding you? Absolutely.

In the DMs Guide you have to be on the opposite sode to have advantage. That make sense but I guess it's not gonna solve the kangaroo problem.

The best solution should probably be :

- opposite side
- and jumping rework
-> bonus action if they want but not possible while engaged + not mixed with disengage.
I could only have said "not mixed with disengage" but seriously, I can't see those jump at every turn anymore.

That's terrible in such a game and they have to find something to avoid players from jumping that much in combats. It looks totally ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).

It’s a variant rule in the DMs Guide. I think it depends. In TT I wouldn’t give advantage if two guys were standing right next to each other. But opposite sides? I can see that.

Three guys surrounding you? Absolutely.

In the DMs Guide you have to be on the opposite sode to have advantage. That make sense but I guess it's not gonna solve the kangaroo problem.

The best solution should probably be :

- opposite side
- and jumping rework
-> bonus action if they want but not possible while engaged + not mixed with disengage.
I could only have said "not mixed with disengage" but seriously, I can't see those jump at every turn anymore.

That's terrible in such a game and they have to find something to avoid players from jumping that much in combats. It looks totally ridiculous.


Yeah agreed!!!
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).
Same in my games (as a player). It is a popular homebrew (+2 for Flanking) especially after some D&D Youtubers made it more popular (which is where my DMs saw it).

Reason : both players and DMs felt flanking was too easy to get Advantage on NPCs that easily end-up outnumbered. In 3.5, running around someone could provoke an AoO, so there was a risk in some cases.
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).
Same in my games (as a player). It is a popular homebrew (+2 for Flanking) especially after some D&D Youtubers made it more popular (which is where my DMs saw it).

Reason : both players and DMs felt flanking was too easy to get Advantage on NPCs that easily end-up outnumbered. In 3.5, running around someone could provoke an AoO, so there was a risk in some cases.


They could also give a +2 to attack rolls from higher ground, instead of advantage. Would be so much more fair for melee characters and make it easier on the squishy mages and such.
Yup, changing the advantages from advantage to 1 or 2 attack bonus have been one of the most suggested alterations I think.

It mirrors the +2 and +5 to AC one can get from cover in tbt. +2 for a small advantage and +5 (Advantage in mathe-mechanical terms means an average bonus of +5) for a big advantage.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Yup, changing the advantages from advantage to 1 or 2 attack bonus have been one of the most suggested alterations I think.

It mirrors the +2 and +5 to AC one can get from cover in tbt. +2 for a small advantage and +5 (Advantage in mathe-mechanical terms means an average bonus of +5) for a big advantage.

Would love to test it out in EA.
Same!!!
Apart from the rulesets and enemies, classes certainly have great differences from the PHB too, which sucks a lot. I sincerely hope they're going to change all that.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Apart from the rulesets and enemies, classes certainly have great differences from the PHB too, which sucks a lot. I sincerely hope they're going to change all that.

I think what we have is what we’ll get. There will be some tweaks but the core system is set and won’t change much. People say it’s EA so lots can change but this point in development, there won’t be sweeping changes. Well unless Larian is willing to spend another couple of years changing stuff.

I’m going to try to be more realistic with my suggestions.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Apart from the rulesets and enemies, classes certainly have great differences from the PHB too, which sucks a lot. I sincerely hope they're going to change all that.

Yes. This feels like an alpha proof of concept....
Not sure what you're talking about but if I have MANY complaints about combats and the rules of BG3/D&D, according to me what they did with classes features is pretty good.

They removed what is obviously uninterresting for the video game and replace them by pretty good and balanced things.

I'm worried about the "disengage as a action bonus" for everyone because I think it should only be a rogue feature... But don't have any other exemple of totally WTF and/or broken things.

There are also a few details that are not totally accurate and sometimes a few bugs but I didn't notice really annoying things.

Do you have exemples in mind ?
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm worried about the "disengage as a action bonus" for everyone because I think it should only be a rogue feature... But don't have any other exemple of totally WTF and/or broken things.


Do you have exemples in mind ?

The most WTF thing for me is the bonus action shove anyone can do every round, and how OP it is. And then mage hand being able to do it is even more WTF.
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I'm worried about the "disengage as a action bonus" for everyone because I think it should only be a rogue feature... But don't have any other exemple of totally WTF and/or broken things.


Do you have exemples in mind ?

The most WTF thing for me is the bonus action shove anyone can do every round, and how OP it is. And then mage hand being able to do it is even more WTF.


I do agree with both points. Also, when you shove, you can only shove them away, but you can't shove them prone. smirk
Oh sorry, I "kind of" agree with that.
Andrea talked about classes so I thought you were talking about specific issues.
I don't like the implementation of rogue right now, and many class features either don't work as they should in the PHB, or they make little sense as they've changed. I don't know, I just expected the very thing they promised: a very true DnD 5th edition experience. They haven't really delivered on that, tbh. Well, not yet. But I sure hope they will make many more changes as the EA continues.
I’m optimistic that the systems will evolve more into what we’re hoping for from a 5E game. They’ve clearly transferred a lot over from DOS and it’s taking time to modify those systems to suit the new ruleset. Let’s just hope they put their resources into the right areas. There’s no way they can’t be aware of the majority of the feedback which seems to be in favour of sticking closer to the rules where possible. With the first demos Swen seemed to be proud of the things that they improvised. I’m cool with some homebrew stuff (due to the tadpoles or items etc). Just get the core rules right first.
Also spells by the way. Many of them don't work like they should in 5th, like mirror image. smirk
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).
Same in my games (as a player). It is a popular homebrew (+2 for Flanking) especially after some D&D Youtubers made it more popular (which is where my DMs saw it).

Reason : both players and DMs felt flanking was too easy to get Advantage on NPCs that easily end-up outnumbered. In 3.5, running around someone could provoke an AoO, so there was a risk in some cases.

Coming from 4e, that this is not baked into 5e kind of baffles me. Running circles around an enemy would get you swatted in 4e, and Flanking gives +2. I guess it’s because of the disengagement cost.

I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.
Originally Posted by Starsmith
I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.

Hmmm your disengage suggestion would be very similar to 3.5e/Pathfinder's 5-foot step and is certainly more realistic/immersive than Jumping. You could choose between:
a.) moving away at full speed and provoke
b.) backing away slowly and not get AoO'd but then you end up relatively close to the enemy. Mechanically, I suppose this version of disengage would halve or quarter your speed (min 5 feet).

However, it's not actually much less powerful than the current jump+disengage...it still gives party members the ability to ~freely (at cost of bonus action) move away from melee enemies. If you're trying to say that this slow disengagement doesn't cost a bonus action, then it's even more broken than what we currently have with Jump+Disengage.
Originally Posted by Starsmith
Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.
Personally I find that the 'cheesiest' aspect of the current disengagement system is that you can jump right through other characters and enemies, with the way projectiles check for trajectory I doubt it's even a technical limitation. My suggestion for this would be turning 'jump' into a 'dive' of sorts when you are within melee range of an enemy with AoO, allowing you to spend your bonus action to basically fall or roll in a direction to avoid the AoO but not being able to get straight through enemies by doing so. Maybe certain classes like rogue can still be allowed to perform a jump in combat since it fits their MO. Maybe you could have a roll at the end of the 'dive' to see how well it went and how far you get to move after.

Another thing I find ridiculous is how far the push goes. It's more of a launch than a shove, sending characters that are nowhere near a ledge flying over the edge like shot from a cannon. Whilst I do find it fun to knock characters off cliffs like they're home runs, it is honestly ridiculous how far away you can pull it off from. I do hope they make the ledge falls a bit more reliant on ledge proximity rather than just having to be at an elevated location.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Starsmith
I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.

Hmmm your disengage suggestion would be very similar to 3.5e/Pathfinder's 5-foot step and is certainly more realistic/immersive than Jumping. You could choose between:
a.) moving away at full speed and provoke
b.) backing away slowly and not get AoO'd but then you end up relatively close to the enemy. Mechanically, I suppose this version of disengage would halve or quarter your speed (min 5 feet).

However, it's not actually much less powerful than the current jump+disengage...it still gives party members the ability to ~freely (at cost of bonus action) move away from melee enemies. If you're trying to say that this slow disengagement doesn't cost a bonus action, then it's even more broken than what we currently have with Jump+Disengage.

My intent with the suggestion is to increase the cost from what it currently is, but not so far as to prevent characters from attacking, since I assume Larian chose to change the cost for video game adaptation reasons. So, yeah, bonus+movement penalty for disengaging, something that would get your character out of threat/AoO range but not much farther.

It might also keep enemies and PCs from circling around constantly and jumping about for backstabs; adjacency reducing your movement speed would mean it would be possible sometimes to get around for a backstab, but it would take more effort to do it.

In 4e, it’s a 5 foot shift, movement only (action economy was different there, no one got extra minor actions as class features, and if you shifted, that was *it*, no more moving on your turn), but it’s needed there because *any* movement adjacent in 4e that isn’t that 5 foot shift is going to get you smacked in retaliation, and *any* ranged attack adjacent will also provoke an AoO. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore! Maybe it’s just me preferring my preferred edition smile

I can see why, playing BG3, that being able to move away that easily is an issue; threatening range just doesn’t feel particularly *threatening* when it is so easy to get out of it, nothing has any ‘sticky’ to it, but I can also appreciate why Larian might have chosen to make it so safely leaving threatened “squares” no longer removes the ability to attack.
I just don't agree with this whole "video game implementation", that things need to go faster and that you need to be able to do more in a round. I honestly think tons of players would want a faithful adaptation and that a faithful adaptation still offers lots of stuff to do! Larian did add a lot of "new attacks" with weapon types, and I am all for them adding stuff as homebrew, just as long as they don't muck about with the core ruleset too much.
I certainly do NOT agree with OP request here.

I'm not a veteran DnD player, and what I primarily look for in game is to be interesting. And I find many DnD rules unnecessarily annoying, mostly in combat.

Some of them significantly reduce possibility of tactical decisions and synergies that for example existed in DoS, Wasteland and similar games - chief among those is "one action per turn" and low choice of useful actions ( even in later stages when some classes get multiple attacks per turn, its just simple attacks ). Even games like Wasteland 3, with less options than DoS and also mostly simple gun attacks, offer more tactical options than pure DnD.

Other DnD rules are unnecessary recidivism of tabletop games, like dice attack rolls with frequent miss chances - DnD rules in general result in more frequent and more annoying misses than other games, and BG3 is no exception here. From some reason BG3 is even more annoying with those misses than some other DnD-like games I played, like Pillars of Ethernity II: Deadfire (tactical mode). And those misses are NOT necessary to keep full DnD effects, as I explained in suggestion I made ( and where it was overwhelmingly opposed by DnD veterans ) .

Clearly on this forum DnD veterans are more vocal. But equally clearly, there are more non-DnD gamers out there and reading comment sections on sites posting BG3 reviews show clear separation between what most DnD player want and what normal gamers want.

I think best option for Larian and BG3 would be to identify key issues where DnD and non-DnD crowd disagree and, where possible without too much resources, to implement both options - maybe with 'true DnD' , 'default' and 'low DnD' modes, similar to how Dreadfire has normal and turn-based modes. But it may be resource intensive, as for example Dreadfire only offered turn-based mode long after game was finished. So I doubt this will happen for BG3 before launch.
I stand somewhere in between. Of course the game should abstain from the original P&P rules where it makes sense due to principal differences between P&P and a computer game. For instance, removing randomized HP gain rolls on levelups (or attribute rolls in char creation - although that would bring some nostalgic memories to a BG1/2 veteran like me) makes perfect sense (and generally anything with the potential to reduce the appeal of save game scumming, like the dialogue checks - but that is obviously not going to happen). Using the statistical expected value instead of a dice roll principally shouldn't alter the balance much (if at all). But there are also many cases where anyone knowing the actual 5e rules wonders "but... why?"
Yeah many of the changes really do make me think "but... why?" simply because it doesn't make things more fun, more varied, more tactical just ... more broken? And sometimes it just doesn't make sense at all. And very many things that should be super simple to implement are not implemented (for example expertise for the rogue class.. how hard can that be to implement?).
Originally Posted by gmnenad
I certainly do NOT agree with OP request here.

I'm not a veteran DnD player, and what I primarily look for in game is to be interesting. And I find many DnD rules unnecessarily annoying, mostly in combat.

Some of them significantly reduce possibility of tactical decisions and synergies that for example existed in DoS, Wasteland and similar games - chief among those is "one action per turn" and low choice of useful actions ( even in later stages when some classes get multiple attacks per turn, its just simple attacks ). Even games like Wasteland 3, with less options than DoS and also mostly simple gun attacks, offer more tactical options than pure DnD.

Other DnD rules are unnecessary recidivism of tabletop games, like dice attack rolls with frequent miss chances - DnD rules in general result in more frequent and more annoying misses than other games, and BG3 is no exception here. From some reason BG3 is even more annoying with those misses than some other DnD-like games I played, like Pillars of Ethernity II: Deadfire (tactical mode). And those misses are NOT necessary to keep full DnD effects, as I explained in suggestion I made ( and where it was overwhelmingly opposed by DnD veterans ) .

Clearly on this forum DnD veterans are more vocal. But equally clearly, there are more non-DnD gamers out there and reading comment sections on sites posting BG3 reviews show clear separation between what most DnD player want and what normal gamers want.

I think best option for Larian and BG3 would be to identify key issues where DnD and non-DnD crowd disagree and, where possible without too much resources, to implement both options - maybe with 'true DnD' , 'default' and 'low DnD' modes, similar to how Dreadfire has normal and turn-based modes. But it may be resource intensive, as for example Dreadfire only offered turn-based mode long after game was finished. So I doubt this will happen for BG3 before launch.


I truly get you! I sincerely do. It's just... Larian promised that this would be a gaming experience that would be "as true to dnd 5th edition as it could get", and they most certainly don't deliver on that so far, while games like Solasta really, really do. Sadly, Solasta is a far crappier game in so many other ways, and I *LOVE* Larian. In my case, it was just simply a wet dream that my favourite studio would make a sequel to my favourite game series IN my favourite RPG ruleset system! So... to *ME* it is highly disappointing that they are quite a bit off, and sometimes their changes don't even make sense from a "typical gamer" perspective either, imo.
I really dont get all those complaints about misses, do people really get THAT frustrated when things dont go the way they want nowadays? Seriously...

Just take your time to learn the game, strategize, etc. Also,you can always play on easy or story mode when it becomes a thing, whats the point of making a strategy game where everything always hit and everyone is an inflated HP balloon? Why even bother positioning and thinking in that scenario?
Originally Posted by gmnenad
I certainly do NOT agree with OP request here.

I'm not a veteran DnD player, and what I primarily look for in game is to be interesting. And I find many DnD rules unnecessarily annoying, mostly in combat.

Some of them significantly reduce possibility of tactical decisions and synergies that for example existed in DoS, Wasteland and similar games - chief among those is "one action per turn" and low choice of useful actions ( even in later stages when some classes get multiple attacks per turn, its just simple attacks ). Even games like Wasteland 3, with less options than DoS and also mostly simple gun attacks, offer more tactical options than pure DnD.

Other DnD rules are unnecessary recidivism of tabletop games, like dice attack rolls with frequent miss chances - DnD rules in general result in more frequent and more annoying misses than other games, and BG3 is no exception here. From some reason BG3 is even more annoying with those misses than some other DnD-like games I played, like Pillars of Ethernity II: Deadfire (tactical mode). And those misses are NOT necessary to keep full DnD effects, as I explained in suggestion I made ( and where it was overwhelmingly opposed by DnD veterans ) .

Clearly on this forum DnD veterans are more vocal. But equally clearly, there are more non-DnD gamers out there and reading comment sections on sites posting BG3 reviews show clear separation between what most DnD player want and what normal gamers want.

I think best option for Larian and BG3 would be to identify key issues where DnD and non-DnD crowd disagree and, where possible without too much resources, to implement both options - maybe with 'true DnD' , 'default' and 'low DnD' modes, similar to how Dreadfire has normal and turn-based modes. But it may be resource intensive, as for example Dreadfire only offered turn-based mode long after game was finished. So I doubt this will happen for BG3 before launch.

Do you really know D&D5e ?

I'm absolutely not a D&D vet, I never played that game but I know the rules pretty much and you can believe me : the game would be far more fun,strategic and deep if the rules were better implemented.

Exactly like you... My biggest issue with this game is combats and I'm far from being a D&D/DoS purist...

Tactical decisions ? Tons of choices ? Synergies between characters ? Cover mechanics ? ... ?
All this exist in D&D but not in BG3.

There are many possibilities in D&D right at level 1-4 to increase your %to hit. The action economy of D&D is an important part of tactical decisions/strategy. So are the tons of features, spells, skills, reactions,... But we don't have anything like this in BG3... Combats are boring after the "discoveries hours".

Many players also complaint because we don't have enough things to do during our turns... because we miss too often... because combats are too slow....
I'm 100% for more D&D and less "DoS" but guess what ? I totally agree.

Larian give us a bad solution with those bonus actions but the solution is easy !
Just increase the party size ! More action/turn, more synergies, more decisions, more strategy, more damages, more buffs, less (meaningfull) misses...

In any case, whatever the party size the difficulty is a joke and guess what... That's because of everything that doesn't really belong to D&D or is badly implemented (backstab, highground, jump, disengage, potions, grenades, dipping, shove, food, poison,...)

Combats in BG3 are not D&D combats... It's just a mixture that doesn't work well.

Many players saying "it's not enough D&D" share your feelings about annoying combats... But your solution is a bad solution to me. Everything combats need to be far better exists in D&D.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..
I haven't played 5e tabletop but oddly enough every item on this list is something that bothers me when I play BG3. Except the party size. BG3 would be a much better game if they followed the tabletop rules.

And yeah why are some of the magic items so weird? Heal someone and poison or pull happens. I don't want a puzzle game where I'm juggling magic equipment around in combat for weird situational pull effects. It slows down combat that is already slow.

And the shoves are completely over the top in BG3 with that much verticality.
The way they've handled 5e in this game (and especially how they have tried to incorporate elements of the DOS games) just doesn't feel good. It's a bit like if they took a car that was functioning perfectly adequately, removed the wheels from the right side and slapped on an airplane wing with propellers. If they'd left the car alone, it would have been fine. If they'd left the airplane alone, that would have been fine (but not D&D). But the two systems just don't work well together.
I do miss but i dont miss that often (well not as badly as some appear to indicate) - i tend to think people do need to use buffs, positioning, try different attacks etc. - also this is only level 1-4 so you would anticipate a higher miss rate against certain creatures & armor types. Alot of complaining about missing i agree - you can have a bad day at the office too - Its just the roll of the dice.
Steamrolling a game is no fun - an appropriate level of difficulty & frustration with game mechanics until you suss it out are part of the joy/experience.
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
I really dont get all those complaints about misses, do people really get THAT frustrated when things dont go the way they want nowadays? Seriously...

Just take your time to learn the game, strategize, etc. Also,you can always play on easy or story mode when it becomes a thing, whats the point of making a strategy game where everything always hit and everyone is an inflated HP balloon? Why even bother positioning and thinking in that scenario?

From some reason I often get suggestions "you have other options to make game easier" when I talk about less misses.

I do NOT want game to be easier. It is already easy as it is - I was able to kill The Hag (Auntie) in one turn, before she managed to escape to her cellar behind fake fireplace, misses notwithstanding. And she was hardest NPC that I met so far ( lvl 5 with 130hp I think), not to mention her 4 or so Redcap minions with 40ish hp each ( took me 3 more turns for them, mainly due to waiting for them to enter hut ).

So no, I neither want nor need game to be easier. I want it to be less annoying ( regarding misses ) , and would gladly accept option to reduce misses even if it comes with harder difficulty.

Obviously I use advantages always and remove disadvantages like low light whenever they appear ( or killing Hag in one turn would not be possible), so I doubt I miss more that other people - it is just that I do not like frequent misses. There is ONE out of my 4 characters where I know why he misses often ( using GWM with two hander, with -5 penalty ), but even knowing does not make it less annoying. Not to mention misses of other 3 characters that do not have GWM.

Second thing people often bring out is along your "whats the point of making a strategy game where everything always hit?". First, I do not need "always hit", just "no frequent misses". And you need not look any further than Larian's own DoS games to see excellent game without excessive misses.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..
I haven't played 5e tabletop but oddly enough every item on this list is something that bothers me when I play BG3. Except the party size. BG3 would be a much better game if they followed the tabletop rules.

And yeah why are some of the magic items so weird? Heal someone and poison or pull happens. I don't want a puzzle game where I'm juggling magic equipment around in combat for weird situational pull effects. It slows down combat that is already slow.

And the shoves are completely over the top in BG3 with that much verticality.


Agree there, and I do think that list that you replied to is a great summary!! smile
I honestly think the combat would go a massively long way with just 3 key changes
- in-depth reaction system
- shoving focusing on prone rather than home run yeets
- advantage/disadvantage removed from height and backstab
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

As someone who is not a DnD veteran, main issue I have with BG3 and DnD games in general ( only played Pillars of Eternity Dreadfire as other DnD game ) is that combat is much less interesting than in good non-DnD games like DoS ( or even Wasteland ). There is less opportunity for meaningful choices, tactical decisions, synergies between your own actions across turns or between actions of different characters ... in general, DnD combat turn is "one swing, and sometimes maybe one bonus something".

Therefore, looking at this list I unfortunately see some "true" DnD features that could potentially make combat even worse. Granted, I may have maybe to play with those to understand their full impact, but there are features from this list that look to me as bad for "increase combat options".



These are features from that list that looks to me as they would make combat *WORSE*:

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
*** in other words, even less choices per turn if even bonus actions need to be rarely used ?

- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
*** in other words, even less actions per turn if even jump would prevent me from doing some major action like damage?

- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
*** in other words, even less tactical choices if we can not dip ( now you need to decide between spending some time to go away to dip or setup initial attack close to dip )

- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
*** again, if they are actions it means using them removes use of another major action like damage, and reduces number of actions per turn

- you can't eat during combats in D&D
*** so one more thing you can not do during combat, therefore one less choice. Even if I never eat during BG3 combat, removing choices during combat is not good in my book.

- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
*** so they would have even less choices during combat, and much less possibilities to synergize with others?

- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
*** this would be HUGE negative if removed, as it is source of main tactical decisions, initial positioning and general flow of combat. Without it combat would be even more bland

- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
*** same as comment for highground - this is currently only interesting tactical per turn goal for melee fighters

- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
*** those WTF effects presumably increase options during combat, or potentials for tactical decisions or synergies.

- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
*** again, magical stuff could only increase options during combat, and DnD is already too limited in what you can do per turn





Of course, some of those look like they would help make combat more interesting, add more options or tactical/turn decisions.
So I think these would make combat *BETTER*:

- you can choose when to use your reaction
*** one more thing to choose is one more "tactical decision" thing to make combat more interesting, so this is good

- D&D have a cover mechanic
*** another tactical decision option, so this is good in regard to making combat more interesting

- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
*** any additional action option is good

- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
*** more party members is always good, increase chances for synergies and tactical combinations, make combat more interesting

- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3
*** if time of day influence combat, this would also be good, as another tactical consideration





These are just an opinions but they underline differences in DnD vs non-DnD gamers -there are obviously expectations for "true DnD 5e" from one side and expectations for "DoS3" from the other side ( ie for BG3 to be similar but better than DoS2). It seems like Larian is trying to make mix of "best features from both worlds", but obviously that would leave many people unsatisfied - not enough DnD for one side, not enough DoS for other. Another approach would be for Larian to make few BG3 'modes" , similar to how Pillars of Eternity made "realtime" mode and "tirn-based' mode - and difference in play and balancing in those are comparable to than differences in DnD vs normal game. For example:
- "true DnD" mode , with entire above list implemented as in base 5e
- "normal" mode with whatever mix Larian think is best (current situation)
- "low DnD" mode ( practically DoS3 mode).

But that would require adding all above features as OPTIONS that could be turned ON/OFF, and then bunching them in appropriate modes, while keeping game balanced regardless which mode is selected. I believe that "keeping game balanced" would be even harder in that case than actually adding those features as an options.
Pillars of Eternity is not DnD.
Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire, specifically in turn-based mode, is very similar to DnD rules.
Granted, it is not "true" DnD, it may not even officially use licensed DnD rules, but it is closer to what that list above shows for "true DnD" than BG3 .

But as I said, I'm not veteran DnD player and whether Pillars of Eternity are true DnD or just DnD-like is not changing my above comments about BG3.
Originally Posted by gmnenad
These are just an opinions but they underline differences in DnD vs non-DnD gamers -there are obviously expectations for "true DnD 5e" from one side and expectations for "DoS3" from the other side ( ie for BG3 to be similar but better than DoS2). [...
- "low DnD" mode ( practically DoS3 mode).

I understand that you liked DOS 2, but I don't want to have any of it in a DnD game. And that's what ladan said they are making when they announced BG3.

And it seems you have the notion, that every character need a lot of actions to have tactical depth.
I strongly disagree, you need lots of available choices.

Take chess for example. You only have 1 action per turn. But I think you will agree, that it's a very tactical game.
Maybe it's not fun for you, because you can't set the chess board on fire (at least not as an valid action concerning the roles of chess), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have deep, tactical choices you can make.
If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

Larian, pick a side whether it be DOS or D&D 5E combat. Stop meshing it together. It doesn’t work.
Originally Posted by Lilybun
I honestly think the combat would go a massively long way with just 3 key changes
- in-depth reaction system
- shoving focusing on prone rather than home run yeets
- advantage/disadvantage removed from height and backstab
I need to spend more time with the system to really have an opinion, but so far it sounds fair. There are spells that can have enemies flying... I don't think it needs to be available to EVERY character, at no cost and bonus action. My guess is, that they want you and enemies in constant shuffle and fight for higher positions.... but so far it kinda seem to mostly overshadow other considerations.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
My guess is, that they want you and enemies in constant shuffle and fight for higher positions....
So, Fortnite, basically. grin
Originally Posted by daMichi
I understand that you liked DOS 2, but I don't want to have any of it in a DnD game. And that's what ladan said they are making when they announced BG3.

And it seems you have the notion, that every character need a lot of actions to have tactical depth.
I strongly disagree, you need lots of available choices.

Take chess for example. You only have 1 action per turn. But I think you will agree, that it's a very tactical game.
Maybe it's not fun for you, because you can't set the chess board on fire (at least not as an valid action concerning the roles of chess), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have deep, tactical choices you can make.

I understand your position about DnD, and I already mentioned that it will be hard for Larian to walk middle ground in BG3.

Regarding actions - no, characters do not 'need' lot of actions, but it certainly helps. You need large number of combinations per fight in order to really have "tactical options" and chances for synergies. And combinations are influenced by number of choices AND number of actions per fight.

In chess, you have only one 'action per turn', but you have large number of choices per each turn ( 16 figures where some can move to 8-16 different spots, some to only 2, but lets say around 80 choices ). So in 4 turn 'fight' in chess you could theoretically select your 'tactics' out of 80^4= 40 million combinations. If we only look at 'meaningful' choices, ie those that make sense, then its much less, but still on each move you could probably on average consider dozens of potentially valid moves. Which means that 4-turn fight in chess still has 20k combinations - plenty to ensure that you need to *think* and tactically select best option, as opposed to just play whatever is available.

If we look at BG3, you have one main action per turn and one bonus action. Melee/ranged classes have only few main actions, and all have also just several bonus actions. So you have around dozen potential combinations of choices per turn, but that is total number - you have much less 'meaningful' choices, and you often end up in BG3 using same actions each turn, or selecting among 3-4 different turn plays at most. That means 4-turn fight in BG has just 256 meaningful combinations, not even comparable to chess.

Now, as I said, TWO things increase number of possible combinations: number of choices ( spells, attacks, cantrips, bonus actions...), and number of actions. But out of those two, number of actions has MORE influence.

Consider hypothetical game where you have 3 meaningful choices per action and 2 actions per turn ( BG3 is close to that ) - In 4 turn fight you would have total of 3^8= 6500 combinations. Now, if we double number of potential choices (spells, bonuses...) we increase that to 6^8= 1.6M in theory, but in practice not all added spells will be meaningful or often used, so its much more modest increase. On the other hand, if we double number of actions per turn, keeping same spells and choices, we now have 3^16= 43M combinations - about 40x more than if we doubled number of available spells/bonuses . And, while most of these numbers are just guesstimate ballparks to illustrate my point, incidentally those 40M combinations with 4 actions per turn is comparable to 40M combinations in chess 4 turns.

But since gamers do not play game by enumerating all combinations, above is just to illustrate that 'more actions per turn' is more potent way to increase tactical variability.

So I do believe that BOTH more actions per turn, AND more choices per action ( spells, attacks, bonuses ) all increase number of tactical options and make combat more interesting.

But apart from cold math, there is also my experience from games that allow 4-5 actions per turn: it is MUCH easier in those to use interesting but not very powerful spells, thus it is MUCH more natural to get synergies in such game. In DoS2, you have lets say 8 AP per turn. Your normal attacks are usually 2 AP, your stronger attacks/spells are 3AP, and smaller/helper/bonus spells ate 1AP. It is obvious that you have much more tactical opinions from start at each turn - do I use 2 big or 3 normal attacks? If I use 2 big, it may still be less damage than 3 normal, but can I add some 1ap helper spell like haste or clarity or ... ? So you end up not only using 2-3 attacks per turn, you also often have choice to use some smaller spell that you would RARELY use in BG3 if it means you must forgo your only attack.

In short, single main action per turn means you simply can NOT use smaller, more interesting but weaker spells/attacks, if you want to play optimally. While in DoS2 and similar games with multiple actions per turn you CAN, without intentionally playing worse than if you used just attacks.


I'm sure this discussion has been done elsewhere on these forums, as it is part of "like DoS" vs "true DnD", so I just wanted to explain why I think more actions are good.

But again, I understand position of DnD players, and I agree that BG3 *was* advertised as DnD game. It may be that I personally find DnD rules as negative thing or inferior to DoS rules, but I'm sure there are many DnD players who think otherwise. Also, even if I consider BG3 worse than DoS2, I still consider BG3 as good game - and even if Larian makes it more DnD I will still plays it ( well, except if they remove advantage on higher ground - that would be showstopper for me I guess ). But I also believe there are many more casual non-DnD players that may be lost to BG3 if it become more DnD.
From the way I see it, it's less about the number of actions per turn that you have and more about how impactful an action you take is. Yes, your amount of actions per turn won't change as you level up but the versatility of your available actions per turn will, plus your base actions are only a part of it, since reactions, synergies or other tactical maneuvers play a huge part as well. But to be fair, there is little of all this in the game, since we are just talking level 1 to 4 here and a lot is still missing or poorly implemented as of now.
Originally Posted by gmnenad
I understand your position about DnD, and I already mentioned that it will be hard for Larian to walk middle ground in BG3.

Regarding actions - no, characters do not 'need' lot of actions, but it certainly helps. You need large number of combinations per fight in order to really have "tactical options" and chances for synergies. And combinations are influenced by number of choices AND number of actions per fight.

In chess, you have only one 'action per turn', but you have large number of choices per each turn ( 16 figures where some can move to 8-16 different spots, some to only 2, but lets say around 80 choices ). So in 4 turn 'fight' in chess you could theoretically select your 'tactics' out of 80^4= 40 million combinations. If we only look at 'meaningful' choices, ie those that make sense, then its much less, but still on each move you could probably on average consider dozens of potentially valid moves. Which means that 4-turn fight in chess still has 20k combinations - plenty to ensure that you need to *think* and tactically select best option, as opposed to just play whatever is available.

If we look at BG3, you have one main action per turn and one bonus action. Melee/ranged classes have only few main actions, and all have also just several bonus actions. So you have around dozen potential combinations of choices per turn, but that is total number - you have much less 'meaningful' choices, and you often end up in BG3 using same actions each turn, or selecting among 3-4 different turn plays at most. That means 4-turn fight in BG has just 256 meaningful combinations, not even comparable to chess.

Now, as I said, TWO things increase number of possible combinations: number of choices ( spells, attacks, cantrips, bonus actions...), and number of actions. But out of those two, number of actions has MORE influence.

Consider hypothetical game where you have 3 meaningful choices per action and 2 actions per turn ( BG3 is close to that ) - In 4 turn fight you would have total of 3^8= 6500 combinations. Now, if we double number of potential choices (spells, bonuses...) we increase that to 6^8= 1.6M in theory, but in practice not all added spells will be meaningful or often used, so its much more modest increase. On the other hand, if we double number of actions per turn, keeping same spells and choices, we now have 3^16= 43M combinations - about 40x more than if we doubled number of available spells/bonuses . And, while most of these numbers are just guesstimate ballparks to illustrate my point, incidentally those 40M combinations with 4 actions per turn is comparable to 40M combinations in chess 4 turns.

But since gamers do not play game by enumerating all combinations, above is just to illustrate that 'more actions per turn' is more potent way to increase tactical variability.

So I do believe that BOTH more actions per turn, AND more choices per action ( spells, attacks, bonuses ) all increase number of tactical options and make combat more interesting.

But apart from cold math, there is also my experience from games that allow 4-5 actions per turn: it is MUCH easier in those to use interesting but not very powerful spells, thus it is MUCH more natural to get synergies in such game. In DoS2, you have lets say 8 AP per turn. Your normal attacks are usually 2 AP, your stronger attacks/spells are 3AP, and smaller/helper/bonus spells ate 1AP. It is obvious that you have much more tactical opinions from start at each turn - do I use 2 big or 3 normal attacks? If I use 2 big, it may still be less damage than 3 normal, but can I add some 1ap helper spell like haste or clarity or ... ? So you end up not only using 2-3 attacks per turn, you also often have choice to use some smaller spell that you would RARELY use in BG3 if it means you must forgo your only attack.

In short, single main action per turn means you simply can NOT use smaller, more interesting but weaker spells/attacks, if you want to play optimally. While in DoS2 and similar games with multiple actions per turn you CAN, without intentionally playing worse than if you used just attacks.


I'm sure this discussion has been done elsewhere on these forums, as it is part of "like DoS" vs "true DnD", so I just wanted to explain why I think more actions are good.

But again, I understand position of DnD players, and I agree that BG3 *was* advertised as DnD game. It may be that I personally find DnD rules as negative thing or inferior to DoS rules, but I'm sure there are many DnD players who think otherwise. Also, even if I consider BG3 worse than DoS2, I still consider BG3 as good game - and even if Larian makes it more DnD I will still plays it ( well, except if they remove advantage on higher ground - that would be showstopper for me I guess ). But I also believe there are many more casual non-DnD players that may be lost to BG3 if it become more DnD.

In regards of tactical depth, the number of actions is not very important, in my opinion. The game needs to be balanced around the number of actions every participant has, but apart from that, it doesn't really matter.

If every participant has 10 actions per round, then of course you have to make sure that you have enough meaningful things to do in that round, and that you still get a certain amount of rounds. If every fight is over after only 1 round, it would get boring fast. The same, if every fight takes 100 rounds, then probably every fight will feel like a chore after some time.

As you said yourself, it needs to feel like you are doing something meaningful every round.

And I think you can achieve that with DnD quite well. There are ~495 spells, and approximately 75 feats. Every class has also distinct abilities and flavours. And e.g. for the spells, there are not many redundancies.
E.g. Bless is the only spell, that adds to your to-hit chance per se. Of course there are other spells that give advantage, which also results in a better to hit chance, but mechanically different.

What's different now in DnD compared to DOS is that I can't use powerful abilities very often - the more powerful, the less often I can use it. In DOS after 3 rounds or so you can reuse every ability. In DnD I can use a spell like 4 times ... Then my characters have to rest. So I need way way more planing and tactical thinking when to use which spell or ability. Because resting is not always possible, especially if I am in a dungeon.

If I now use 1 - 2 (DnD) or 2 - 3 abilities/spells per character per turn (do I use 1 small ability and 1 big ability, or 3 small abilities in DOS) does not make much difference when you are controlling 5 or 6 characters, at least in my opinion.

I am the same opinion as you, it's the synergies that count, and there are lots of them in DnD.

Sadly right now we don't have a lot of spells and feats implemented in bg3. And those that are in the game are not always implemented correctly.
Same goes for mechanics.

So I understand completely that you think the combat in BG3 is lacking. It absolutely is.

But it really depends on Larian to implement the core stuff for level 1 - 4. Then - I am quite sure of it - there would be quite more choices per turn. And you would also get other possibilities to get advantage than just from height, namely through tactical usage of your spells and abilities.
The shorter everyone's turn is (due to having just A+BA), the sooner next round starts and you can take action with your character(s) again.

Also: One round represents 6 seconds. It makes no sense to have multiple actions per round other than by using rare abilities/spells.
Woh, so many messages here !

I feel the need to react to a few things some said.

* BACKSTAB : the Backstab added by Larian does not make the game more tactical at all : just more tedious and the 5e rules are not adapted/balanced for any facing/direction/backstab logic. Both you and the enemies can run around you FREELY and backstab every single turn! Backstabbing existed in past versions where running around a target could provoke an Attack of opportunity, which no longer is the case in 5.

So, if you want to, you can move to backstab every turn without much risk : just tedious. I have seen Gnolls move behind me, strike, and then move back in front of me. The notion that this is a cool or tactical addition is an illusion.

* FUN AND OPTIMISATION : I understand making things more streamlined or more fun, I am NOT requesting 100 % 5e rules, BUT many changes are not at all based off making things better. For example, Mirror Image was easy to implement in their engine, but some designer decided to radically change the effect: not more fun nor more streamlined, just a radical redesign for some random unknown whim.

BETTER EXAMPLE : the Wizard's Find Familiar spell is implemented in a way that is NOT fun at all. In 5e, though the Familiar is rather weak, you can cast it as a Ritual (no slot cost) and Wizards do not even need to prepare (but it cost some gold). In BG3, some RANGERS have the benefit of casting Find Familiar as a Ritual. So why not the Wizard? (because design errors: Early Access)

Even in Solasta (which can only use the free license SRD bits of 5e), I am not asking them to 100 % respect the rules : 5e rules are not perfect. But Larian designers should not butcher the rules on a whim without more thought. As far as I know, Larian is the ONLY game studio to have been given the license to use 5e rules (i.e. other games won the right to use the name D&D and Forgotten Realms, but cannot use the full 5e rules).
@Baraz

Good examples. I'm hoping that mirror image is just a placeholder. Same goes for invoke duplicity.

And yes, what Solasta has done correctly is a get the core rules down and *then* homebrew. (I'd actually like to see greenmage become an official 5th ed class) No one wants %100 RAW -- I'm fine with not having to finding diamonds to cast revivify, fine with changes to ranger class -- but getting things like find familiar correct would be nice.
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.
Originally Posted by Baraz
Even in Solasta (which can only use the free license bits of 5e), I am not asking them to 100 % respect the rules : 5e rules are not perfect. But Larian designers should not butcher the rules on a whim without more thought. As far as I know, Larian is the ONLY game studio to have been given the license to use 5e rules (i.e. there is one other studio making an action game using the D&D name, but it does not require 5e rules as such).

To be precise, all of the 5e rules are released under the Open Gaming License that Solasta uses. What Larian has is a license to use WotC-owned and DnD-related IPs and trademarks.
The base OGL (SRD5) also doesn't cover a lot of races, classes and subcalsses, many spells or most feats - this is why a lot of that game's races are custom-to-world, and their subclasses are not the same, etc.,
Please, please, please do not make it to the core rules. D&d rules are for tabletop games. They are boring when used in a computer games.
Well, the homebrew variatons where Larian moved away from the core pnp rules ended up making combat even more boring. Either by making classes similar, making tactics almosty non-existant (aside from leaping over enemies to backstab or to get high ground), as well as making a lot of abilities/spells pointless.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Well, the homebrew variatons where Larian moved away from the core pnp rules ended up making combat even more boring. Either by making classes similar, making tactics almosty non-existant (aside from leaping over enemies to backstab or to get high ground), as well as making a lot of abilities/spells pointless.


EXACTLY!
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

I love this post. Is there anyway we could have this pinned? I agree that it's more important that the game is fun and each class has their own meaningful space. Actions are currently overshadowed by jump, dip, backstab, higher ground, etc. and it makes combat stale.

Whether Larian chooses to implement more homebrew or be truer to DnD the game needs to be changed where classes matter and actions have a premium (limited in use or associated with a cost).
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

I love this post. Is there anyway we could have this pinned? I agree that it's more important that the game is fun and each class has their own meaningful space. Actions are currently overshadowed by jump, dip, backstab, higher ground, etc. and it makes combat stale.

Whether Larian chooses to implement more homebrew or be truer to DnD the game needs to be changed where classes matter and actions have a premium (limited in use or associated with a cost).


Agreed, that post is actually perfect! <3
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

Thank you for this post, it's brilliant. You've managed to put into words my frustrations; Larian really should be taking on board your feedback here. Sometimes it feels that Larian are struggling to get a handle on how to implement DnD effectively.
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.
+1 i agree - this is very well and succinctly put by evandir. id even go further and theorize that such adjustments would only be further exasperated at higher character levels, but that may be tough to verify given the current lvl 4 cap in ea.
Originally Posted by Niara
The base OGL (SRD5) also doesn't cover a lot of races, classes and subcalsses, many spells or most feats - this is why a lot of that game's races are custom-to-world, and their subclasses are not the same, etc.,

Oh, right, for sure. I guess I don't really consider those part of the "prime rules" so to speak. I expect them to change based on setting.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
(...) aside from leaping over enemies to backstab (...)
You do not even need to leap as a Bonus Action : you use about 5 to 10 feet of movement to backstab any target every turn. Or move over 15 feet (out of 30+) when you want to backstab a huge creature.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Niara
The base OGL (SRD5) also doesn't cover a lot of races, classes and subcalsses, many spells or most feats - this is why a lot of that game's races are custom-to-world, and their subclasses are not the same, etc.,

Oh, right, for sure. I guess I don't really consider those part of the "prime rules" so to speak. I expect them to change based on setting.
Example : SRD (free to use) has 1 single Feat. One. :P
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

Very, very well said! Thank you! +1

I am not against changes per se. But as the saying goes: "Never touch a running system", I just don't understand why, when developing a game around a system, you don't try to implement the system as it is first, and then iterate - based on feedback - from there.
I just don't believe Larian, when they say, they tried to implement the rules, but it didn't work. When you look at the engine they are using, they went the path of least resistance, which is fine by itself. But then please don't tell people in interviews, they just changed what does not work in a PC game.
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

As others have chimed in, well said. I hope Larian takes notice.
Larian says that the intention behind the changes they did to the rules is to make the game more FUN, with some homebrew rules.
I say it is not funny at all so far.

D&D 5 is successful because of a loooong experience in what is balanced or not in the game (and it worked quite well in BG1 & 2 when they respected former D&D editions btw).
And, we, - d&d 5 players - are the experts of what is balanced and what is not.

We have said numerous times that the way it is done is not balanced. When it is not balanced, well, it is not FUN.
This is so simple actually, isn't it ?

We are not naive and we know that 100% of the rules/spells cannot be implemented. But we also know that it would be possible for 95% of them. And it is far from being the case at this stage : it even does not respect very core and fundamental rules of D&D5.
For more fun ? Well, too bad. It is not.

You could have it all, Larian. Please be as close as you can to D&D core rules, you can do far better, and we already know it will be extremely funny for D&D players, and still quite funny for non D&D players.
Do this Larian, and you know we will follow you in any sequel of BG you'll make.
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

Very, very well said! Thank you! +1

I am not against changes per se. But as the saying goes: "Never touch a running system", I just don't understand why, when developing a game around a system, you don't try to implement the system as it is first, and then iterate - based on feedback - from there.
I just don't believe Larian, when they say, they tried to implement the rules, but it didn't work. When you look at the engine they are using, they went the path of least resistance, which is fine by itself. But then please don't tell people in interviews, they just changed what does not work in a PC game.


Exactly, I get the same feeling! They didn't even try their best to properly implement the 5E rules to begin with, before making changes.
In another thread, RealMoisan brought up some great points:

"-Opponents getting criticals on low rolls.
-Spell durations based off real time, and not actual turns of combat.
-Many creatures (including pets) have absurd stats, abilities, attacks, and status effects.
-Advantage on attacks with high ground (not a thing in D&D, and "high ground" can be 6").
-Cantrips applying status effects (often even on misses too), and not even getting a save for those status effects.
-Not hidden, but 3 to 4 proficiency checks after 1 to 2 sentences of conversation. That's insane.
-The change in spell stats is BS too. Not even talking about status effects, which sucks (in D&D barrels aren't meant to be feared), but many other spells too."

We were talking about gnolls in that threads but it's also true for many other enemy types; they are massively altered and it DOES feel like Larian are trying to make BG3 way too much of a DOS game due to the changes.
Maybe thats obvious to many, but I recently started playing DOS:2 again and the reason why BG3 is such a ruleset mess right now became evident to me, they are building BG3 100% on top of DOS:2, because of that we have now this true Frankenstein of a system that dosent make any sense and is not fun at all, it looks more like a DOS:2 mod than a brand new game.

Take Solasta for example, they are building the game from scratch with a fraction of Larian resources and it already feels like im playing 5e with my friends, just because they had nothing to building on top and are "forced" to be true to the ruleset.

I love Larians work, love the DOS series, but when I see all these lame excuses about changing the 5E ruleset to be "more fun" all I truly read is "we are rushing this game using DOS:2 engine and we dont have time to make it a true DnD experience".

I would love to be proven incorrect about this, but the striking similarities and the large non-DnD playerbase that says things like "misses are boring", "game is too hard", "failing skill checks in dialogue is bad" are making me very pessimistic about this, only time will tell.
I am not sure it is rushing BG3 but it does feel like shortcuts are taken, to make it easier/for budget reasons. The focus so far from what I noticed is pretty much on the Origin characters and their personal story, rather than adapting the 5e ruleset properly/better, or to build an engine from scratch.

Having played DOS2 after playing BG3 as well, I did notice that for all the clunky mechanics and things DOS2 had.. somehow BG3 made them feel even clunkier. Right now, rather than BG3 being Early Access it almost feels more like a big Tech Demo to me.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
I am not sure it is rushing BG3 but it does feel like shortcuts are taken, to make it easier/for budget reasons. The focus so far from what I noticed is pretty much on the Origin characters and their personal story, rather than adapting the 5e ruleset properly/better, or to build an engine from scratch.

Having played DOS2 after playing BG3 as well, I did notice that for all the clunky mechanics and things DOS2 had.. somehow BG3 made them feel even clunkier. Right now, rather than BG3 being Early Access it almost feels more like a big Tech Demo to me.

Yup. All this time they spent a ton on cinematics and fleshing out the origin characters with motion capture and voice actors. It’s pretty obvious where the money went. That left little for the actual game mechanics so they just tossed in the DOS system.

I suppose the DOS crowd like this. The flashy environmental effects and bright colors. They like the big explosions and powerful characters who can’t miss. It’s like Michael Bay is the lead director for BG3. Can’t wait for the cinematic camera spin of the origin characters.
I'm actually glad Larian is looking to adapt the 5e system. 5e simply doesn't fit perfectly into video games

  • People talk about 5E being a system perfectly balanced over 5 years - but the truth is, the game never has had a proper "patch". The PHB was printed at the beginning of 5E and stayed the same. Aside from a few minor line changes in Erratas, all the fixes are built in supplementary material, which BG3 won't be implementing.
  • I don't mind adjustments to the combat system because in PnP you're used to controlling 1 character, whereas here you control multiple in most games.
  • I also accept the fact that 5E PnP is played in ironman mode, which alters the way encounters are designed (pnp encounters are inherently easier since there's no reloading).


My larger issue is that while I'm happy for Larian to be playing with the combat system, they really aren't taking advantage of the EA to push out quick iterations, and let the fan base try and feedback on different things. The only combat related change I think we've received due to EA feedback has been surfaces. It's already been months since the release - realistically we could've tested multiple system by this time.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I'm actually glad Larian is looking to adapt the 5e system. 5e simply doesn't fit perfectly into video games

  • People talk about 5E being a system perfectly balanced over 5 years - but the truth is, the game never has had a proper "patch". The PHB was printed at the beginning of 5E and stayed the same. Aside from a few minor line changes in Erratas, all the fixes are built in supplementary material, which BG3 won't be implementing.
  • I don't mind adjustments to the combat system because in PnP you're used to controlling 1 character, whereas here you control multiple in most games.
  • I also accept the fact that 5E PnP is played in ironman mode, which alters the way encounters are designed (pnp encounters are inherently easier since there's no reloading).


My larger issue is that while I'm happy for Larian to be playing with the combat system, they really aren't taking advantage of the EA to push out quick iterations, and let the fan base try and feedback on different things. The only combat related change I think we've received due to EA feedback has been surfaces. It's already been months since the release - realistically we could've tested multiple system by this time.

The thing is, there is a perfect example of another game in development that uses the 5e system with some minor modifications (compared to BG3 at least) while being more limited with what they have to work with and the combat is much better, smoother and generally more fun.

Adjustments are fine, in some cases needed. But BG3 made changes that completely throw any balance out of the window. Combat becomes boring and tedious and generally the same (Go for backstabs and highground. That is the tactics). Which makes some classes the same and less unique, and thus more boring to play. The best way to succeed in combats is to make clever use of these added houserules and game mechanics. It caters more to DOS1/DOS2 tactics and ignoring many 5e tactics (And class abilities, spells, etc).

If you are going to do that, why even bother making it the weird 5e/DOS hybrid that tries to do two systems but fails at both. Stick with one or the other. And definatly do not sell it as a 5e game while it clearly is not this.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
I am not sure it is rushing BG3 but it does feel like shortcuts are taken, to make it easier/for budget reasons. The focus so far from what I noticed is pretty much on the Origin characters and their personal story, rather than adapting the 5e ruleset properly/better, or to build an engine from scratch.

Having played DOS2 after playing BG3 as well, I did notice that for all the clunky mechanics and things DOS2 had.. somehow BG3 made them feel even clunkier. Right now, rather than BG3 being Early Access it almost feels more like a big Tech Demo to me.
I'd say it's probably all either budget related or a bug. As much as some would like to allude to Larian not understanding DnD rules, I'm sure they understand them as well as the players or better.

Questions like
"Is it worth it to the players to have a proper reaction system?" it will take X hours to add in the game.
"Should we have random encounters at camp?" that'll take Y hours to add in the game.

And Larian wants our feedback to know what is worth investing the time in. It makes a lot of business sense to wait for player feedback in early access rather than spend time that you did not need to spend.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
My larger issue is that while I'm happy for Larian to be playing with the combat system, they really aren't taking advantage of the EA to push out quick iterations, and let the fan base try and feedback on different things. The only combat related change I think we've received due to EA feedback has been surfaces. It's already been months since the release - realistically we could've tested multiple system by this time.
Larian has been open about some of the challenges they're facing. COVID has limited what they can do and they've had their offices flooded recently.

Twitter

I'm sure they wanted patch 4 out sooner but the holidays, COVID restrictions, and flooding will definitely slow things down.
Yeah, I am willing to go with the mechanics feeling clunkier because it is still EA and some copying of the DOS engine may not have gone flawlessly. But that does still make it feel like a Tech Demo. It works, but barely. With a focus on the writing/origin characters.

I do not doubt Larian understands 5e rules. It would be silly to assume they did not research. There are oversights with the houserules/adjustments/homebrew they used in the translation from 5e to CRPG that seem maybe minor but ultimately have a huge effect on how some classes play, how it makes some spells/abilities pointless and generally the feel for the game.

Random encounters are one of those things that is more related to worldbuilding/storytelling in my opinion (It is an event, basically) where something like reactions is a (in my opinion) large part of the rules. Many classabilities and spells are made to function around reactions, afterall.

As it stands it all comes across as an initial copy paste of the DOS systems, and then reskinning it with the 5e ruleset rather than make a system based around the 5e ruleset, and then fiddle/adjust with houserules based on feedback/testing. For me, someone who was hoping for a 5e CRPG experience (That was the a sales pitch, afterall. Aside from brand recognition of Baldur's Gate, but that is a different subject and not related to 5e core rules) this raises quite some concerns still.
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
Maybe thats obvious to many, but I recently started playing DOS:2 again and the reason why BG3 is such a ruleset mess right now became evident to me, they are building BG3 100% on top of DOS:2, because of that we have now this true Frankenstein of a system that dosent make any sense and is not fun at all, it looks more like a DOS:2 mod than a brand new game.

Take Solasta for example, they are building the game from scratch with a fraction of Larian resources and it already feels like im playing 5e with my friends, just because they had nothing to building on top and are "forced" to be true to the ruleset.

I love Larians work, love the DOS series, but when I see all these lame excuses about changing the 5E ruleset to be "more fun" all I truly read is "we are rushing this game using DOS:2 engine and we dont have time to make it a true DnD experience".

I would love to be proven incorrect about this, but the striking similarities and the large non-DnD playerbase that says things like "misses are boring", "game is too hard", "failing skill checks in dialogue is bad" are making me very pessimistic about this, only time will tell.


I agree with you on every point there, including that I *LOVE* Larian but... I just really wish they'd drop the DOS obsession and focus on DND.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
The thing is, there is a perfect example of another game in development that uses the 5e system with some minor modifications (compared to BG3 at least) while being more limited with what they have to work with and the combat is much better, smoother and generally more fun.

That is strictly opinion though. It sounds like Solasta's vision aligns with what you want more, which is totally fine.

For me, I think Solasta's done a great job with what they have. I do legitimately like some of their implementation (i.e. reactions) far better than BG3. However, I far enjoyed BG3;s combat far more.

For me, combat in Solasta was extremely dull and repetitive. By the end of the Solasta EA I was dreading each additional fight because I was just spamming basic attacks and cantrips against the same repetitive mobs, and I was steamrolling. I blame this more on encounter design than class mechanics, but they do work hand in hand.


Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Adjustments are fine, in some cases needed. But BG3 made changes that completely throw any balance out of the window. Combat becomes boring and tedious and generally the same (Go for backstabs and highground. That is the tactics). Which makes some classes the same and less unique, and thus more boring to play. The best way to succeed in combats is to make clever use of these added houserules and game mechanics. It caters more to DOS1/DOS2 tactics and ignoring many 5e tactics (And class abilities, spells, etc).

While I think backstab and height is overtuned, I didn't find the mechanic repetitive. It at least add a bit more choice for "attack only" classes and make you consider the terrain more. It's as repetitive as any cover or high ground mechanics you see in X-com and other combat games. Get cover, get high ground, and flank when you can. Most games will sound repetitive if you sum up its core like that. Most RPG combat would just be - buff self, debuff enemy, attack. I'm not sure how removing it would make things any less repetitive?

I agree with you that they haven't nailed the balance (like I said, way overtuned), but I don't have a problem with them trying something new to make 5E work better for a videogame.


Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
If you are going to do that, why even bother making it the weird 5e/DOS hybrid that tries to do two systems but fails at both. Stick with one or the other. And definatly do not sell it as a 5e game while it clearly is not this.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. Just sticking to DOS or 5e seems like an incredibly lazy way to do this. Neither are perfect systems and have gaps that can be improved on, which is what I would prefer Larian try to do with BG3.

All successful D&D videogames (BG1/2, NWN 1/2) have been adaptations of the D&D rules and made massive implementation changes, but sold as D&D video games.
Games like BG1/2 and NWN 1/2 had adaptation and changes. So does Solasta. But... they still played like DnD videogames. BG3... does not really. And it is sold as one. When A game is sold to me as a 5e experience game, then it is what I expect and if I go for this game it is because it is what I want. If it ends up being something completely different... well. Yeah. Then games that DO fulfull that allign more with what I personally want.

I agree both DOS and 5e systems have their flaws, changes and adaptations are a good thing and can make a videogame experience better. They are kind of mixed together in a bad way though, and with how different the systems are it is like trying to mix water and oil. Hence why I mentioned sticking to one or the other as a base. And then work from there with houserules/adaptations/homebrew stuff.
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Games like BG1/2 and NWN 1/2 had adaptation and changes. So does Solasta. But... they still played like DnD videogames. BG3... does not really. And it is sold as one. When A game is sold to me as a 5e experience game, then it is what I expect and if I go for this game it is because it is what I want. If it ends up being something completely different... well. Yeah. Then games that DO fulfull that allign more with what I personally want.

I agree both DOS and 5e systems have their flaws, changes and adaptations are a good thing and can make a videogame experience better. They are kind of mixed together in a bad way though, and with how different the systems are it is like trying to mix water and oil. Hence why I mentioned sticking to one or the other as a base. And then work from there with houserules/adaptations/homebrew stuff.


Exactly, that's how I feel too! Larian promised this would be "as close to dnd 5th edition as it could get", and I was soooo hoping for *JUST THAT*, and so far I am not pleased with that. I will certainly play the game no matter what and probably love it, but... I really, really wanted a DnD experience.
I tried out both games recently and personally likes Solasta's combat much more (not because its closer to dnd i just feel its more fun to me). Like it when enemies try to prone one of my characters down by matching their Athletic skill against my char's, like that the combat log is very informative and also the UI pop-ups gives me a pretty good understanding immediately what just happened upon a hit/attack, like you dont know all enemy stats without apropriate skillchecks, also i like the reaction system more and that you need to use disengage, action economy overall seems more tactical. Shoving is rewarding when im using it because its not used every turn. Movement also feels more natural if i wanna go to somewhere i click and character automatically crawls/climbs/jumps there. There are stones-obstacles to push with strengthy characters to reveal shortcuts which also makes melee chars more useful. It feels the game somehow needs more involvement from player side than BG3 atm. There is a couple of things I like in BG3 more (for example i feel the flow of combat seems to be better and i like the shared initiative idea), also the story and its graphics are out-of-question more superior. But it definitely needs improvement on combat rules to make it fun to more people and avoid it being repetitive on long term.
I think Larian also tries to make BG3 more accessable to everyone therefore they are experimenting with homebrew rules to make it more digestable. On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
Originally Posted by Mat22
On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
+1
I would agree that granularity is the way to go, so every player can make this game the type of adventure he or she wants.
Originally Posted by Mat22
I tried out both games recently and personally likes Solasta's combat much more (not because its closer to dnd i just feel its more fun to me). Like it when enemies try to prone one of my characters down by matching their Athletic skill against my char's, like that the combat log is very informative and also the UI pop-ups gives me a pretty good understanding immediately what just happened upon a hit/attack, like you dont know all enemy stats without apropriate skillchecks, also i like the reaction system more and that you need to use disengage, action economy overall seems more tactical. Shoving is rewarding when im using it because its not used every turn. Movement also feels more natural if i wanna go to somewhere i click and character automatically crawls/climbs/jumps there. There are stones-obstacles to push with strengthy characters to reveal shortcuts which also makes melee chars more useful. It feels the game somehow needs more involvement from player side than BG3 atm. There is a couple of things I like in BG3 more (for example i feel the flow of combat seems to be better and i like the shared initiative idea), also the story and its graphics are out-of-question more superior. But it definitely needs improvement on combat rules to make it fun to more people and avoid it being repetitive on long term.
I think Larian also tries to make BG3 more accessable to everyone therefore they are experimenting with homebrew rules to make it more digestable. On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.


Exactly!! All those things are fun as heck, not least because it FOLLOWS the core rules! It just makes things far more tactical and fun, definitely! =)
Fun is a matter of opinion.
But more tactical yes, definitely.

A game made by 20 people is more tactical than a AAA tactical TB game. That's a fact, we have more solutions in Solasta but that's only because everything is balanced.

BG3 is balanced arround a very limited number of custom OP mechanics. Use them or die (Highground/backstab/food/dip/grenades/potions).
Originally Posted by Mat22
I (...)
(...) Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
For fun, one of the things they removed in Solasta (mid-January 2021) was actually a *homebrew* rule they had implemented that made lack of light more hardcore. Characters in dim light without Darkvision had a rough time (Disadvantage on attacks. In vanilla 5e, Dim LIght is Disadvantage on Perception checks only; not to be confused with darkness, heavily obscured, etc.).

I do see the following in Solasta's settings :
- You can choose to change Prepared spells without doing a Long Rest (by default, it respects 5e rules) ;
- Spell components : for each Verbal, Somatic and Material component, you can choose to disable it, make it basic or full (eg. full: you need a free hand to cast and Revivify cost 300 gold of diamond dust).
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Mat22
On that note, as per their latest update, Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
+1
I would agree that granularity is the way to go, so every player can make this game the type of adventure he or she wants.

It's interesting how using 5e rules as the core system and tweaking it as options works. Who would have thought?
Yeah I REALLY hope we get hardcore, true-to-book core rules, and then maybe homebrew as optional!
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]

The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some powerful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).
(EDIT: turns out WotC meant per Action and not per Turn, sigh. Bonus Actions are restricted to 1 only per turn, hence the confusion.
So you can do Action Surge to cast two spells of levels 1+ along with one single Bonus Action spell!)

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en
Originally Posted by Baraz
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]
The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some poweful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en

So, what you posted is not entirely correct.

The germane text from the player's handbook: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This doesn't speak at all to a limit on the number of spell slots you can use per turn.

The rule is bypassed with Action Surge (as mentioned in the tweet that you linked, in fact) - you can cast two full-action spells in one turn with Action Surge so long as you aren't also using your bonus action to cast a spell (because that would trigger the rule).
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Originally Posted by Baraz
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]
The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some poweful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en

So, what you posted is not entirely correct.

The germane text from the player's handbook: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." This doesn't speak at all to a limit on the number of spell slots you can use per turn.

The rule is bypassed with Action Surge (as mentioned in the tweet that you linked, in fact) - you can cast two full-action spells in one turn with Action Surge so long as you aren't also using your bonus action to cast a spell (because that would trigger the rule).
Well, since Jeremy says so (Action Surge = extra spell), OK, but their damned rule says turn, sigh, so many concluded it was meant as a limit per turn.

The confusion comes from the Bonus Action limited to one per turn (Rogues do not get a second Bonus Action).
Originally Posted by Baraz
I wonder if some noticed there is one rule that both BG3 and Solasta changed and I have seen NO ONE complain about it !

In both games, you can cast an Action spell and a Bonus Action spell in the same turn (ie. I do NOT mean a cantrip, but rather you can use two spell slots/turn in both games).

In vanilla 5e, you can use one single spell slot (spell level 1+) along with one single cantrip in one turn. Meaning you cannot use a spell slot for an Action and then another spell slot for a Bonus Action in a single turn.
Example : In one turn, you could cast Firebolt *cantrip* (Action) and Healing Word (Bonus Action).[note 1]

The rule is not bypassed by having an extra Action (the limit is per turn. If you get an extra turn with some powerful magic, then sure, you can cast more spells).
(EDIT: turns out WotC meant per Action and not per Turn, sigh. Bonus Actions are restricted to 1 only per turn, hence the confusion.
So you can do Action Surge to cast two spells of levels 1+ along with one single Bonus Action spell!)

Anyhow, this flexibility in BG3/Solasta seems to please most people as no one ever mentions that homebrew ! laugh


[note 1] This is not an interpretation and do not contradict me on that rule without doing your research first please. See Jeremy Crawford's response (WotC): https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1151287969312985089?lang=en


Ahh yes, I *HAVE* noticed that! They do that in Solasta too? Damn. Oh well, personally.. I don't know. I am pretty fine with that change, but I certainly wouldn't mind if they made it true to the core rules either.
The core rules for this come into play regarding bonus action spells only, however, they have some fairly ridiculous repercussions:

A high level fighter-wizard can: Cast meteor Swarm, have an enemy attempt to counterspell them, counterspell that enemy's coutnerspell, then action surge and cast an 8th level disintegrate on the upstart enemy caster. That's perfectly legal inthe core rules.

That exact same wizard might also attempt to first cast Shillelagh on their staff... the enemy caster counterspells this because they were waiting to counter regardless. The wizard then CANNOT counterspell that counterspell -that would be casting a levelled spell on the same turn as casting a bonus action spell. The also cannot cast anything with their action other than a cantrip, and even further, even if they then action surge, they still cannot cast anything other than a second cantrip with their extra action, becuase it's still their turn and they still cannot cast a leveled spell, because of the bonus action.

This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the rule doesn't need to exist - the vast majority of bonus actions spells are paladin and ranger spells, made to accompany using your action to attack, not cast more thing. They're all concentration in those cases too. If we remove all of the arrow, mark and smite-type BA spells (and others that rely on using your action to do something other than casting), we're left with a meager handful of spells indeed: barely a dozen of them in fact, the most notable of which are: Far/Misty step, Healing/Mass Healing word, Expeditions Retreat, Sanctuary and Dragon's Breath.

There's no real break or abuse in any of this.

Considering that a Paladin/Fighter of the same level as our Wizard above can nova off literally their entire daily allotment of spell slots in a single turn (over 11 spell slots), and all as guaranteed damage, perfectly legally, it's a bit strange.

Where it DOES become dangerous and abusuable is, as others have mentioned, with Sorcerers and quicken... and even then it still doesn't really measure up to the above paladin/fighter, and it doesn't do anything more or worse than the two-drop-levels-of-figter wizard action surging to cast multiple fireballs, etc. Same exact effect but perfectly legal... but it is still a potential for a lot of AoE, and other combinations that can be clever and strong (as though that's bad..?). This is the only place where the real breaks show up though... which means that the rule about bonus actions SHOULD be a rule that is written into Quicken Spell specifically, and leaves casters everywhere else alone.

(In games I play in, in one of which I play a sorcerer, we discard the bonus actions spell rule entirely, and instead rewrite quicken spell meta magic to read: "When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting. If you do this, you can't use your action to cast another spell on the same turn, except for a cantrip." It's simple, it's straight forward, it fixes the exploit they wanted it to without impacting anyone else, and it works.)

I'm personally GLAD they've ditched that rule, and it's the one place where I absolutely support them diverging from 5e, because the arbitrariness of that bonus action casting rule simply does not need to exist, and is a legacy left over from impressions of casters in earlier editions which no longer hold true in 5e.
Originally Posted by Niara
I'm personally GLAD they've ditched that rule, and it's the one place where I absolutely support them diverging from 5e, because the arbitrariness of that bonus action casting rule simply does not need to exist, and is a legacy left over from impressions of casters in earlier editions which no longer hold true in 5e.

Agreed, and it’s a tough enough rule for seasoned 5E players to wrap their brains around, let alone someone who’s coming at this game with no 5E knowledge. They’d probably just assume it was a bug if it wasn’t letting you cast a levelled spell when you have your action still available.
That rule they ditched (well, maybe just ignored or forgot) had reasons to exist: https://www.xanthir.com/b4tZ0

I wish both 5e and Larian adopted the fixed version of the rule:

A character can only cast one non-cantrip spell during their turn, no matter what actions they have available to them. They can combine that spell with any number of cantrips that they have the actions for. This does not restrict spells cast not during your turn, such as a Hellish Rebuke cast as a reaction.

If I still played P&P, I would adopt this rule as a DM. Wizards/Sorcs are OP even without completely ditching that rule...
Originally Posted by Niara
The core rules for this come into play regarding bonus action spells only, however, they have some fairly ridiculous repercussions:

A high level fighter-wizard can: Cast meteor Swarm, have an enemy attempt to counterspell them, counterspell that enemy's coutnerspell, then action surge and cast an 8th level disintegrate on the upstart enemy caster. That's perfectly legal inthe core rules.

That exact same wizard might also attempt to first cast Shillelagh on their staff... the enemy caster counterspells this because they were waiting to counter regardless. The wizard then CANNOT counterspell that counterspell -that would be casting a levelled spell on the same turn as casting a bonus action spell. The also cannot cast anything with their action other than a cantrip, and even further, even if they then action surge, they still cannot cast anything other than a second cantrip with their extra action, becuase it's still their turn and they still cannot cast a leveled spell, because of the bonus action.

This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the rule doesn't need to exist - the vast majority of bonus actions spells are paladin and ranger spells, made to accompany using your action to attack, not cast more thing. They're all concentration in those cases too. If we remove all of the arrow, mark and smite-type BA spells (and others that rely on using your action to do something other than casting), we're left with a meager handful of spells indeed: barely a dozen of them in fact, the most notable of which are: Far/Misty step, Healing/Mass Healing word, Expeditions Retreat, Sanctuary and Dragon's Breath.

There's no real break or abuse in any of this.

Considering that a Paladin/Fighter of the same level as our Wizard above can nova off literally their entire daily allotment of spell slots in a single turn (over 11 spell slots), and all as guaranteed damage, perfectly legally, it's a bit strange.

Where it DOES become dangerous and abusuable is, as others have mentioned, with Sorcerers and quicken... and even then it still doesn't really measure up to the above paladin/fighter, and it doesn't do anything more or worse than the two-drop-levels-of-figter wizard action surging to cast multiple fireballs, etc. Same exact effect but perfectly legal... but it is still a potential for a lot of AoE, and other combinations that can be clever and strong (as though that's bad..?). This is the only place where the real breaks show up though... which means that the rule about bonus actions SHOULD be a rule that is written into Quicken Spell specifically, and leaves casters everywhere else alone.

(In games I play in, in one of which I play a sorcerer, we discard the bonus actions spell rule entirely, and instead rewrite quicken spell meta magic to read: "When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting. If you do this, you can't use your action to cast another spell on the same turn, except for a cantrip." It's simple, it's straight forward, it fixes the exploit they wanted it to without impacting anyone else, and it works.)

I'm personally GLAD they've ditched that rule, and it's the one place where I absolutely support them diverging from 5e, because the arbitrariness of that bonus action casting rule simply does not need to exist, and is a legacy left over from impressions of casters in earlier editions which no longer hold true in 5e.
Very good points !

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
(...)

I wish both 5e and Larian adopted the fixed version of the rule:

A character can only cast one non-cantrip spell during their turn, no matter what actions they have available to them. They can combine that spell with any number of cantrips that they have the actions for. This does not restrict spells cast not during your turn, such as a Hellish Rebuke cast as a reaction.

If I still played P&P, I would adopt this rule as a DM. Wizards/Sorcs are OP even without completely ditching that rule...
Would be more balanced or safer. Niara's examples does show odd discrepancies (in tabletop 5e), where the Action Surge combo is oddly better than a pure caster :P.
Originally Posted by Baraz
Would be more balanced or safer. Niara's examples does show odd discrepancies (in tabletop 5e), where the Action Surge combo is oddly better than a pure caster :P.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's better. Remember, in order to gain Action Surge, it will cost you two levels. That's two levels of delayed spells and you also end up losing one ASI (which are also delayed). There are definite penalties to multi-classing. I'd say in general, full casters would benefit just staying one class. Fighters on the other hand (as well as other martial classes) may possibly benefit from dipping into other classes. But even in those cases, it's generally best to stay one class.
Well, without some sort of limitation in place: Move to the enemy group, Fireball, Action Surge, Fireball, Misty Step away... smile
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Well, without some sort of limitation in place: Move to the enemy group, Fireball, Action Surge, Fireball, Misty Step away... smile

You certainly can do that with 2 levels of fighter but you've burned 3 spell slots on one encounter. In addition, you'd have to wait till 7th level at the earliest when other full casters were tossing fireballs at level 5. In PnP where long rests matter, that's a significant loss of resources. But in BG3 currently, why not? Just rest up and repeat.
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
That rule they ditched (well, maybe just ignored or forgot) had reasons to exist: https://www.xanthir.com/b4tZ0

That article doesn't really give any good reasons for the rule to exist though. It mentions it as anti-nova protection, when that's simply not a legitimate justification, considering that other classes are permitted to nova their resources in far more extreme ways without any rules limitations being placed on them. At base, a Paladin at level 5 can nova three spell slots every turn without any limitations, and a high level paladin/fighter can nova upwards of eleven spells lots or more into guaranteed damage in a single turn. The "anti-nova" contention is a complete fallacy.

The first point is also fallacious; there simply are not any useful exploits with bonus action spells that this causes a legitimate balance issue for, and if there were, it would be a matter of errating the individual spell, and not punishing all casters everywhere. If the exploits only come from quickening other action spells for the double-cast nova, then the issue lies with quicken, which can be errataed to fix the problem without punishing all casters everywhere.

This rule adds nothing of benefit or balance to the game for existing, and it should not.

I do play in several games at the moment, and frankly, the idea that wizards and sorcerers are op compared to other classes is pretty bogus - it's a notion that comes from older generations (where it was definitely true), and they're certainly flashier for the most part... but if you want damage output, fighter, straight up, has them both whipped five ways to Sunday, and without any expendable resources, and don't even start about monks for the balance of damage and lock down... Casters burning 5th, 6th, 7th level spell slots on a damage dealing spell - a valuable and extremely limited resource - and getting less damage for it that the fighter on their regular three-strike attack, or the paladin on their double-smite, or even the rouge's sneak attack - is an extremely common occurrence in 5e. They don't need this further, counter-intuitive limitation.

I'd really just invite anyone who thinks the rule is justified to play a game where it doesn't exist, and just see; you will not notice its loss, and no-one will suddenly end up being broken or over-powered because of it. Seriously - just try it. You won't look back.
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by Mat22
I (...)
(...) Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
For fun, one of the things they removed in Solasta (mid-January 2021) was actually a *homebrew* rule they had implemented that made lack of light more hardcore. Characters in dim light without Darkvision had a rough time (Disadvantage on attacks. In vanilla 5e, Dim LIght is Disadvantage on Perception checks only; not to be confused with darkness, heavily obscured, etc.).

I do see the following in Solasta's settings :
- You can choose to change Prepared spells without doing a Long Rest (by default, it respects 5e rules) ;
- Spell components : for each Verbal, Somatic and Material component, you can choose to disable it, make it basic or full (eg. full: you need a free hand to cast and Revivify cost 300 gold of diamond dust).

They also plan to add these tweaks:
[Linked Image from solasta-game.com]
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Well, without some sort of limitation in place: Move to the enemy group, Fireball, Action Surge, Fireball, Misty Step away... smile

You certainly can do that with 2 levels of fighter but you've burned 3 spell slots on one encounter. In addition, you'd have to wait till 7th level at the earliest when other full casters were tossing fireballs at level 5. In PnP where long rests matter, that's a significant loss of resources. But in BG3 currently, why not? Just rest up and repeat.
Yeah, that's the main problem currently. The rest system in its current state means that every single spell/ability is practically per-combat, if needed. But there is now a whole thread regarding the rest system, so let's not discuss it here.
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Well, without some sort of limitation in place: Move to the enemy group, Fireball, Action Surge, Fireball, Misty Step away... smile

You certainly can do that with 2 levels of fighter but you've burned 3 spell slots on one encounter. In addition, you'd have to wait till 7th level at the earliest when other full casters were tossing fireballs at level 5. In PnP where long rests matter, that's a significant loss of resources. But in BG3 currently, why not? Just rest up and repeat.
Yeah, that's the main problem currently. The rest system in its current state means that every single spell/ability is practically per-combat, if needed. But there is now a whole thread regarding the rest system, so let's not discuss it here.

Although to be fair, it could kind of be discussed here too, since it's clearly not meant to be that way in DnD 5th edition. There are recommendations for how many short rests and long rests one should use in campaigns and such, and naturally it shouldn't be possible to constantly spam long rest. It's absurd. They did that far better in Solasta too, where there are certain places on the map where you can long rest.
Originally Posted by Mat22
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by Mat22
I (...)
(...) Solasta chose the path to make their game more accessable to have a lot of toggles so you can actually tailor the rules and make it either to an authentic dnd5e experience or just a more simpler version, which i think is a good approach. I hope Larian will do something similar.
For fun, one of the things they removed in Solasta (mid-January 2021) was actually a *homebrew* rule they had implemented that made lack of light more hardcore. Characters in dim light without Darkvision had a rough time (Disadvantage on attacks. In vanilla 5e, Dim LIght is Disadvantage on Perception checks only; not to be confused with darkness, heavily obscured, etc.).

I do see the following in Solasta's settings :
- You can choose to change Prepared spells without doing a Long Rest (by default, it respects 5e rules) ;
- Spell components : for each Verbal, Somatic and Material component, you can choose to disable it, make it basic or full (eg. full: you need a free hand to cast and Revivify cost 300 gold of diamond dust).

They also plan to add these tweaks:
[Linked Image from solasta-game.com]


That's great. I love toggle options like that so you really can customize the diffuculty and rules to your own liking.
Not just a simple selection between Beginner, Normal, Hard and Insane
And for EA and trying to find good default settings, lots of configuration options will be twice as helpful. For EA testing, I don't even need fancy menus, a config file will do just fine.
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
And for EA and trying to find good default settings, lots of configuration options will be twice as helpful. For EA testing, I don't even need fancy menus, a config file will do just fine.

I would imagine that their better option would be to keep the difficulty as is for now. Let them see how it works out for now and maybe come patch 5 or 6 then they offer a menu. I think giving themselves time to really get a consistent idea of how people are managing on this particular difficulty would make it easier for them to know what to adjust rather than having everyone be able to shift things as they like.
Originally Posted by Mat22
They also plan to add these tweaks:
[Linked Image from solasta-game.com]
Woh, mind blown : did not see that.
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by Mat22
They also plan to add these tweaks:
[Linked Image from solasta-game.com]
Woh, mind blown : did not see that.

Yup. And this is why I am frustrated with Larian. A tiny studio is able to create a system that’s incredibly robust enough to extensively modify and faithful to 5e but Larian can’t.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by Mat22
They also plan to add these tweaks:
[Linked Image from solasta-game.com]
Woh, mind blown : did not see that.

Yup. And this is why I am frustrated with Larian. A tiny studio is able to create a system that’s incredibly robust enough to extensively modify and faithful to 5e but Larian can’t.



Daaaamn... yeah... this is mindblowing stuff!!! I *TRULY* hope we'll see similar things in BG3!!!!!
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by Mat22
They also plan to add these tweaks:
[Linked Image from solasta-game.com]
Woh, mind blown : did not see that.

Yup. And this is why I am frustrated with Larian. A tiny studio is able to create a system that’s incredibly robust enough to extensively modify and faithful to 5e but Larian can’t.



Daaaamn... yeah... this is mindblowing stuff!!! I *TRULY* hope we'll see similar things in BG3!!!!!


Hmm, this kind of modularity needed to implement so many granular difficulty options is probably only possible if you intend it from the beginning.
I really hope Larian planned ahead, or they will have a really hard time creating that many difficulty options.

Here's to hope!
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
And for EA and trying to find good default settings, lots of configuration options will be twice as helpful. For EA testing, I don't even need fancy menus, a config file will do just fine.

I would imagine that their better option would be to keep the difficulty as is for now. Let them see how it works out for now and maybe come patch 5 or 6 then they offer a menu. I think giving themselves time to really get a consistent idea of how people are managing on this particular difficulty would make it easier for them to know what to adjust rather than having everyone be able to shift things as they like.
I didn't really mean difficulty settings, more like various options relating to combat mechanics (e.g. "toggle backstab advantage", "toggle low/high ground (dis)advantage") - though those might have difficulty implications (but would apply to allies and enemies the same). The combat/rest system/mechanics is currently broken and abusable, with difficulty varying from super easy to difficult depending on your willingness to abuse resting, the AI and the combat system in general. There is no point in spending too much effort on balancing the difficulty before at least these things are more or less set in stone (I really hope that the current state is not it). So yeah, I think it would be VERY helpful if we had configuration options and used them in a collective effort to find rules/mechanics that would make both combat and general gameplay enjoyable, challenging and reasonably balanced in the long term.
Originally Posted by daMichi
Hmm, this kind of modularity needed to implement so many granular difficulty options is probably only possible if you intend it from the beginning.
I really hope Larian planned ahead, or they will have a really hard time creating that many difficulty options.

Here's to hope!

When you see stuff like this, you can tell Solasta is a labor of love. They truly want to replicate tabletop as much as possible. It looks like the devs play D&D and know where it lacks and where it is strong.

Again, I know I am being overly critical of Larian but BG3 was a cash grab first and gameplay second. At least that’s how I perceive it.
As Larian is an AAA game company, with Baldur’s Gate 3 being a huge title in gaming industry it is why I am extra critical of them and BG3 too. Especially with a small company on the side doing so much better within the same game type (not everything but still)
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
As Larian is an AAA game company, with Baldur’s Gate 3 being a huge title in gaming industry it is why I am extra critical of them and BG3 too. Especially with a small company on the side doing so much better within the same game type (not everything but still)


Yeah I agree with that really.
In their defense, Larian already made huge-impact changes in the past (even for bg3, they changed the style of the narrator and the initiative system once they saw these were not popular after the gameplay demo last year). I agree that for tweaks like these to be more easily implemented devs have to plan their coding structure accordingly from the beginning so it allows to alter stuff (it might not be impossible but definitely harder to rewrite the code to work on a specific way retrospectively). However there was an Gamasutra interview with their lead systems designer and i quote what he said according to the interview, this is what keeps me optimistic:

"My advice would be to be prepared to throw away your design docs on at least some of the features and to respect the process. I think if the studio is doing Early Access, they need to realize that this really means that the players can give you feedback that does not align with your design vision at all. And you will have to reconcile that. But doing that will actually make the game better for a lot more players as it turns out.
So my advice would be to be flexible, design wise, and to plan your design ahead in a way that is kind of modular. This is something we got a quite a bit better for this project I think. We have plans for systems that we foresee that we'll have to add due to new classes, new features, things that we haven't talked yet about. But we try to make sure that all of them can be swapped for something else that the players will say is really a priority for them, or can be changed in a way that will not make us remake everything from from the get go. So we try to keep systems kind of modular. Flexibility is really the key here."

They have a lot of time to alter things still (and thats the purpose of EA) and a couple of mechanics as they are now in EA are not fully functioning (and it might be on purpose). I have a feeling that the spammable rest mechanic is just a placeholder as during one of the Gamespot interviews from June 2020 Swen said "because of the way that the world works and how dungeons and dragons works its not always safe to long rest, there are zones where its unsafe, so if you are in an unsafe zone the only thing you can do is a short rest." What i can think is that they wanted to test out companion interactions more effectively so they just left it without restrictions for EA. Similarly i heard somewhere they said they already work on options to alter the RNG but they wanted to go full-RNG for EA on purpose just to see how the crowd reacts.

So fingers crossed they are listening and design their systems cleverly. I know mods can fix things but i have a mixed experience with those (I use mods but not on my first playthrougs), usually they rarely work with each other and not always up to date so here's hoping we have a couple of official toggles for the ruleset and difficulty in bg3. Im okay if not all of these are part of EA testing because i see how multiple versions of the rules could mess with their statistic and feedback tools but i hope they at least do a community update about their approach on this topic.
If something is a placeholder in EA though, that should at least he communicated with the people playtesting the game (As that is what EA is for really). If people keep giving feedback on a feature that is a placeholder anyway, that is kind of wasting those people's time for no reason.

If it is made known something is a placeholder, then feedback could be focussed on other things.
Well at the early stages they kind of said that nothing is set in stone, even if they had further plans with a certain feature i guess they still wanted to hear what the community says about it and what alternatives we would like to see in case they need to scrap the original plan entirely (or make it an option for players who like it that way). Though I definitely agree with that in the upcoming weeks/months it would be nice to have more frequent communication of the direction they want to take with core features so we can focus our feedback accordingly.
Originally Posted by Mat22
In their defense, Larian already made huge-impact changes in the past (even for bg3, they changed the style of the narrator and the initiative system once they saw these were not popular after the gameplay demo last year). I agree that for tweaks like these to be more easily implemented devs have to plan their coding structure accordingly from the beginning so it allows to alter stuff (it might not be impossible but definitely harder to rewrite the code to work on a specific way retrospectively). However there was an Gamasutra interview with their lead systems designer and i quote what he said according to the interview, this is what keeps me optimistic:

"My advice would be to be prepared to throw away your design docs on at least some of the features and to respect the process. I think if the studio is doing Early Access, they need to realize that this really means that the players can give you feedback that does not align with your design vision at all. And you will have to reconcile that. But doing that will actually make the game better for a lot more players as it turns out.
So my advice would be to be flexible, design wise, and to plan your design ahead in a way that is kind of modular. This is something we got a quite a bit better for this project I think. We have plans for systems that we foresee that we'll have to add due to new classes, new features, things that we haven't talked yet about. But we try to make sure that all of them can be swapped for something else that the players will say is really a priority for them, or can be changed in a way that will not make us remake everything from from the get go. So we try to keep systems kind of modular. Flexibility is really the key here."

They have a lot of time to alter things still (and thats the purpose of EA) and a couple of mechanics as they are now in EA are not fully functioning (and it might be on purpose). I have a feeling that the spammable rest mechanic is just a placeholder as during one of the Gamespot interviews from June 2020 Swen said "because of the way that the world works and how dungeons and dragons works its not always safe to long rest, there are zones where its unsafe, so if you are in an unsafe zone the only thing you can do is a short rest." What i can think is that they wanted to test out companion interactions more effectively so they just left it without restrictions for EA. Similarly i heard somewhere they said they already work on options to alter the RNG but they wanted to go full-RNG for EA on purpose just to see how the crowd reacts.

So fingers crossed they are listening and design their systems cleverly. I know mods can fix things but i have a mixed experience with those (I use mods but not on my first playthrougs), usually they rarely work with each other and not always up to date so here's hoping we have a couple of official toggles for the ruleset and difficulty in bg3. Im okay if not all of these are part of EA testing because i see how multiple versions of the rules could mess with their statistic and feedback tools but i hope they at least do a community update about their approach on this topic.


Holy hell, I sure hope this is accurate stuff, and that it aligns with their current philosophy and plans! =)
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
If something is a placeholder in EA though, that should at least he communicated with the people playtesting the game (As that is what EA is for really). If people keep giving feedback on a feature that is a placeholder anyway, that is kind of wasting those people's time for no reason.

If it is made known something is a placeholder, then feedback could be focussed on other things.


Exactly. I don't see the point in dropping a EA game on the players just to go more or less radio silent. If they want relevant feedback from the players they really need to learn to communicate more with the community.
Originally Posted by Peranor
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
If something is a placeholder in EA though, that should at least he communicated with the people playtesting the game (As that is what EA is for really). If people keep giving feedback on a feature that is a placeholder anyway, that is kind of wasting those people's time for no reason.

If it is made known something is a placeholder, then feedback could be focussed on other things.


Exactly. I don't see the point in dropping a EA game on the players just to go more or less radio silent. If they want relevant feedback from the players they really need to learn to communicate more with the community.

I think this is a situation where Larian is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They are basically an AAA company now, but are still trying to do the whole EA process which typically works far better for smaller indie-developers.

EA processes works better for smaller studio simply because of scale.
  • Your audience is smaller, so the amount of feedback to parse through is far smaller and easier to digest
  • Your audience is also focused and niched, so you are less likely to have feedback pulling the game in multiple directions (i.e. in BG3 - see the DOS vet vs. BG vets. vs 5E purist camps)
  • Smaller Studios benefit more from EA because they lack the resources to do market research - it's a cheap and easy way for them to get a better understand their market
  • Updates and feedback happen far faster in smaller studios because you don't have to go through the bureaucracy of dealing with 20 stakeholders for every change. Getting alignment with the guy that "sits next to you" is much easier than multi-interdepartmental conference calls with layers of internal approval each
  • And because it takes forever for the departments to agree on anything, the PR team also can't communicate anything because they can't pre-commit

All these factors effectively slow down the iteration process in the EA on every level. Every step in the "Update > Receive/Parse Feedback > Decide/Apply Feedback > New Update" cycle is slowed down when you operate like a proper AAA company with a large audience.
Originally Posted by Peranor
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
If something is a placeholder in EA though, that should at least he communicated with the people playtesting the game (As that is what EA is for really). If people keep giving feedback on a feature that is a placeholder anyway, that is kind of wasting those people's time for no reason.

If it is made known something is a placeholder, then feedback could be focussed on other things.


Exactly. I don't see the point in dropping a EA game on the players just to go more or less radio silent. If they want relevant feedback from the players they really need to learn to communicate more with the community.


Yes! Great point! Larian **REALLY** need to start communicating with us far more often, in a simpler way. No need to make videos every two months, just have more Q&A meets, hang out in the forums and such!
Thats literally all I want from them at this point. Just get some actual communication going.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents that I agree.

Combat currently is an unplayable mess. It is mainly luck if you win, since everything has some kind of weird random chance attached to it. Ah... and the only "tactics" is to win the climbing race to "high ground". If this would be a parody on Star Wars Episode III, it would be fun, but unfortunately it is not.

That you own people are too dumb to step aside when a party member wants to pass them just adds to the disaster.

Honestly, they should add a difficulty level 0 where you have a button "win combat" that just kills all the enemies. Would be more fun most of the time.

I have no idea how they could think that this is fun.
Originally Posted by Thomson
(...)

I have no idea how they could think that this is fun.
Because it is. Apparently you're doing something wrong. Yesterday I defeated the hag without taking a single hit with my bad armed team. (no cheesing, no barrels, no exploits). Combat is super satisfying.
Originally Posted by pageu
Originally Posted by Thomson
(...)

I have no idea how they could think that this is fun.
Because it is. Apparently you're doing something wrong. Yesterday I defeated the hag without taking a single hit with my bad armed team. (no cheesing, no barrels, no exploits). Combat is super satisfying.

That’s impressive. May I ask how you did this? What strategy and tactics you used?
Magic missiles solve the problem of hag's illusions (and I have 2 casters, gale and astarion as arcane trickster), and astarion is fast enough to save Mayrina in first turn. Shadowheart was only casting Guiding Bolts, and my ranger (I took battle master's skill at 4th lvl) frightened Ethel, so the second turn was the last one for her.
Originally Posted by pageu
Magic missiles solve the problem of hag's illusions (and I have 2 casters, gale and astarion as arcane trickster), and astarion is fast enough to save Mayrina in first turn. Shadowheart was only casting Guiding Bolts, and my ranger (I took battle master's skill at 4th lvl) frightened Ethel, so the second turn was the last one for her.

Nice.

Although I do think because BG3 is lacking the Shield spell, magic missiles are much more powerful than they should be all the time.

And fear shouldn’t provoke fleeing and cause an opportunity attack. In fact frightened creatures seem to not do anything other than run. Not that this is the reason you killed her but just something I noticed in gameplay.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by pageu
Magic missiles solve the problem of hag's illusions (and I have 2 casters, gale and astarion as arcane trickster), and astarion is fast enough to save Mayrina in first turn. Shadowheart was only casting Guiding Bolts, and my ranger (I took battle master's skill at 4th lvl) frightened Ethel, so the second turn was the last one for her.

Nice.

Although I do think because BG3 is lacking the Shield spell, magic missiles are much more powerful than they should be all the time.

And fear shouldn’t provoke fleeing and cause an opportunity attack. In fact frightened creatures seem to not do anything other than run. Not that this is the reason you killed her but just something I noticed in gameplay.
Magic Missile is amazing in the current meta. It's the go-to spell for so many reasons. Part of the reason I'm unhappy with the current combat meta is wizard doesn't feel like a wizard. It's a machine that only uses jump, magic missile, and shatter.

A lot of fights after the goblin camp have your party starting on lower ground than your enemies (the Duegar fight, the gnolls), the Githyanki patrol misty stepping to the high ground, Gale in darkness (why use a turn to light up the Underdark?), dancing lights can block projectiles, threatened providing disadvantage while Gale is being chased by minotaurs, etc.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
And fear shouldn’t provoke fleeing and cause an opportunity attack. In fact frightened creatures seem to not do anything other than run. Not that this is the reason you killed her but just something I noticed in gameplay.

That's correct - Right now, the implementation of fear on all tooltips is discordant with its actual effect, which is a glorified "skip turn", just as several other more nuanced status debuffs have become in the current game version.

If you're curious about what might be a bug and what's just the way it's been implemented, etc., as well as why various effects are occurring when they shouldn't, take a look at the focused thread on status conditions:

(It missed out on a sticky like the spells one, so I went and found it again ^.^)

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=739348#Post739348
I'm really wondering how they will implement classes like the Monk, if they don't even have the Dodge action? Will they rework what Patient Defense does? I would really like them to implement more actions like Dodge and actually do abilities for the classes like they are in the PHB.
I'd at least like dodge so that characters can do something for themselves if they're getting bullied too much. The AI can really focus one character right now, and while I can cheese the fight by helping them back up repeatedly it gets old. Slowly picking off enemy combatants with the other two takes a while.

It'd be much more enjoyable to let Gale try to dodge attacks. Mage armor and Mirror Image only work for so long against a pack of gnolls.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I'd at least like dodge so that characters can do something for themselves if they're getting bullied too much. The AI can really focus one character right now, and while I can cheese the fight by helping them back up repeatedly it gets old. Slowly picking off enemy combatants with the other two takes a while.

It'd be much more enjoyable to let Gale try to dodge attacks. Mage armor and Mirror Image only work for so long against a pack of gnolls.


Yes exactly! I have found myself wishing for that action quite many times now. Also Help (although they do have a form of that, by helping a downed enemy, though they gain 1 hp) and Ready.
Originally Posted by pageu
Originally Posted by Thomson
(...)

I have no idea how they could think that this is fun.
Because it is. Apparently you're doing something wrong. Yesterday I defeated the hag without taking a single hit with my bad armed team. (no cheesing, no barrels, no exploits). Combat is super satisfying.
It is really predictable that this "you're doing something wrong" answer always comes.

I would accept this if this was about my job, where I had to work and would get payed for what I am doing.

But a game? Sorry. I am playing games to relax and have fun.

And for an RPG, there should be more than one spell that works, and I should have a decent chance to win every battle with every party. Otherwise I am not interested.

And you mentioned Guiding Bolt. I am not aware that this spell can hit at all. Even when it says there is an 80% chance to hit. it basically misses all the time.

I just for fun startet to reload until it hits. And it takes three to four reloads until a spell with 80% to hit chance hits, and about 5 to 6 for one with a 50% hit chance. In my book that would be more like 30% or 20% hit chance. But hey, who cares about the numbers they show.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by pageu
Originally Posted by Thomson
(...)

I have no idea how they could think that this is fun.
Because it is. Apparently you're doing something wrong. Yesterday I defeated the hag without taking a single hit with my bad armed team. (no cheesing, no barrels, no exploits). Combat is super satisfying.
It is really predictable that this "you're doing something wrong" answer always comes.

I would accept this if this was about my job, where I had to work and would get payed for what I am doing.

But a game? Sorry. I am playing games to relax and have fun.

And for an RPG, there should be more than one spell that works, and I should have a decent chance to win every battle with every party. Otherwise I am not interested.

And you mentioned Guiding Bolt. I am not aware that this spell can hit at all. Even when it says there is an 80% chance to hit. it basically misses all the time.

I just for fun startet to reload until it hits. And it takes three to four reloads until a spell with 80% to hit chance hits, and about 5 to 6 for one with a 50% hit chance. In my book that would be more like 30% or 20% hit chance. But hey, who cares about the numbers they show.
It's OK, nobody denies there should be easy/story mode for people like you. If Larian fails to make combats enjoyable (though I have different gripes with the current state of the combat mechanics), I will play on that difficulty as well.

The percentages are definitely buggy, but that will definitely get fixed. I think in the case you mention the problem might be that you have a disadvantage, but the game does not show that (and take into account when computing percentages).
Rapiers are not light weapons, they are finesse weapons. You can't duel wield with them in 5e without taking the Dual Wielder feat.
Originally Posted by Lord Branches
Another thing, all classes can swap prepared spells at any time including combat. (hope this is a bug)

Not sure why OP skipped over this one for adding to the top post – this is huge and totally against the fundamentals of spellcasting in 5E
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by Lord Branches
Another thing, all classes can swap prepared spells at any time including combat. (hope this is a bug)

Not sure why OP skipped over this one for adding to the top post – this is huge and totally against the fundamentals of spellcasting in 5E

Absolutely
You can cast a spell as a bonus action and another non-cantrip spell as an action in the same turn.
Originally Posted by CaryMiller
I'm wondering if we should maybe make a complete list of differences in rules. Not because I think that there can't be any differences, but just for posterity.

So list differences you've found here, and I'll edit them into the top post. If there's something that people generally feel the Devs need to rethink I'll add notes.

I'll start:


01. Mage Hand requires Concentration(it does NOT in the PHB), but it can also now shove/interact with enemies (which it couldn't do in the P&P version). ~ (So buffed and balanced against said buff?)

02. Firebolt is now 1D6 + A chance to catch fire instead of 1D10 (Might be considered a slight Buff).

03. Ray Of Frost now creates an ice surface that can knock enemies prone (Buffed)

04. Acid Splash has been changed to an AOE attack that reduces AC by 2 (a considerable buff).

05. Wizard's can learn any spell (hopefully a bug)

06. Can get sneak attack with Great Sword (hopefully a bug)

07. Food heals health (hopefully a bug)

08. Scrolls can be used by anyone (hopefully a bug)

09. Grease is flammable (Have to test myself, Sage Advice, states it is not, might be an intentional buff / return to older rulings on Grease, also it might just make the spell that much more useful).

10. Automatic Passive Perception Checks are missing (this is something I think should be addressed sooner rather than later).

11. Darkness has an arbitrary block on firing ranged into and out of it.

12. Devil's Sight warlock invocation does nothing, since even with it, you are still blinded in Darkness.

13. Sleep spell has been changed to a fixed amount of hit points (16 + 8HP Per Level). in the PHB it says "This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total is how many hit points of creatures this spell can affect.

14. Rogues do NOT get Expertise at level 1 (which is a bummer, I think that should be changed to be more like 5e P&P).

15. Rogue Cunning Action has been nerfed to only be used for DASH (which is also a bummer, and I also think that should be changed to be more like 5e P&P).

16. Spears should be VERSITILE Weapons (They are only Two-Handed in Open Access, and it really serves no purpose mechanically).

17. Dipping/coating your weapon takes a bonus action instead of an action. Also you can use fire to add 1d4 fire damage instead of poison. (Yes, Basic Poison is described in the PHB and explicitly says you can coat your weapon with it as an Action for additional 1d4 damage added to the attack.)


Also many actions missing like Dodge, Help, Ready, conventional Disengage...

Also many enemies have entirely different stats and abilities.

Height gives advantage, being further down gives disadvantage.

Sneak attack doesn't work at all like it does in PHB.

Shoving should allow to make enemies prone, but you can only knock them away.
Yeah, I've noticed some people writing "guides" on how you can "win certain fights" usually involving cheese strategies, but that's just dumb. That means the system isn't working as it should. If the combat rules and general rules were more akin to PHB, it would be far better balanced and the fights would be way more enjoyable.
Also all this jump stuff... (completely OP during fights)
Automatic advantage when attacking from behind.
Rogues get proficiency in thieves’ tools in PHB. Since BG3 combines thieves’ tools with Sleight of Hand, rogues should get that skill for free. They shouldn’t have to select Sleight of Hand to pick locks and disable traps.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Also many enemies have entirely different stats and abilities.

Enemies having different stats and abilities is mostly fine to me because most DMs add or change things on monsters to suit the encounter and change the experience, most monsters in the MM are meant to be bases I feel and it is up to the DM to use them as is or change things. And in this case Larian is being our DM. Though a lot of other things I would 100 percent want to be closer to base DnD, especially the mage hand issue cause this is gimping familiars hard and gimping summoning in general.
Rangers don't have to forgoe their action in order to allow their companion to act. Completely different from the Book Ranger. And this is a good thing, because that Book rule nerf of companions is an utter offense to reason and human sensibility.
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
Rangers don't have to forgoe their action in order to allow their companion to act. Completely different from the Book Ranger. And this is a good thing, because that Book rule nerf of companions is an utter offense to reason and human sensibility.

There is unearthed arcana for ranger to not give up their action, and I think changes in tasha's make them A LOT better and not take up the action.
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by CopperCrate
Rangers don't have to forgoe their action in order to allow their companion to act. Completely different from the Book Ranger. And this is a good thing, because that Book rule nerf of companions is an utter offense to reason and human sensibility.

There is unearthed arcana for ranger to not give up their action, and I think changes in tasha's make them A LOT better and not take up the action.

Definite improvement then. Hopefully Larian follow suit.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah, I've noticed some people writing "guides" on how you can "win certain fights" usually involving cheese strategies, but that's just dumb. That means the system isn't working as it should. If the combat rules and general rules were more akin to PHB, it would be far better balanced and the fights would be way more enjoyable.

After I read about Solasta in this thread I tried it. Combat is about 10 times more fun there. So I guess, the best thing I can currently say about Baldur's Gate III, is that I heard about Solasta on its message boards after I was totally frustrated with its combat.

P.S.: It is really sad since I like BG's story, the characters and also the graphics is gorgeous. But currently combat makes the game for me absolutely unplayable.

P.P.S.: And for my tastes the Solasta Encounters are too difficult, just like the ones in Baldur's Gate. But when you have a few more choices than just spamming the "correct" spell and climbing to high ground, and if you actually HIT sometimes with another spell than magic missile (or GASP even with an attack!) and when you miss you know why (it shows you what you are doing wrong, while BG just shows you some silly unexplained percentage that is actually wrong), then even that can be fun.
Sneak attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. SO you shouldn't be sneak attacking with a great sword.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah, I've noticed some people writing "guides" on how you can "win certain fights" usually involving cheese strategies, but that's just dumb. That means the system isn't working as it should. If the combat rules and general rules were more akin to PHB, it would be far better balanced and the fights would be way more enjoyable.

After I read about Solasta in this thread I tried it. Combat is about 10 times more fun there. So I guess, the best thing I can currently say about Baldur's Gate III, is that I heard about Solasta on its message boards after I was totally frustrated with its combat.

P.S.: It is really sad since I like BG's story, the characters and also the graphics is gorgeous. But currently combat makes the game for me absolutely unplayable.

P.P.S.: And for my tastes the Solasta Encounters are too difficult, just like the ones in Baldur's Gate. But when you have a few more choices than just spamming the "correct" spell and climbing to high ground, and if you actually HIT sometimes with another spell than magic missile (or GASP even with an attack!) and when you miss you know why (it shows you what you are doing wrong, while BG just shows you some silly unexplained percentage that is actually wrong), then even that can be fun.


It does seem as if quite many feel this way about Solasta. I TRULY hope Larian takes notes!
No languages. It'd be nice if characters could find clues and information depending upon what languages they know. It could even help with eavesdropping. Perhaps the goblins communicate in goblin sometimes assuming the player doesn't understand and reveal some helpful tips or information?
Originally Posted by Thomson
and when you miss you know why (it shows you what you are doing wrong, while BG just shows you some silly unexplained percentage that is actually wrong)

I think if BG3 could improve on this it would already make a huge difference. I also tried out Solasta and while i like the flow of animations and a couple other things in BG3 better, the collection of actions you can do and the way the game explains/shows what is happening in the background during combat is impressive, it makes the game more accessible and at the same time feels closer to tabletop but stays exciting (for me at least). I do think Larian is working on this, they use to iterate on the UI and mechanics a lot, im looking forward how they are going to tweak BG3 in the upcoming patches.
Originally Posted by Mat22
Originally Posted by Thomson
and when you miss you know why (it shows you what you are doing wrong, while BG just shows you some silly unexplained percentage that is actually wrong)

I think if BG3 could improve on this it would already make a huge difference. I also tried out Solasta and while i like the flow of animations and a couple other things in BG3 better, the collection of actions you can do and the way the game explains/shows what is happening in the background during combat is impressive, it makes the game more accessible and at the same time feels closer to tabletop but stays exciting (for me at least). I do think Larian is working on this, they use to iterate on the UI and mechanics a lot, im looking forward how they are going to tweak BG3 in the upcoming patches.
I really hope so. Currently I am thinking the only thing that would bring me back to BG3 is a "D&D Tabletop Rules" Checkbox, that switches off all their house rules that don't work (at least in my sometimes not so humbly opinion)

However, I have the feeling that the current approach is either a hippo (higest paid person's opinion) or rooted in some kind of hubris by the developers. There is usually absolutely no argument against that and an extremely low chance that it will change.

I really hope that my feelings are wrong.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by Mat22
Originally Posted by Thomson
and when you miss you know why (it shows you what you are doing wrong, while BG just shows you some silly unexplained percentage that is actually wrong)

I think if BG3 could improve on this it would already make a huge difference. I also tried out Solasta and while i like the flow of animations and a couple other things in BG3 better, the collection of actions you can do and the way the game explains/shows what is happening in the background during combat is impressive, it makes the game more accessible and at the same time feels closer to tabletop but stays exciting (for me at least). I do think Larian is working on this, they use to iterate on the UI and mechanics a lot, im looking forward how they are going to tweak BG3 in the upcoming patches.
I really hope so. Currently I am thinking the only thing that would bring me back to BG3 is a "D&D Tabletop Rules" Checkbox, that switches off all their house rules that don't work (at least in my sometimes not so humbly opinion)

However, I have the feeling that the current approach is either a hippo (higest paid person's opinion) or rooted in some kind of hubris by the developers. There is usually absolutely no argument against that and an extremely low chance that it will change.

I really hope that my feelings are wrong.

The next patch or update will be very telling.

If they don't acknowledge the flaws in the current system, I hope that mods have full access to combat and the spell system so that actual fans can save the game.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by pageu
Magic missiles solve the problem of hag's illusions (and I have 2 casters, gale and astarion as arcane trickster), and astarion is fast enough to save Mayrina in first turn. Shadowheart was only casting Guiding Bolts, and my ranger (I took battle master's skill at 4th lvl) frightened Ethel, so the second turn was the last one for her.

Nice.

Although I do think because BG3 is lacking the Shield spell, magic missiles are much more powerful than they should be all the time.

And fear shouldn’t provoke fleeing and cause an opportunity attack. In fact frightened creatures seem to not do anything other than run. Not that this is the reason you killed her but just something I noticed in gameplay.


I would assume they are using the fear spell, which says that a target frightened by the spell MUST take the dash action and move away from the caster on each of its turns unless it can't move. The frightened condition is closer to what you describe in that it gives the frightened target disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while in the presence of what frightened them and they cannot move closer to what frightened them.
Yeah, I am surely hoping Larian changes these things or at least allow options for D&D Tabletop Rules innately... worst case scenario, I do at least hope the modding community will be able to implement the true DND rulesets.
Originally Posted by Khultak
I would assume they are using the fear spell, which says that a target frightened by the spell MUST take the dash action and move away from the caster on each of its turns unless it can't move. The frightened condition is closer to what you describe in that it gives the frightened target disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while in the presence of what frightened them and they cannot move closer to what frightened them.


Unfortunately not; currently ALL fear effects work as functionally turn skips in BG3 - regardless of source. this is made all the more confusing since the description on the fear debuff reads closer to the 5e rules - implying that characters should, indeed, be able to act on their turn at disadvantage, and saying nothing about being forced to run away.

Their implementation of status conditions in general has a lot of very big issues right now, and the mess with the frightened effect is only one of them. (There's a thread here, that breaks most of it down, if you're interested: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=739348&page=1)
It really isn't much to ask. There's a core rules setting in BGEE, so I don't see why they can't simply incorporate that into gameplay. Perhaps they could include adjustable settings for similarity to DOS2, or adjust difficulty based upon similarity, if that's to the player's fancy (even though this is a D&D game and imo that would be sacrilegious).
Originally Posted by Roethen
It really isn't much to ask. There's a core rules setting in BGEE, so I don't see why they can't simply incorporate that into gameplay. Perhaps they could include adjustable settings for similarity to DOS2, or adjust difficulty based upon similarity, if that's to the player's fancy (even though this is a D&D game and imo that would be sacrilegious).


Perhaps that WOULD be hard to implement though? I don't know. I sure am hoping a true to ruleset implementation/option set will be available.
I decided to take a look through these forums after how utterly useless for discussion the BG3 Reddit is with all the fanart and meme spam that happens there, and was pleased to discover that actual constructive feedback happens on these forums.

I think that the main thing that irks me about the way BG3 handles combat currently is that the homebrew rules more or less completely overpower everything else, in terms of the amount of emphasis that is placed on them in the game's balance. People really wouldn't be calling BG3 a 'DOS2 mod' if it didn't have a lot of truth to it. Granted, Larian has been working on reducing such comparisons starting with cantrips no longer generating field effects by themselves and field effects applying their effects on a per round basis instead of based on amount of distance traveled within them, but they still have a lot of work to do. Some of the absolute biggest problems are still there, and it would be harder to rebalance the game around changes to those problematic mechanics, because it's quite evident that many encounters are straight up designed around their existence.

First of all, high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage. Many people on these forums have gone back and forth on how bad or strategic this supposedly is, but it's really, really not a good thing when the majority of battles boil down to controlling the high ground as soon as possible. It also heavily skews the value of AC by sheer virtue of existing - by the way that it skews hit rate probabilities for ranged attacks, AC lower than 16 may as well not even exist if you're on low ground. Not only that, but such a free method of gaining advantage rolls heavily cheapens the value of spells that grant advantage such as Faerie Fire or flat increased modifiers such as Bless (of which the devs have already talked about reaching a rather unfortunate conclusion about the community not using the latter). Most games design high ground/low ground as a means to control enemy or party movement, and BG3 is probably the only game I've played where its importance as a way to improve *hit rate* in such a drastic way drowns out such other tactical considerations.

Granted, it's possible this only exists because backstab advantage is a thing, though BOTH really should be removed.

Jump and Disengage being coupled together and becoming bonus actions, along with shove being a bonus action too. Let's face it, the only reason this is a thing is to enable the devs to go wild with field effects design, and yet Jump being a bonus action makes it so common that it simultaneously cheapens the impact of said field effects at the same time. Not only that, but opportunity attacks are less emphasized with their existence, which makes the balance between melee and ranged characters and enemies rather awkward (and especially when you factor in the earlier high ground/low ground stuff on top of that). The concept of melee pressuring ranged is basically just an enemy-only concept as it currently is too, as players lose way more from having to use their bonus action to disengage than enemies do by means of limited action economy. Oh, and bonus action shove just makes the high ground/low ground concept even more ridiculous.

(Oh yeah, Harpies being glorified winged archers that just spam a modified jump every turn is quite ridiculous design. It's quite the cop out for not having them as proper flying enemies. If they actually flew, spells like Sleep could suddenly gain value by having them drop to the ground to take massive fall damage. Granted, flying Harpies could be even more annoying to melee, if it weren't for the fact that Harpies did not have ranged attacks in tabletop and that their main means of attacking were to swoop down to swipe at you - meaning you could do things like ready action a melee attack of your own.)

Barrelmancy and eating food in combat. The lowest hanging fruit. Abusable stuff like that was a cute and novel idea in DOS, but that was a game series where your suspension of belief was broken so often that nobody should have legitimately taken the writing and narrative any seriously (especially since the writing in those games were already well beyond the 'comically absurd' line to begin with). Importing them into BG3, however, results in a massive gameplay/story whiplash that can't really be ignored. Here we have a story that includes stuff like Illithids that are working towards some secret goal, a bunch of Tieflings and Druids fending off an invasion and trying to survive, and Goblins that are supposed to be treated like an actual serious threat even if they're only being manipulated by some greater power. Yet everyone has random exploding barrels all over the place and can swallow food whole during combat for... Reasons?

The major thing is that all builds have access to using such concepts in combat with little to no limit or drawback to using them. If one designs the game's balance under the assumption that people are going to abuse such powerful tactics that are so readily available, then they're walking a pretty dangerous line between making an RPG and instead creating a glorified puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics. And speaking as someone that had hundreds of hours in DOS2, the latter really isn't something that should be encouraged, because everyone here who actually DID play DOS2 to completion should remember how terrible the balance was by endgame - terrible enough that they had to make a Definitive Edition to rebalance the entire endgame and do a major stat crunch on top of that, and many would argue that it acted as a band-aid at best.

The community encouraging cheese doesn't mean that you're fostering creativity, it's the ultimate admission that the game has failed to make the other 90% of options feel any rewarding to consider using in comparison.

Sometimes, giving people more options actually results in less viable strategies. In the case of BG3, the current design heavily prioritizes heavy offense or cheese strategies that may or may not involve splitting up your entire party before a fight because the encounter design just happens to demand clairvoyance from players, repeatedly reloading until you get that first or second round just right. Not only that, but the defensive and proactive options that actually let you do things *during the enemy turn* such as reactions, dodge action, and ready actions don't really exist at the moment. I imagine most of the doom and gloom is also in part due to how no one is even sure exactly how they'll get implemented, if at all, due to some very worrying developer statements about them that are probably emphasized a bit too much in these discussions - but they are there and on official record, so that's that.

All of that combines to form a combat system that, quite frankly, isn't compelling at all. It's telling that most people on the more populated corners of the internet would rather make fanart and argue about romances rather than talk about the actual gameplay. And the few times that the gameplay is brought up, people get into a huge fight about what does and doesn't work. It is especially egregious when the Larian homebrew-favoring side essentially mansplains to everyone about how the already established rules aren't 'fun', wouldn't work in an actual video game, and/or it would be too much work and impossible to implement everything by the book, when it was likely already more dev work to create these new homebrew concepts and balance entire encounters around them to begin with. Larian more or less made problems within their combat balancing where there previously were none. And no, 'get gud' isn't an actual adult response to these concerns.

What would I do?

Change high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage to +/- 2 AC. The same thing that has likely been suggested numerous times before. It would go from being an overwhelming factor in a fight to being a replacement for the missing cover system. It would give value back to spells that grant the party advantage, it would remove the need to have backstabs exist in order to keep melee somewhat competitive, and every point of AC (and subsequently bonuses to attack rolls) is suddenly valuable instead of being an exponential stat.

De-couple Jump and Disengage, and make shove a standard action. Make Disengage a standard action so that the player is actually rewarded for having their melee pressure an enemy caster or archer (and thus forcing the enemy to either disengage or do something at disadvantage, instead of the current design of disengaging and then suddenly sniping at Gale in the back with no penalty). This would make it so that maybe using that standard action Dash to run up to them is a better tactical idea than just whacking at the nearest enemy. Jump can remain bonus for tactical combat mobility purposes, but using it to jump away from an enemy should provoke an opportunity attack - and you should be punished for leaving your back line exposed instead of having a free escape card, unless you had already considered other backup tactical options to counter that enemy running up to you in melee, like using a Shocking Grasp to remove their opportunity attack, or maybe you wanted to bait that melee into coming over so you could shove them off that cliff that they are now standing next to.

Barrelmancy should be very sparse and reserved as setpieces for special kinds of encounters. If a player can pick up an explosive barrel of any sort, increase their weight to the point where no one but a high strength character could realistically lug even a single one around. Placing them and other heavy objects down should emit a sound that causes nearby NPCs to investigate, and simply being near a barrel should confer disadvantage on stealth checks, because of course everyone wants to make sure there's no one suspicious next to a freaking explosive. And if you're caught next to that barrel you just put down? Better hope you roll higher than the enemy ranged on initiative, or else they're going to punish you hard by immediately blowing up that barrel in your face. (People carrying around grenades and special arrows are fine though, if only because you can't realistically set them all up to explode immediately on the first turn of combat.)

Food during combat should be shot into the sun. They should just be a way to heal out of combat without using spells, scrolls, and potions (basically acting as this game's bedrolls), and that's it. It's completely absurd that some food heals as much as, if not more than actual potions and spells to begin with, doing it in combat is another even worse thing entirely.

Get the dodge action, ready actions, and reactions in. Reactions are self-explanatory. Dodge action is a major defensive tool in what would otherwise be a heavily offense-leaning game, and can give the player something useful to consider if a character isn't in range to do anything else instead of just having a wasted turn doing nothing at all (and if there's one thing that Solasta does exceptionally well, it's that the implementation of all of these makes it exceedingly rare to have a character end up with a fully wasted turn doing nothing at all). Ready actions would require better planning to use well, but again, it is also something you can do that can potentially let you do something useful during the enemy turn, especially during certain encounters where your options are limited to begin with (such as that tabletop Harpy example mentioned earlier). Maybe ready action a shove to attempt to yeet off the first enemy to climb that ladder or ledge in front of you, perhaps? (Something not even Solasta currently lets you do!)

Or tl;dr: Solasta did everything right in terms of combat design and balance along with actually forcing you to think about what you are doing rather than having a set checklist of priorities that applies to almost every fight, and I see BG3 having very unfortunate post-EA gameplay in the long term just like in DOS2 if the devs don't reverse course on most of the above concerns.

(Coincidentally, Solasta did have a homebrew rule at one point: Attacks made against enemies in dim light used to have disadvantage. At first, they tried to justify this as being an interesting difficulty change, but it was the one major thing in their combat design that deviated from tabletop rules. At some point, they figured out that it was an overwhelming factor in their combat design, in that all fights basically prioritized finding ways to remove this disadvantage, rolling a whole party of darkvision characters, or having to slog through an annoying RNG-fest when enemies were generally not beholden to the same restriction due to virtually all of them having darkvision. So they switched dim light disadvantage into giving a few enemies bonuses as long as they were unlit/penalties while in light. The interesting thing is that the game actually didn't become any easier because of this change, because the subsequent rebalancing they did to the earlier parts of the game adjusted enemy AI behavior or added one or two more enemies to compensate. Some of the encounters ended up becoming harder in actual tactical ways.)
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I decided to take a look through these forums after how utterly useless for discussion the BG3 Reddit is with all the fanart and meme spam that happens there, and was pleased to discover that actual constructive feedback happens on these forums.

I think that the main thing that irks me about the way BG3 handles combat currently is that the homebrew rules more or less completely overpower everything else, in terms of the amount of emphasis that is placed on them in the game's balance. People really wouldn't be calling BG3 a 'DOS2 mod' if it didn't have a lot of truth to it. Granted, Larian has been working on reducing such comparisons starting with cantrips no longer generating field effects by themselves and field effects applying their effects on a per round basis instead of based on amount of distance traveled within them, but they still have a lot of work to do. Some of the absolute biggest problems are still there, and it would be harder to rebalance the game around changes to those problematic mechanics, because it's quite evident that many encounters are straight up designed around their existence.

First of all, high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage. Many people on these forums have gone back and forth on how bad or strategic this supposedly is, but it's really, really not a good thing when the majority of battles boil down to controlling the high ground as soon as possible. It also heavily skews the value of AC by sheer virtue of existing - by the way that it skews hit rate probabilities for ranged attacks, AC lower than 16 may as well not even exist if you're on low ground. Not only that, but such a free method of gaining advantage rolls heavily cheapens the value of spells that grant advantage such as Faerie Fire or flat increased modifiers such as Bless (of which the devs have already talked about reaching a rather unfortunate conclusion about the community not using the latter). Most games design high ground/low ground as a means to control enemy or party movement, and BG3 is probably the only game I've played where its importance as a way to improve *hit rate* in such a drastic way drowns out such other tactical considerations.

Granted, it's possible this only exists because backstab advantage is a thing, though BOTH really should be removed.

Jump and Disengage being coupled together and becoming bonus actions, along with shove being a bonus action too. Let's face it, the only reason this is a thing is to enable the devs to go wild with field effects design, and yet Jump being a bonus action makes it so common that it simultaneously cheapens the impact of said field effects at the same time. Not only that, but opportunity attacks are less emphasized with their existence, which makes the balance between melee and ranged characters and enemies rather awkward (and especially when you factor in the earlier high ground/low ground stuff on top of that). The concept of melee pressuring ranged is basically just an enemy-only concept as it currently is too, as players lose way more from having to use their bonus action to disengage than enemies do by means of limited action economy. Oh, and bonus action shove just makes the high ground/low ground concept even more ridiculous.

(Oh yeah, Harpies being glorified winged archers that just spam a modified jump every turn is quite ridiculous design. It's quite the cop out for not having them as proper flying enemies. If they actually flew, spells like Sleep could suddenly gain value by having them drop to the ground to take massive fall damage. Granted, flying Harpies could be even more annoying to melee, if it weren't for the fact that Harpies did not have ranged attacks in tabletop and that their main means of attacking were to swoop down to swipe at you - meaning you could do things like ready action a melee attack of your own.)

Barrelmancy and eating food in combat. The lowest hanging fruit. Abusable stuff like that was a cute and novel idea in DOS, but that was a game series where your suspension of belief was broken so often that nobody should have legitimately taken the writing and narrative any seriously (especially since the writing in those games were already well beyond the 'comically absurd' line to begin with). Importing them into BG3, however, results in a massive gameplay/story whiplash that can't really be ignored. Here we have a story that includes stuff like Illithids that are working towards some secret goal, a bunch of Tieflings and Druids fending off an invasion and trying to survive, and Goblins that are supposed to be treated like an actual serious threat even if they're only being manipulated by some greater power. Yet everyone has random exploding barrels all over the place and can swallow food whole during combat for... Reasons?

The major thing is that all builds have access to using such concepts in combat with little to no limit or drawback to using them. If one designs the game's balance under the assumption that people are going to abuse such powerful tactics that are so readily available, then they're walking a pretty dangerous line between making an RPG and instead creating a glorified puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics. And speaking as someone that had hundreds of hours in DOS2, the latter really isn't something that should be encouraged, because everyone here who actually DID play DOS2 to completion should remember how terrible the balance was by endgame - terrible enough that they had to make a Definitive Edition to rebalance the entire endgame and do a major stat crunch on top of that, and many would argue that it acted as a band-aid at best. Encouraging cheese doesn't mean that you're fostering creativity, it just means you've failed to make the other 90% of options feel any rewarding to consider using in comparison.

Sometimes, giving people more options actually results in less viable strategies. In the case of BG3, the current design heavily prioritizes heavy offense or cheese strategies that may or may not involve repeatedly reloading until you get that first or second round just right. Not only that, but the defensive and proactive options that actually let you do things *during the enemy turn* such as reactions, dodge action, and ready actions don't really exist at the moment. I imagine most of the doom and gloom is also in part due to how no one is even sure exactly how they'll get implemented, if at all, due to some very worrying developer statements about them that are probably emphasized a bit too much in these discussions - but they are there and on official record, so that's that.

All of that combines to form a combat system that, quite frankly, isn't compelling at all. It's telling that most people on the more populated corners of the internet would rather make fanart and argue about romances rather than talk about the actual gameplay. And the few times that the gameplay is brought up, people get into a huge fight about what does and doesn't work. It is especially egregious when the Larian homebrew-favoring side essentially mansplains to everyone about how the already established rules aren't 'fun', wouldn't work in an actual video game, and/or it would be too much work and impossible to implement everything by the book, when it was likely already more dev work to create these new homebrew concepts and balance entire encounters around them to begin with. Larian more or less made problems within their combat balancing where there previously were none. And no, 'get gud' isn't an actual adult response to these concerns.

What would I do?

Change high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage to +/- 2 AC. The same thing that has likely been suggested numerous times before. It would go from being an overwhelming factor in a fight to being a replacement for the missing cover system. It would give value back to spells that grant the party advantage, it would remove the need to have backstabs exist in order to keep melee somewhat competitive, and every point of AC is suddenly valuable instead of being an exponential stat.

De-couple Jump and Disengage, and make shove a standard action. Make Disengage a standard action so that the player is actually rewarded for having their melee pressure an enemy caster or archer (and thus forcing the enemy to either disengage or do something at disadvantage, instead of the current design of disengaging and then suddenly sniping at Gale in the back with no penalty). This would make it so that maybe using that standard action Dash to run up to them is a better tactical idea than just whacking at the nearest enemy. Jump can remain bonus for tactical combat mobility purposes, but using it to jump away from an enemy should provoke an opportunity attack - and you should be punished for leaving your back line exposed instead of having a free escape card, unless you had already considered other backup tactical options to counter that enemy running up to you in melee, like using a Shocking Grasp to remove their opportunity attack, or maybe you wanted to bait that melee into coming over so you could shove them off that cliff that they are now standing next to.

Barrelmancy should be very sparse and reserved as setpieces for special kinds of encounters. If a player can pick up an explosive barrel of any sort, increase their weight to the point where no one but a high strength character could realistically lug even a single one around. Placing them and other heavy objects down should emit a sound that causes nearby NPCs to investigate, and simply being near a barrel should confer disadvantage on stealth checks, because of course everyone wants to make sure there's no one suspicious next to a freaking explosive. And if you're caught next to that barrel you just put down? Better hope you roll higher than the enemy ranged on initiative, or else they're going to punish you hard by immediately blowing up that barrel in your face. (People carrying around grenades and special arrows are fine though, if only because you can't realistically set them all up to explode immediately on the first turn of combat.)

Food during combat should be shot into the sun. They should just be a way to heal out of combat without using spells, scrolls, and potions (basically acting as this game's bedrolls), and that's it. It's completely absurd that some food heals as much as, if not more than actual potions and spells to begin with, doing it in combat is another even worse thing entirely.

Get the dodge action, ready actions, and reactions in. Reactions are self-explanatory. Dodge action is a major defensive tool in what would otherwise be a heavily offense-leaning game, and can give the player something useful to consider if a character isn't in range to do anything else instead of just having a wasted turn doing nothing at all (and if there's one thing that Solasta does exceptionally well, it's that the implementation of all of these makes it exceedingly rare to have a character end up with a fully wasted turn doing nothing at all). Ready actions would require better planning to use well, but again, it is also something you can do that can potentially let you do something useful during the enemy turn, especially during certain encounters where your options are limited to begin with (such as that tabletop Harpy example mentioned earlier). Maybe ready action a shove to attempt to yeet off the first enemy to climb that ladder or ledge in front of you, perhaps? (Something not even Solasta currently lets you do!)

Or tl;dr: Solasta did everything right in terms of combat design and balance along with actually forcing you to think about what you are doing rather than having a set checklist of priorities that applies to almost every fight, and I see BG3 having very unfortunate post-EA gameplay in the long term just like in DOS2 if the devs don't reverse course on most of the above concerns.


Yep nails alot of the most miserable issues. +1 definitly
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I decided to take a look through these forums after how utterly useless for discussion the BG3 Reddit is with all the fanart and meme spam that happens there, and was pleased to discover that actual constructive feedback happens on these forums.

I think that the main thing that irks me about the way BG3 handles combat currently is that the homebrew rules more or less completely overpower everything else, in terms of the amount of emphasis that is placed on them in the game's balance. People really wouldn't be calling BG3 a 'DOS2 mod' if it didn't have a lot of truth to it. Granted, Larian has been working on reducing such comparisons starting with cantrips no longer generating field effects by themselves and field effects applying their effects on a per round basis instead of based on amount of distance traveled within them, but they still have a lot of work to do. Some of the absolute biggest problems are still there, and it would be harder to rebalance the game around changes to those problematic mechanics, because it's quite evident that many encounters are straight up designed around their existence.

First of all, high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage. Many people on these forums have gone back and forth on how bad or strategic this supposedly is, but it's really, really not a good thing when the majority of battles boil down to controlling the high ground as soon as possible. It also heavily skews the value of AC by sheer virtue of existing - by the way that it skews hit rate probabilities for ranged attacks, AC lower than 16 may as well not even exist if you're on low ground. Not only that, but such a free method of gaining advantage rolls heavily cheapens the value of spells that grant advantage such as Faerie Fire or flat increased modifiers such as Bless (of which the devs have already talked about reaching a rather unfortunate conclusion about the community not using the latter). Most games design high ground/low ground as a means to control enemy or party movement, and BG3 is probably the only game I've played where its importance as a way to improve *hit rate* in such a drastic way drowns out such other tactical considerations.

Granted, it's possible this only exists because backstab advantage is a thing, though BOTH really should be removed.

Jump and Disengage being coupled together and becoming bonus actions, along with shove being a bonus action too. Let's face it, the only reason this is a thing is to enable the devs to go wild with field effects design, and yet Jump being a bonus action makes it so common that it simultaneously cheapens the impact of said field effects at the same time. Not only that, but opportunity attacks are less emphasized with their existence, which makes the balance between melee and ranged characters and enemies rather awkward (and especially when you factor in the earlier high ground/low ground stuff on top of that). The concept of melee pressuring ranged is basically just an enemy-only concept as it currently is too, as players lose way more from having to use their bonus action to disengage than enemies do by means of limited action economy. Oh, and bonus action shove just makes the high ground/low ground concept even more ridiculous.

(Oh yeah, Harpies being glorified winged archers that just spam a modified jump every turn is quite ridiculous design. It's quite the cop out for not having them as proper flying enemies. If they actually flew, spells like Sleep could suddenly gain value by having them drop to the ground to take massive fall damage. Granted, flying Harpies could be even more annoying to melee, if it weren't for the fact that Harpies did not have ranged attacks in tabletop and that their main means of attacking were to swoop down to swipe at you - meaning you could do things like ready action a melee attack of your own.)

Barrelmancy and eating food in combat. The lowest hanging fruit. Abusable stuff like that was a cute and novel idea in DOS, but that was a game series where your suspension of belief was broken so often that nobody should have legitimately taken the writing and narrative any seriously (especially since the writing in those games were already well beyond the 'comically absurd' line to begin with). Importing them into BG3, however, results in a massive gameplay/story whiplash that can't really be ignored. Here we have a story that includes stuff like Illithids that are working towards some secret goal, a bunch of Tieflings and Druids fending off an invasion and trying to survive, and Goblins that are supposed to be treated like an actual serious threat even if they're only being manipulated by some greater power. Yet everyone has random exploding barrels all over the place and can swallow food whole during combat for... Reasons?

The major thing is that all builds have access to using such concepts in combat with little to no limit or drawback to using them. If one designs the game's balance under the assumption that people are going to abuse such powerful tactics that are so readily available, then they're walking a pretty dangerous line between making an RPG and instead creating a glorified puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics. And speaking as someone that had hundreds of hours in DOS2, the latter really isn't something that should be encouraged, because everyone here who actually DID play DOS2 to completion should remember how terrible the balance was by endgame - terrible enough that they had to make a Definitive Edition to rebalance the entire endgame and do a major stat crunch on top of that, and many would argue that it acted as a band-aid at best. Encouraging cheese doesn't mean that you're fostering creativity, it just means you've failed to make the other 90% of options feel any rewarding to consider using in comparison.

Sometimes, giving people more options actually results in less viable strategies. In the case of BG3, the current design heavily prioritizes heavy offense or cheese strategies that may or may not involve repeatedly reloading until you get that first or second round just right. Not only that, but the defensive and proactive options that actually let you do things *during the enemy turn* such as reactions, dodge action, and ready actions don't really exist at the moment. I imagine most of the doom and gloom is also in part due to how no one is even sure exactly how they'll get implemented, if at all, due to some very worrying developer statements about them that are probably emphasized a bit too much in these discussions - but they are there and on official record, so that's that.

All of that combines to form a combat system that, quite frankly, isn't compelling at all. It's telling that most people on the more populated corners of the internet would rather make fanart and argue about romances rather than talk about the actual gameplay. And the few times that the gameplay is brought up, people get into a huge fight about what does and doesn't work. It is especially egregious when the Larian homebrew-favoring side essentially mansplains to everyone about how the already established rules aren't 'fun', wouldn't work in an actual video game, and/or it would be too much work and impossible to implement everything by the book, when it was likely already more dev work to create these new homebrew concepts and balance entire encounters around them to begin with. Larian more or less made problems within their combat balancing where there previously were none. And no, 'get gud' isn't an actual adult response to these concerns.

What would I do?

Change high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage to +/- 2 AC. The same thing that has likely been suggested numerous times before. It would go from being an overwhelming factor in a fight to being a replacement for the missing cover system. It would give value back to spells that grant the party advantage, it would remove the need to have backstabs exist in order to keep melee somewhat competitive, and every point of AC is suddenly valuable instead of being an exponential stat.

De-couple Jump and Disengage, and make shove a standard action. Make Disengage a standard action so that the player is actually rewarded for having their melee pressure an enemy caster or archer (and thus forcing the enemy to either disengage or do something at disadvantage, instead of the current design of disengaging and then suddenly sniping at Gale in the back with no penalty). This would make it so that maybe using that standard action Dash to run up to them is a better tactical idea than just whacking at the nearest enemy. Jump can remain bonus for tactical combat mobility purposes, but using it to jump away from an enemy should provoke an opportunity attack - and you should be punished for leaving your back line exposed instead of having a free escape card, unless you had already considered other backup tactical options to counter that enemy running up to you in melee, like using a Shocking Grasp to remove their opportunity attack, or maybe you wanted to bait that melee into coming over so you could shove them off that cliff that they are now standing next to.

Barrelmancy should be very sparse and reserved as setpieces for special kinds of encounters. If a player can pick up an explosive barrel of any sort, increase their weight to the point where no one but a high strength character could realistically lug even a single one around. Placing them and other heavy objects down should emit a sound that causes nearby NPCs to investigate, and simply being near a barrel should confer disadvantage on stealth checks, because of course everyone wants to make sure there's no one suspicious next to a freaking explosive. And if you're caught next to that barrel you just put down? Better hope you roll higher than the enemy ranged on initiative, or else they're going to punish you hard by immediately blowing up that barrel in your face. (People carrying around grenades and special arrows are fine though, if only because you can't realistically set them all up to explode immediately on the first turn of combat.)

Food during combat should be shot into the sun. They should just be a way to heal out of combat without using spells, scrolls, and potions (basically acting as this game's bedrolls), and that's it. It's completely absurd that some food heals as much as, if not more than actual potions and spells to begin with, doing it in combat is another even worse thing entirely.

Get the dodge action, ready actions, and reactions in. Reactions are self-explanatory. Dodge action is a major defensive tool in what would otherwise be a heavily offense-leaning game, and can give the player something useful to consider if a character isn't in range to do anything else instead of just having a wasted turn doing nothing at all (and if there's one thing that Solasta does exceptionally well, it's that the implementation of all of these makes it exceedingly rare to have a character end up with a fully wasted turn doing nothing at all). Ready actions would require better planning to use well, but again, it is also something you can do that can potentially let you do something useful during the enemy turn, especially during certain encounters where your options are limited to begin with (such as that tabletop Harpy example mentioned earlier). Maybe ready action a shove to attempt to yeet off the first enemy to climb that ladder or ledge in front of you, perhaps? (Something not even Solasta currently lets you do!)

Or tl;dr: Solasta did everything right in terms of combat design and balance along with actually forcing you to think about what you are doing rather than having a set checklist of priorities that applies to almost every fight, and I see BG3 having very unfortunate post-EA gameplay in the long term just like in DOS2 if the devs don't reverse course on most of the above concerns.


GOD YES!!! Perfect summary of the main gripes and issues. Please marry me! Hmm... or actually, even better... LARIAN PLEASE FIX! >_<
Excellent summary of what we are a lot to want ! +1
Agreed I'd be very happy if they did all of that - and made mage hand a mere cantrip again ;-)

Guess we'll get a sense from the new patch whether any of this has really been noted, or is likely to be addressed....fingers crossed.
@Saito
+1 from me as well. Very well said.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I decided to take a look through these forums after how utterly useless for discussion the BG3 Reddit is with all the fanart and meme spam that happens there, and was pleased to discover that actual constructive feedback happens on these forums.

I think that the main thing that irks me about the way BG3 handles combat currently is that the homebrew rules more or less completely overpower everything else, in terms of the amount of emphasis that is placed on them in the game's balance. People really wouldn't be calling BG3 a 'DOS2 mod' if it didn't have a lot of truth to it. Granted, Larian has been working on reducing such comparisons starting with cantrips no longer generating field effects by themselves and field effects applying their effects on a per round basis instead of based on amount of distance traveled within them, but they still have a lot of work to do. Some of the absolute biggest problems are still there, and it would be harder to rebalance the game around changes to those problematic mechanics, because it's quite evident that many encounters are straight up designed around their existence.

First of all, high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage. Many people on these forums have gone back and forth on how bad or strategic this supposedly is, but it's really, really not a good thing when the majority of battles boil down to controlling the high ground as soon as possible. It also heavily skews the value of AC by sheer virtue of existing - by the way that it skews hit rate probabilities for ranged attacks, AC lower than 16 may as well not even exist if you're on low ground. Not only that, but such a free method of gaining advantage rolls heavily cheapens the value of spells that grant advantage such as Faerie Fire or flat increased modifiers such as Bless (of which the devs have already talked about reaching a rather unfortunate conclusion about the community not using the latter). Most games design high ground/low ground as a means to control enemy or party movement, and BG3 is probably the only game I've played where its importance as a way to improve *hit rate* in such a drastic way drowns out such other tactical considerations.

Granted, it's possible this only exists because backstab advantage is a thing, though BOTH really should be removed.

Jump and Disengage being coupled together and becoming bonus actions, along with shove being a bonus action too. Let's face it, the only reason this is a thing is to enable the devs to go wild with field effects design, and yet Jump being a bonus action makes it so common that it simultaneously cheapens the impact of said field effects at the same time. Not only that, but opportunity attacks are less emphasized with their existence, which makes the balance between melee and ranged characters and enemies rather awkward (and especially when you factor in the earlier high ground/low ground stuff on top of that). The concept of melee pressuring ranged is basically just an enemy-only concept as it currently is too, as players lose way more from having to use their bonus action to disengage than enemies do by means of limited action economy. Oh, and bonus action shove just makes the high ground/low ground concept even more ridiculous.

(Oh yeah, Harpies being glorified winged archers that just spam a modified jump every turn is quite ridiculous design. It's quite the cop out for not having them as proper flying enemies. If they actually flew, spells like Sleep could suddenly gain value by having them drop to the ground to take massive fall damage. Granted, flying Harpies could be even more annoying to melee, if it weren't for the fact that Harpies did not have ranged attacks in tabletop and that their main means of attacking were to swoop down to swipe at you - meaning you could do things like ready action a melee attack of your own.)

Barrelmancy and eating food in combat. The lowest hanging fruit. Abusable stuff like that was a cute and novel idea in DOS, but that was a game series where your suspension of belief was broken so often that nobody should have legitimately taken the writing and narrative any seriously (especially since the writing in those games were already well beyond the 'comically absurd' line to begin with). Importing them into BG3, however, results in a massive gameplay/story whiplash that can't really be ignored. Here we have a story that includes stuff like Illithids that are working towards some secret goal, a bunch of Tieflings and Druids fending off an invasion and trying to survive, and Goblins that are supposed to be treated like an actual serious threat even if they're only being manipulated by some greater power. Yet everyone has random exploding barrels all over the place and can swallow food whole during combat for... Reasons?

The major thing is that all builds have access to using such concepts in combat with little to no limit or drawback to using them. If one designs the game's balance under the assumption that people are going to abuse such powerful tactics that are so readily available, then they're walking a pretty dangerous line between making an RPG and instead creating a glorified puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics. And speaking as someone that had hundreds of hours in DOS2, the latter really isn't something that should be encouraged, because everyone here who actually DID play DOS2 to completion should remember how terrible the balance was by endgame - terrible enough that they had to make a Definitive Edition to rebalance the entire endgame and do a major stat crunch on top of that, and many would argue that it acted as a band-aid at best. Encouraging cheese doesn't mean that you're fostering creativity, it just means you've failed to make the other 90% of options feel any rewarding to consider using in comparison.

Sometimes, giving people more options actually results in less viable strategies. In the case of BG3, the current design heavily prioritizes heavy offense or cheese strategies that may or may not involve repeatedly reloading until you get that first or second round just right. Not only that, but the defensive and proactive options that actually let you do things *during the enemy turn* such as reactions, dodge action, and ready actions don't really exist at the moment. I imagine most of the doom and gloom is also in part due to how no one is even sure exactly how they'll get implemented, if at all, due to some very worrying developer statements about them that are probably emphasized a bit too much in these discussions - but they are there and on official record, so that's that.

All of that combines to form a combat system that, quite frankly, isn't compelling at all. It's telling that most people on the more populated corners of the internet would rather make fanart and argue about romances rather than talk about the actual gameplay. And the few times that the gameplay is brought up, people get into a huge fight about what does and doesn't work. It is especially egregious when the Larian homebrew-favoring side essentially mansplains to everyone about how the already established rules aren't 'fun', wouldn't work in an actual video game, and/or it would be too much work and impossible to implement everything by the book, when it was likely already more dev work to create these new homebrew concepts and balance entire encounters around them to begin with. Larian more or less made problems within their combat balancing where there previously were none. And no, 'get gud' isn't an actual adult response to these concerns.

What would I do?

Change high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage to +/- 2 AC. The same thing that has likely been suggested numerous times before. It would go from being an overwhelming factor in a fight to being a replacement for the missing cover system. It would give value back to spells that grant the party advantage, it would remove the need to have backstabs exist in order to keep melee somewhat competitive, and every point of AC is suddenly valuable instead of being an exponential stat.

De-couple Jump and Disengage, and make shove a standard action. Make Disengage a standard action so that the player is actually rewarded for having their melee pressure an enemy caster or archer (and thus forcing the enemy to either disengage or do something at disadvantage, instead of the current design of disengaging and then suddenly sniping at Gale in the back with no penalty). This would make it so that maybe using that standard action Dash to run up to them is a better tactical idea than just whacking at the nearest enemy. Jump can remain bonus for tactical combat mobility purposes, but using it to jump away from an enemy should provoke an opportunity attack - and you should be punished for leaving your back line exposed instead of having a free escape card, unless you had already considered other backup tactical options to counter that enemy running up to you in melee, like using a Shocking Grasp to remove their opportunity attack, or maybe you wanted to bait that melee into coming over so you could shove them off that cliff that they are now standing next to.

Barrelmancy should be very sparse and reserved as setpieces for special kinds of encounters. If a player can pick up an explosive barrel of any sort, increase their weight to the point where no one but a high strength character could realistically lug even a single one around. Placing them and other heavy objects down should emit a sound that causes nearby NPCs to investigate, and simply being near a barrel should confer disadvantage on stealth checks, because of course everyone wants to make sure there's no one suspicious next to a freaking explosive. And if you're caught next to that barrel you just put down? Better hope you roll higher than the enemy ranged on initiative, or else they're going to punish you hard by immediately blowing up that barrel in your face. (People carrying around grenades and special arrows are fine though, if only because you can't realistically set them all up to explode immediately on the first turn of combat.)

Food during combat should be shot into the sun. They should just be a way to heal out of combat without using spells, scrolls, and potions (basically acting as this game's bedrolls), and that's it. It's completely absurd that some food heals as much as, if not more than actual potions and spells to begin with, doing it in combat is another even worse thing entirely.

Get the dodge action, ready actions, and reactions in. Reactions are self-explanatory. Dodge action is a major defensive tool in what would otherwise be a heavily offense-leaning game, and can give the player something useful to consider if a character isn't in range to do anything else instead of just having a wasted turn doing nothing at all (and if there's one thing that Solasta does exceptionally well, it's that the implementation of all of these makes it exceedingly rare to have a character end up with a fully wasted turn doing nothing at all). Ready actions would require better planning to use well, but again, it is also something you can do that can potentially let you do something useful during the enemy turn, especially during certain encounters where your options are limited to begin with (such as that tabletop Harpy example mentioned earlier). Maybe ready action a shove to attempt to yeet off the first enemy to climb that ladder or ledge in front of you, perhaps? (Something not even Solasta currently lets you do!)

Or tl;dr: Solasta did everything right in terms of combat design and balance along with actually forcing you to think about what you are doing rather than having a set checklist of priorities that applies to almost every fight, and I see BG3 having very unfortunate post-EA gameplay in the long term just like in DOS2 if the devs don't reverse course on most of the above concerns.


Absolutely ALL of this.
Originally Posted by booboo
Agreed I'd be very happy if they did all of that - and made mage hand a mere cantrip again ;-)

Guess we'll get a sense from the new patch whether any of this has really been noted, or is likely to be addressed....fingers crossed.

It will be interesting to see what they give us at the Panel from Hell reveal this week. The fact that they’re bringing Jeremy Crawford in on the panel is interesting, he’s the principle rules designer for 5E at Wizards of the Coast. There must be some significance for asking him to join. It could be good news for those that want BG3 to be more in line with 5E?
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by booboo
Agreed I'd be very happy if they did all of that - and made mage hand a mere cantrip again ;-)

Guess we'll get a sense from the new patch whether any of this has really been noted, or is likely to be addressed....fingers crossed.

It will be interesting to see what they give us at the Panel from Hell reveal this week. The fact that they’re bringing Jeremy Crawford in on the panel is interesting, he’s the principle rules designer for 5E at Wizards of the Coast. There must be some significance for asking him to join. It could be good news for those that want BG3 to be more in line with 5E?


I'm reaaaaaaally hoping you're right about that! =)
Welcome Saito.

That's very interresting to read another well written answer that explain what many of us think about combats.

All kind of players agree that combats are "not so good", from the most hardcore DoS fans to the most hardcore D&D fans...
I hope it will help some of us to understand that the poor tactical value of the game is not an issue related to D&D... But to Larian's homebrewed rules.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Welcome Saito.

That's very interresting to read another well written answer that explain what many of us think about combats.

All kind of players agree that combats are "not so good", from the most hardcore DoS fans to the most hardcore D&D fans...
I hope it will help some of us to understand that the poor tactical value of the game is not an issue related to D&D... But to Larian's homebrewed rules.


Agreed! The homebrew rules kind of screw things up way too much!
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I decided to take a look through these forums after how utterly useless for discussion the BG3 Reddit is with all the fanart and meme spam that happens there, and was pleased to discover that actual constructive feedback happens on these forums.

I think that the main thing that irks me about the way BG3 handles combat currently is that the homebrew rules more or less completely overpower everything else, in terms of the amount of emphasis that is placed on them in the game's balance. People really wouldn't be calling BG3 a 'DOS2 mod' if it didn't have a lot of truth to it. Granted, Larian has been working on reducing such comparisons starting with cantrips no longer generating field effects by themselves and field effects applying their effects on a per round basis instead of based on amount of distance traveled within them, but they still have a lot of work to do. Some of the absolute biggest problems are still there, and it would be harder to rebalance the game around changes to those problematic mechanics, because it's quite evident that many encounters are straight up designed around their existence.

First of all, high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage. Many people on these forums have gone back and forth on how bad or strategic this supposedly is, but it's really, really not a good thing when the majority of battles boil down to controlling the high ground as soon as possible. It also heavily skews the value of AC by sheer virtue of existing - by the way that it skews hit rate probabilities for ranged attacks, AC lower than 16 may as well not even exist if you're on low ground. Not only that, but such a free method of gaining advantage rolls heavily cheapens the value of spells that grant advantage such as Faerie Fire or flat increased modifiers such as Bless (of which the devs have already talked about reaching a rather unfortunate conclusion about the community not using the latter). Most games design high ground/low ground as a means to control enemy or party movement, and BG3 is probably the only game I've played where its importance as a way to improve *hit rate* in such a drastic way drowns out such other tactical considerations.

Granted, it's possible this only exists because backstab advantage is a thing, though BOTH really should be removed.

Jump and Disengage being coupled together and becoming bonus actions, along with shove being a bonus action too. Let's face it, the only reason this is a thing is to enable the devs to go wild with field effects design, and yet Jump being a bonus action makes it so common that it simultaneously cheapens the impact of said field effects at the same time. Not only that, but opportunity attacks are less emphasized with their existence, which makes the balance between melee and ranged characters and enemies rather awkward (and especially when you factor in the earlier high ground/low ground stuff on top of that). The concept of melee pressuring ranged is basically just an enemy-only concept as it currently is too, as players lose way more from having to use their bonus action to disengage than enemies do by means of limited action economy. Oh, and bonus action shove just makes the high ground/low ground concept even more ridiculous.

(Oh yeah, Harpies being glorified winged archers that just spam a modified jump every turn is quite ridiculous design. It's quite the cop out for not having them as proper flying enemies. If they actually flew, spells like Sleep could suddenly gain value by having them drop to the ground to take massive fall damage. Granted, flying Harpies could be even more annoying to melee, if it weren't for the fact that Harpies did not have ranged attacks in tabletop and that their main means of attacking were to swoop down to swipe at you - meaning you could do things like ready action a melee attack of your own.)

Barrelmancy and eating food in combat. The lowest hanging fruit. Abusable stuff like that was a cute and novel idea in DOS, but that was a game series where your suspension of belief was broken so often that nobody should have legitimately taken the writing and narrative any seriously (especially since the writing in those games were already well beyond the 'comically absurd' line to begin with). Importing them into BG3, however, results in a massive gameplay/story whiplash that can't really be ignored. Here we have a story that includes stuff like Illithids that are working towards some secret goal, a bunch of Tieflings and Druids fending off an invasion and trying to survive, and Goblins that are supposed to be treated like an actual serious threat even if they're only being manipulated by some greater power. Yet everyone has random exploding barrels all over the place and can swallow food whole during combat for... Reasons?

The major thing is that all builds have access to using such concepts in combat with little to no limit or drawback to using them. If one designs the game's balance under the assumption that people are going to abuse such powerful tactics that are so readily available, then they're walking a pretty dangerous line between making an RPG and instead creating a glorified puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics. And speaking as someone that had hundreds of hours in DOS2, the latter really isn't something that should be encouraged, because everyone here who actually DID play DOS2 to completion should remember how terrible the balance was by endgame - terrible enough that they had to make a Definitive Edition to rebalance the entire endgame and do a major stat crunch on top of that, and many would argue that it acted as a band-aid at best.

The community encouraging cheese doesn't mean that you're fostering creativity, it's the ultimate admission that the game has failed to make the other 90% of options feel any rewarding to consider using in comparison.

Sometimes, giving people more options actually results in less viable strategies. In the case of BG3, the current design heavily prioritizes heavy offense or cheese strategies that may or may not involve splitting up your entire party before a fight because the encounter design just happens to demand clairvoyance from players, repeatedly reloading until you get that first or second round just right. Not only that, but the defensive and proactive options that actually let you do things *during the enemy turn* such as reactions, dodge action, and ready actions don't really exist at the moment. I imagine most of the doom and gloom is also in part due to how no one is even sure exactly how they'll get implemented, if at all, due to some very worrying developer statements about them that are probably emphasized a bit too much in these discussions - but they are there and on official record, so that's that.

All of that combines to form a combat system that, quite frankly, isn't compelling at all. It's telling that most people on the more populated corners of the internet would rather make fanart and argue about romances rather than talk about the actual gameplay. And the few times that the gameplay is brought up, people get into a huge fight about what does and doesn't work. It is especially egregious when the Larian homebrew-favoring side essentially mansplains to everyone about how the already established rules aren't 'fun', wouldn't work in an actual video game, and/or it would be too much work and impossible to implement everything by the book, when it was likely already more dev work to create these new homebrew concepts and balance entire encounters around them to begin with. Larian more or less made problems within their combat balancing where there previously were none. And no, 'get gud' isn't an actual adult response to these concerns.

What would I do?

Change high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage to +/- 2 AC. The same thing that has likely been suggested numerous times before. It would go from being an overwhelming factor in a fight to being a replacement for the missing cover system. It would give value back to spells that grant the party advantage, it would remove the need to have backstabs exist in order to keep melee somewhat competitive, and every point of AC is suddenly valuable instead of being an exponential stat.

De-couple Jump and Disengage, and make shove a standard action. Make Disengage a standard action so that the player is actually rewarded for having their melee pressure an enemy caster or archer (and thus forcing the enemy to either disengage or do something at disadvantage, instead of the current design of disengaging and then suddenly sniping at Gale in the back with no penalty). This would make it so that maybe using that standard action Dash to run up to them is a better tactical idea than just whacking at the nearest enemy. Jump can remain bonus for tactical combat mobility purposes, but using it to jump away from an enemy should provoke an opportunity attack - and you should be punished for leaving your back line exposed instead of having a free escape card, unless you had already considered other backup tactical options to counter that enemy running up to you in melee, like using a Shocking Grasp to remove their opportunity attack, or maybe you wanted to bait that melee into coming over so you could shove them off that cliff that they are now standing next to.

Barrelmancy should be very sparse and reserved as setpieces for special kinds of encounters. If a player can pick up an explosive barrel of any sort, increase their weight to the point where no one but a high strength character could realistically lug even a single one around. Placing them and other heavy objects down should emit a sound that causes nearby NPCs to investigate, and simply being near a barrel should confer disadvantage on stealth checks, because of course everyone wants to make sure there's no one suspicious next to a freaking explosive. And if you're caught next to that barrel you just put down? Better hope you roll higher than the enemy ranged on initiative, or else they're going to punish you hard by immediately blowing up that barrel in your face. (People carrying around grenades and special arrows are fine though, if only because you can't realistically set them all up to explode immediately on the first turn of combat.)

Food during combat should be shot into the sun. They should just be a way to heal out of combat without using spells, scrolls, and potions (basically acting as this game's bedrolls), and that's it. It's completely absurd that some food heals as much as, if not more than actual potions and spells to begin with, doing it in combat is another even worse thing entirely.

Get the dodge action, ready actions, and reactions in. Reactions are self-explanatory. Dodge action is a major defensive tool in what would otherwise be a heavily offense-leaning game, and can give the player something useful to consider if a character isn't in range to do anything else instead of just having a wasted turn doing nothing at all (and if there's one thing that Solasta does exceptionally well, it's that the implementation of all of these makes it exceedingly rare to have a character end up with a fully wasted turn doing nothing at all). Ready actions would require better planning to use well, but again, it is also something you can do that can potentially let you do something useful during the enemy turn, especially during certain encounters where your options are limited to begin with (such as that tabletop Harpy example mentioned earlier). Maybe ready action a shove to attempt to yeet off the first enemy to climb that ladder or ledge in front of you, perhaps? (Something not even Solasta currently lets you do!)

Or tl;dr: Solasta did everything right in terms of combat design and balance along with actually forcing you to think about what you are doing rather than having a set checklist of priorities that applies to almost every fight, and I see BG3 having very unfortunate post-EA gameplay in the long term just like in DOS2 if the devs don't reverse course on most of the above concerns.

(Coincidentally, Solasta did have a homebrew rule at one point: Attacks made against enemies in dim light used to have disadvantage. At first, they tried to justify this as being an interesting difficulty change, but it was the one major thing in their combat design that deviated from tabletop rules. At some point, they figured out that it was an overwhelming factor in their combat design, in that all fights basically prioritized finding ways to remove this disadvantage, rolling a whole party of darkvision characters, or having to slog through an annoying RNG-fest when enemies were generally not beholden to the same restriction due to virtually all of them having darkvision. So they switched dim light disadvantage into giving a few enemies bonuses as long as they were unlit/penalties while in light. The interesting thing is that the game actually didn't become any easier because of this change, because the subsequent rebalancing they did to the earlier parts of the game adjusted enemy AI behavior or added one or two more enemies to compensate. Some of the encounters ended up becoming harder in actual tactical ways.)

Well said but I disagree on some parts and I think you only presented them as a concession. I still think height advantage should go away completely but I agree with your modification only because I don't think Larian will be able to implement cover mechanics correctly. Food heals should go away completely. There should be times when you enter a fight less than 100% HP.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I decided to take a look through these forums after how utterly useless for discussion the BG3 Reddit is with all the fanart and meme spam that happens there, and was pleased to discover that actual constructive feedback happens on these forums.

I think that the main thing that irks me about the way BG3 handles combat currently is that the homebrew rules more or less completely overpower everything else, in terms of the amount of emphasis that is placed on them in the game's balance. People really wouldn't be calling BG3 a 'DOS2 mod' if it didn't have a lot of truth to it. Granted, Larian has been working on reducing such comparisons starting with cantrips no longer generating field effects by themselves and field effects applying their effects on a per round basis instead of based on amount of distance traveled within them, but they still have a lot of work to do. Some of the absolute biggest problems are still there, and it would be harder to rebalance the game around changes to those problematic mechanics, because it's quite evident that many encounters are straight up designed around their existence.

Combat has been stale for a while. I don't think any long-term RPG fans will ever enjoy getting Pidgeon-holed into repetitive strategies.

Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
First of all, high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage. Many people on these forums have gone back and forth on how bad or strategic this supposedly is, but it's really, really not a good thing when the majority of battles boil down to controlling the high ground as soon as possible. It also heavily skews the value of AC by sheer virtue of existing - by the way that it skews hit rate probabilities for ranged attacks, AC lower than 16 may as well not even exist if you're on low ground. Not only that, but such a free method of gaining advantage rolls heavily cheapens the value of spells that grant advantage such as Faerie Fire or flat increased modifiers such as Bless (of which the devs have already talked about reaching a rather unfortunate conclusion about the community not using the latter). Most games design high ground/low ground as a means to control enemy or party movement, and BG3 is probably the only game I've played where its importance as a way to improve *hit rate* in such a drastic way drowns out such other tactical considerations.

Granted, it's possible this only exists because backstab advantage is a thing, though BOTH really should be removed.

Jump and Disengage being coupled together and becoming bonus actions, along with shove being a bonus action too. Let's face it, the only reason this is a thing is to enable the devs to go wild with field effects design, and yet Jump being a bonus action makes it so common that it simultaneously cheapens the impact of said field effects at the same time. Not only that, but opportunity attacks are less emphasized with their existence, which makes the balance between melee and ranged characters and enemies rather awkward (and especially when you factor in the earlier high ground/low ground stuff on top of that). The concept of melee pressuring ranged is basically just an enemy-only concept as it currently is too, as players lose way more from having to use their bonus action to disengage than enemies do by means of limited action economy. Oh, and bonus action shove just makes the high ground/low ground concept even more ridiculous.
These all come together to be very problematic for engaging combat.

Let's not forget the "Threatened" status also disrupting the balance between melee and ranged. If an enemy is nearby, now your caster has to use their ranged attacks at disadvantage. I cringe every time I have to move Gale out of "Threatened" and now I can't target the enemy I want to attack in the first place.
It's problematic because, too close to use a ranged attack is already in the game. Ranged characters are punished if they don't take to the high ground. If you want to play as a wizard, we have to leap frog around to high ground before we can even consider using spells.

Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Barrelmancy and eating food in combat. The lowest hanging fruit. Abusable stuff like that was a cute and novel idea in DOS, but that was a game series where your suspension of belief was broken so often that nobody should have legitimately taken the writing and narrative any seriously (especially since the writing in those games were already well beyond the 'comically absurd' line to begin with). Importing them into BG3, however, results in a massive gameplay/story whiplash that can't really be ignored. Here we have a story that includes stuff like Illithids that are working towards some secret goal, a bunch of Tieflings and Druids fending off an invasion and trying to survive, and Goblins that are supposed to be treated like an actual serious threat even if they're only being manipulated by some greater power. Yet everyone has random exploding barrels all over the place and can swallow food whole during combat for... Reasons?
Food in combat definitively bothers me.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
The major thing is that all builds have access to using such concepts in combat with little to no limit or drawback to using them. If one designs the game's balance under the assumption that people are going to abuse such powerful tactics that are so readily available, then they're walking a pretty dangerous line between making an RPG and instead creating a glorified puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics. And speaking as someone that had hundreds of hours in DOS2, the latter really isn't something that should be encouraged, because everyone here who actually DID play DOS2 to completion should remember how terrible the balance was by endgame - terrible enough that they had to make a Definitive Edition to rebalance the entire endgame and do a major stat crunch on top of that, and many would argue that it acted as a band-aid at best.

The community encouraging cheese doesn't mean that you're fostering creativity, it's the ultimate admission that the game has failed to make the other 90% of options feel any rewarding to consider using in comparison.
This part of BG3 reddit scares me, I've seen the posts saying they don't want shove to change. These players just want Skyrim with a real story. In my eyes they just haven't experienced any engaging turn-based game yet. They don't know what they're missing out on.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Sometimes, giving people more options actually results in less viable strategies. In the case of BG3, the current design heavily prioritizes heavy offense or cheese strategies that may or may not involve splitting up your entire party before a fight because the encounter design just happens to demand clairvoyance from players, repeatedly reloading until you get that first or second round just right. Not only that, but the defensive and proactive options that actually let you do things *during the enemy turn* such as reactions, dodge action, and ready actions don't really exist at the moment. I imagine most of the doom and gloom is also in part due to how no one is even sure exactly how they'll get implemented, if at all, due to some very worrying developer statements about them that are probably emphasized a bit too much in these discussions - but they are there and on official record, so that's that.
Yeah, new overpowered actions give us an index of spells and abilities we may never use.

Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
All of that combines to form a combat system that, quite frankly, isn't compelling at all. It's telling that most people on the more populated corners of the internet would rather make fanart and argue about romances rather than talk about the actual gameplay. And the few times that the gameplay is brought up, people get into a huge fight about what does and doesn't work. It is especially egregious when the Larian homebrew-favoring side essentially mansplains to everyone about how the already established rules aren't 'fun', wouldn't work in an actual video game, and/or it would be too much work and impossible to implement everything by the book, when it was likely already more dev work to create these new homebrew concepts and balance entire encounters around them to begin with. Larian more or less made problems within their combat balancing where there previously were none. And no, 'get gud' isn't an actual adult response to these concerns.
Combat has been stale, and it makes sense why it's been stale. We just have to wait out the enemy turn and don't get any opportunity for engagement on the enemy turn.

Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
What would I do?

Change high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage to +/- 2 AC. The same thing that has likely been suggested numerous times before. It would go from being an overwhelming factor in a fight to being a replacement for the missing cover system. It would give value back to spells that grant the party advantage, it would remove the need to have backstabs exist in order to keep melee somewhat competitive, and every point of AC is suddenly valuable instead of being an exponential stat.

De-couple Jump and Disengage, and make shove a standard action. Make Disengage a standard action so that the player is actually rewarded for having their melee pressure an enemy caster or archer (and thus forcing the enemy to either disengage or do something at disadvantage, instead of the current design of disengaging and then suddenly sniping at Gale in the back with no penalty). This would make it so that maybe using that standard action Dash to run up to them is a better tactical idea than just whacking at the nearest enemy. Jump can remain bonus for tactical combat mobility purposes, but using it to jump away from an enemy should provoke an opportunity attack - and you should be punished for leaving your back line exposed instead of having a free escape card, unless you had already considered other backup tactical options to counter that enemy running up to you in melee, like using a Shocking Grasp to remove their opportunity attack, or maybe you wanted to bait that melee into coming over so you could shove them off that cliff that they are now standing next to.

Barrelmancy should be very sparse and reserved as setpieces for special kinds of encounters. If a player can pick up an explosive barrel of any sort, increase their weight to the point where no one but a high strength character could realistically lug even a single one around. Placing them and other heavy objects down should emit a sound that causes nearby NPCs to investigate, and simply being near a barrel should confer disadvantage on stealth checks, because of course everyone wants to make sure there's no one suspicious next to a freaking explosive. And if you're caught next to that barrel you just put down? Better hope you roll higher than the enemy ranged on initiative, or else they're going to punish you hard by immediately blowing up that barrel in your face. (People carrying around grenades and special arrows are fine though, if only because you can't realistically set them all up to explode immediately on the first turn of combat.)

Food during combat should be shot into the sun. They should just be a way to heal out of combat without using spells, scrolls, and potions (basically acting as this game's bedrolls), and that's it. It's completely absurd that some food heals as much as, if not more than actual potions and spells to begin with, doing it in combat is another even worse thing entirely.

Get the dodge action, ready actions, and reactions in. Reactions are self-explanatory. Dodge action is a major defensive tool in what would otherwise be a heavily offense-leaning game, and can give the player something useful to consider if a character isn't in range to do anything else instead of just having a wasted turn doing nothing at all (and if there's one thing that Solasta does exceptionally well, it's that the implementation of all of these makes it exceedingly rare to have a character end up with a fully wasted turn doing nothing at all). Ready actions would require better planning to use well, but again, it is also something you can do that can potentially let you do something useful during the enemy turn, especially during certain encounters where your options are limited to begin with (such as that tabletop Harpy example mentioned earlier). Maybe ready action a shove to attempt to yeet off the first enemy to climb that ladder or ledge in front of you, perhaps? (Something not even Solasta currently lets you do!)

I'll be honest, I'll be heartbroken for a few days if patch 4 doesn't address some of the problems with combat.
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by booboo
Agreed I'd be very happy if they did all of that - and made mage hand a mere cantrip again ;-)

Guess we'll get a sense from the new patch whether any of this has really been noted, or is likely to be addressed....fingers crossed.

It will be interesting to see what they give us at the Panel from Hell reveal this week. The fact that they’re bringing Jeremy Crawford in on the panel is interesting, he’s the principle rules designer for 5E at Wizards of the Coast. There must be some significance for asking him to join. It could be good news for those that want BG3 to be more in line with 5E?
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Let's not forget the "Threatened" status also disrupting the balance between melee and ranged. If an enemy is nearby, now your caster has to use their ranged attacks at disadvantage. I cringe every time I have to move Gale out of "Threatened" and now I can't target the enemy I want to attack in the first place.

I'll be honest, I'll be heartbroken for a few days if patch 4 doesn't address some of the problems with combat.

I think threatened status is fine, it’s a thing that exists in most games and is the main penalty for leaving your ranged exposed.

The real problem is that the threatened radius is way too big and that there’s no real way to tell how far it actually extends, which is an absurd lack of information for a game like this. It should only extend as far as the melee character’s actual attack radius is, but it currently extends way beyond that. If you’re not at risk of taking an opportunity attack for moving away, you shouldn’t be considered threatened.

If you want a bigger threaten range, use reach weapons like spears.

Also, yes, 'Threatened' and 'Too close to an enemy' being separate modifiers really is awkward as hell.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Let's not forget the "Threatened" status also disrupting the balance between melee and ranged. If an enemy is nearby, now your caster has to use their ranged attacks at disadvantage. I cringe every time I have to move Gale out of "Threatened" and now I can't target the enemy I want to attack in the first place.

I'll be honest, I'll be heartbroken for a few days if patch 4 doesn't address some of the problems with combat.

I think threatened status is fine, it’s a thing that exists in most games and is the main penalty for leaving your ranged exposed.

The real problem is that the threatened radius is way too big and that there’s no real way to tell how far it actually extends, which is an absurd lack of information for a game like this. It should only extend as far as the melee character’s actual attack radius is, but it currently extends way beyond that. If you’re not at risk of taking an opportunity attack for moving away, you shouldn’t be considered threatened.

If you want a bigger threaten range, use reach weapons like spears.

We're mostly in agreement. If threatened was based off the enemies reach with a melee weapon, it wouldn't bother me.

Disadvantage at 5 feet is already in the game. And most weapons are 5 ft, it would be interesting if threatened was based off the opponents reach. It would simply be, if the enemy can take an attack of opportunity then the ranged attack is at disadvantage.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Let's not forget the "Threatened" status also disrupting the balance between melee and ranged. If an enemy is nearby, now your caster has to use their ranged attacks at disadvantage. I cringe every time I have to move Gale out of "Threatened" and now I can't target the enemy I want to attack in the first place.

I'll be honest, I'll be heartbroken for a few days if patch 4 doesn't address some of the problems with combat.

I think threatened status is fine, it’s a thing that exists in most games and is the main penalty for leaving your ranged exposed.

The real problem is that the threatened radius is way too big and that there’s no real way to tell how far it actually extends, which is an absurd lack of information for a game like this. It should only extend as far as the melee character’s actual attack radius is, but it currently extends way beyond that. If you’re not at risk of taking an opportunity attack for moving away, you shouldn’t be considered threatened.

If you want a bigger threaten range, use reach weapons like spears.

We're mostly in agreement. If threatened was based off the enemies reach with a melee weapon, it wouldn't bother me.

Disadvantage at 5 feet is already in the game. And most weapons are 5 ft, it would be interesting if threatened was based off the opponents reach. It would simply be, if the enemy can take an attack of opportunity then the ranged attack is at disadvantage.

Yeah exactly, I think it's absurd how not even that is properly implemented.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Sometimes I hate being right.

And I must admit I was deviously satisfied when they lost after a long boring combat.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by Thomson
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Sometimes I hate being right.

And I must admit I was deviously satisfied when they lost after a long boring combat.


Honestly.... yeah. I wasn't at all pleased with Jeremy Crawford going all "lol do whatever, it's a different platform". I would so much prefer them to actually try and get the PHB rules right first and foremost. smirk
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by Thomson
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Sometimes I hate being right.

And I must admit I was deviously satisfied when they lost after a long boring combat.


Honestly.... yeah. I wasn't at all pleased with Jeremy Crawford going all "lol do whatever, it's a different platform". I would so much prefer them to actually try and get the PHB rules right first and foremost. smirk
It would be actually hilarious if we could see him on a Solasta stream as well, praising how well they have faithfully implemented the DnD 5e ruleset into a videogame. laugh
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by Thomson
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Sometimes I hate being right.

And I must admit I was deviously satisfied when they lost after a long boring combat.


Honestly.... yeah. I wasn't at all pleased with Jeremy Crawford going all "lol do whatever, it's a different platform". I would so much prefer them to actually try and get the PHB rules right first and foremost. smirk
It would be actually hilarious if we could see him on a Solasta stream as well, praising how well they have faithfully implemented the DnD 5e ruleset into a videogame. laugh


Hahaha!! Yeah! laugh
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by Thomson
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Sometimes I hate being right.

And I must admit I was deviously satisfied when they lost after a long boring combat.


Honestly.... yeah. I wasn't at all pleased with Jeremy Crawford going all "lol do whatever, it's a different platform". I would so much prefer them to actually try and get the PHB rules right first and foremost. smirk

Was that what he said? Paraphrased obviously.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Was that what he said? Paraphrased obviously.

It was something similar to that, it was brought up around the time that they were explaining Wild Shape being a bonus action compared to standard in tabletop. Which is something I guess is fine, as there are far bigger problems in the game's balance than a class feature being tweaked in order to make it seem less clunky, because one would realize that wild shape being a bonus action likely only exists because of these bigger problems in the first place - hence, creating new problems where there previously were none, and this tweak seems to indicate that they are doubling down on it. (And even if said problems didn't exist, Wild Shape being a bonus action is probably something I'd still agree with anyway, and I've never played a Druid in tabletop to begin with.)

But they said it and now it's going to get quoted out of context everywhere, and few are going to understand why they said it and why it *needed* to be said in the first place, the latter of which is perhaps even more important than the statement itself.

I'm just going to repost what I said in another thread...

Honestly, the stream didn't give me much faith in regards to the combat system. Larian doesn't seem to be interested in making any changes to rein in things like jump/disengage and high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage along with the lack of proactive defensive options like ready actions and dodge, judging from the idea that they just completely dodged literally any mention of these. This, despite the community giving them about 2 months worth of focused feedback since the last patch. They were more interested in showing off the flash rather than going into a deep dive on the mechanics and showing that they actually understood how everything they were creating worked and interacted with each other.

I mean, let's be real, adding in stuff like reactions and the dodge action wouldn't detract from the out of the box design at all, if anything it would give more variety and an extra layer of strategy to the combat. I legit don't understand why a portion of the community and even Larian themselves appear to be resistant to this topic. The game as it is now is too reactive, there's hardly any proactive planning besides pre-battle setup or coming up with a way to cheese the fight in the first 2 turns, because otherwise the absurd action economy that everyone has access to means your party is most likely to be completely overwhelmed in longer fights unless you're taking advantage of choke points or high ground or something.

Watching the hag fight go sideways in the stream was rather entertaining, and some would say it's rather endearing to see 'realistic' gameplay. At the same time, it also gives off the impression that they don't really know how to balance things, because their core design philosophy has always been about letting players experiment and figure it out for themselves, which may have lead to one of the lead directors themselves forgetting certain basic mechanics in their live demonstration mid-fight. But at some point, that endearment should turn into actual concern.

The sandbox 'cobble everything together enough to have a working combat system and then let players figure everything out for themselves, and hopefully enable out of the box strategies' philosophy has now only become a shield to deflect criticism, as one can see from a portion of the community just straight up refusing to care about our feedback and deflecting any and all criticism on this topic, without the introspection needed to see that the game CAN be better if the design were to be a bit more focused. As it is now, the combat just looks like a lot of disconnected ideas coming together to form quite a mess, hence one of my earlier comments basically considering the game's combat to be akin to a puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics, rather than an actual strategic RPG in its current state.

I am generally a very optimistic person when it comes to a game that's still in active development, but at this point, I am beginning to wonder if expending any further effort to have conversations about this particular game's long term design is futile, and that we should withdraw from the community in acceptance that this is how the game is ultimately meant to be. Again, literally none of these concerns were even addressed at all, and even a simple answer telling us that our feedback on these particular mechanics isn't going to be considered because it's not part of their vision would be a better answer than the utter silence. I happen to be participating in Solasta and Pathfinder WotR's EA and betas too, and both seem to be leagues ahead in actually listening to player feedback and providing reasons why they designed things the way they did.

The mantra of 'show, don't tell' only works if what you have to show is meaningful and can be easily understood.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by Thomson
Well... being the little pathetic sarcastic corporation hating person that I am, I would gess they paid him to praise how well they ported the 5e system into the digital realm since they hope it gives them the public relations to continue their narcist abhorrent corruption of it.
Sometimes I hate being right.

And I must admit I was deviously satisfied when they lost after a long boring combat.


Honestly.... yeah. I wasn't at all pleased with Jeremy Crawford going all "lol do whatever, it's a different platform". I would so much prefer them to actually try and get the PHB rules right first and foremost. smirk

Was that what he said? Paraphrased obviously.

He said something like "This is fine, and don't forget that the rules should be adapted to the videogame" In short, they know that Larian changes everything as they want.
That's a death knell then.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Scribe
Was that what he said? Paraphrased obviously.

It was something similar to that, it was brought up around the time that they were explaining Wild Shape being a bonus action compared to standard in tabletop. Which is something I guess is fine, as there are far bigger problems in the game's balance than a class feature being tweaked in order to make it seem less clunky, because one would realize that wild shape being a bonus action likely only exists because of these bigger problems in the first place - hence, creating new problems where there previously were none, and this tweak seems to indicate that they are doubling down on it. (And even if said problems didn't exist, Wild Shape being a bonus action is probably something I'd still agree with anyway, and I've never played a Druid in tabletop to begin with.)

But they said it and now it's going to get quoted out of context everywhere, and few are going to understand why they said it and why it *needed* to be said in the first place, the latter of which is perhaps even more important than the statement itself.

I'm just going to repost what I said in another thread...

Honestly, the stream didn't give me much faith in regards to the combat system. Larian doesn't seem to be interested in making any changes to rein in things like jump/disengage and high ground advantage/low ground disadvantage along with the lack of proactive defensive options like ready actions and dodge, judging from the idea that they just completely dodged literally any mention of these. This, despite the community giving them about 2 months worth of focused feedback since the last patch. They were more interested in showing off the flash rather than going into a deep dive on the mechanics and showing that they actually understood how everything they were creating worked and interacted with each other.

I mean, let's be real, adding in stuff like reactions and the dodge action wouldn't detract from the out of the box design at all, if anything it would give more variety and an extra layer of strategy to the combat. I legit don't understand why a portion of the community and even Larian themselves appear to be resistant to this topic. The game as it is now is too reactive, there's hardly any proactive planning besides pre-battle setup or coming up with a way to cheese the fight in the first 2 turns, because otherwise the absurd action economy that everyone has access to means your party is most likely to be completely overwhelmed in longer fights unless you're taking advantage of choke points or high ground or something.

Watching the hag fight go sideways in the stream was rather entertaining, and some would say it's rather endearing to see 'realistic' gameplay. At the same time, it also gives off the impression that they don't really know how to balance things, because their core design philosophy has always been about letting players experiment and figure it out for themselves, which may have lead to one of the lead directors themselves forgetting certain basic mechanics in their live demonstration mid-fight. But at some point, that endearment should turn into actual concern.

The sandbox 'cobble everything together enough to have a working combat system and then let players figure everything out for themselves, and hopefully enable out of the box strategies' philosophy has now only become a shield to deflect criticism, as one can see from a portion of the community just straight up refusing to care about our feedback and deflecting any and all criticism on this topic, without the introspection needed to see that the game CAN be better if the design were to be a bit more focused. As it is now, the combat just looks like a lot of disconnected ideas coming together to form quite a mess, hence one of my earlier comments basically considering the game's combat to be akin to a puzzle game that just happens to have RPG mechanics, rather than an actual strategic RPG in its current state.

I am generally a very optimistic person when it comes to a game that's still in active development, but at this point, I am beginning to wonder if expending any further effort to have conversations about this particular game's long term design is futile, and that we should withdraw from the community in acceptance that this is how the game is ultimately meant to be. Again, literally none of these concerns were even addressed at all, and even a simple answer telling us that our feedback on these particular mechanics isn't going to be considered because it's not part of their vision would be a better answer than the utter silence. I happen to be participating in Solasta and Pathfinder WotR's EA and betas too, and both seem to be leagues ahead in actually listening to player feedback and providing reasons why they designed things the way they did.

The mantra of 'show, don't tell' only works if what you have to show is meaningful and can be easily understood.


I certainly agree, they should be WAY more communicative and they should certainly tell whether or not they are even listening or considering some of the things that people suggest here. I am still hoping that if we bombard them enough; they'll cave in and actually listen? smirk
well it does seem like larian listened to ppl with feedback related to not succeeding/hitting enough or failing rolls too often at low lvls and implemented an optional (i believe) 'loaded dice' mechanic/campaign setting in response - altho it doesnt seem the loaded dice helped swen in his hag encounter lol. so hopefully the studios is paying attention to other feedback too and intends for further updates/changes down the pipeline, but we'll see

that being said, there were some updates that larian discussed that i did find interesting to hear - the lighting dynamic comes to mind (altho i know other games also have similar features). im not sure if the upcoming patch or the panel content will make me jump back into a new ea playthru, but will still keep following along for more news and the community's response when the patch officially drops
Yeah they did take away the outrageous environmental effects from the cantrips... maybe they might listen to more things too?
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah they did take away the outrageous environmental effects from the cantrips... maybe they might listen to more things too?
During the panel from hell 2, the strategies in combat were mostly without using higher ground or backstab.

I don't want to read into that too much. But I had vibes that Larian is very well aware how we feel about them and don't have a solution ready yet. It was smart to show strategies that have positive feedback on Reddit, like shove and using potions to solo a fight.

The solution to fix cantrips was more obvious. But for higher ground and backstab so much about combat is balanced around free advantage. (same for jump/disengage).

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it would be easier for Larian to use a homebrewed proficiency table instead of giving advantage out for free. Then the game could feel like DnD with Larian's sandbox ideas.

I've been actually looking forward to playing a game like that, I just haven't seen signs of it during patch 3 and I'm not sure I'll see that in patch 4. (We'd at least still need proper reactions TBH).

It'd still be nice to see advantage given out during the game. But it should be something that feels earned. Like if a character gets a natural 20 and takes out the enemy, a nearby ally within 15 feet gets advantage on their next attack. That would be less than 5 percent of rolls the player or enemy could get advantage.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It was smart to show strategies that have positive feedback on Reddit, like shove and using potions to solo a fight.
there are some good points in the reddit posts and i agree that shoving and using potions should be included as part of gameplay, but i hope shoving everyone off ledges and using plentiful potions (after splitting your party in half) arent driving high level gameplay or encounter decisions, lol.

altho i did learn from the stream today that you can just chuck hp potions at your ally to heal them.
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It was smart to show strategies that have positive feedback on Reddit, like shove and using potions to solo a fight.
there are some good points in the reddit posts and i agree that shoving and using potions should be included as part of gameplay, but i hope shoving everyone off ledges and using plentiful potions (after splitting your party in half) arent driving high level gameplay or encounter decisions, lol.

altho i did learn from the stream today that you can just chuck hp potions at your ally to heal them.

Just open your bags and pass them around during combat, no need to throw anything. This works with that side of roast dwarf you need Gale to eat, or potions.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It was smart to show strategies that have positive feedback on Reddit, like shove and using potions to solo a fight.
there are some good points in the reddit posts and i agree that shoving and using potions should be included as part of gameplay, but i hope shoving everyone off ledges and using plentiful potions (after splitting your party in half) arent driving high level gameplay or encounter decisions, lol.

altho i did learn from the stream today that you can just chuck hp potions at your ally to heal them.

Just open your bags and pass them around during combat, no need to throw anything. This works with that side of roast dwarf you need Gale to eat, or potions.

It’s to the point where you have to wonder why we even have different inventories. Just make one giant one for the entire group.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by nation
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
It was smart to show strategies that have positive feedback on Reddit, like shove and using potions to solo a fight.
there are some good points in the reddit posts and i agree that shoving and using potions should be included as part of gameplay, but i hope shoving everyone off ledges and using plentiful potions (after splitting your party in half) arent driving high level gameplay or encounter decisions, lol.

altho i did learn from the stream today that you can just chuck hp potions at your ally to heal them.

Just open your bags and pass them around during combat, no need to throw anything. This works with that side of roast dwarf you need Gale to eat, or potions.

It’s to the point where you have to wonder why we even have different inventories. Just make one giant one for the entire group.

lol @Scribe xD

That's a real good point Sprectralhunter, it's been hinted at the the magic inventory is a bug from adapting the Divinity engine to DnD.

A single inventory with the parties combined carrying capacity might just be the solution. The equipment page could then be used to distribute items for combat.(essentially if the player wants to use an item in combat it has to be equipped).

So if the player wants to use a potion in combat it has to be in the characters equipment (imagine if the character had a bag section that could fit 5 items, scrolls, potions, what have you.)

This could also be used to prevent eating food in combat, by having a rule to prevent the player from putting food in the combat pouch. (Just like how you can't have a sword for a helmet).

It'd totally be a workaround, one that would put the game in a healthier state.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
lol @Scribe xD

That's a real good point Sprectralhunter, it's been hinted at the the magic inventory is a bug from adapting the Divinity engine to DnD.

A single inventory with the parties combined carrying capacity might just be the solution. The equipment page could then be used to distribute items for combat.(essentially if the player wants to use an item in combat it has to be equipped).

So if the player wants to use a potion in combat it has to be in the characters equipment (imagine if the character had a bag section that could fit 5 items, scrolls, potions, what have you.)

This could also be used to prevent eating food in combat, by having a rule to prevent the player from putting food in the combat pouch. (Just like how you can't have a sword for a helmet).

It'd totally be a workaround, one that would put the game in a healthier state.

This looks great, but definitely not enough "Larian".

Cow can climb ladders to avoid 3 clicks... They won't introduce consummables slots.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Cow can climb ladders to avoid 3 clicks... They won't introduce consummables slots.

Cows can climb ladders, and even have animations for doing so, while halflings still have completely broken and ridiculous animations for climbing. *rolls her eyes* Their priorities are an enigma...
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Cow can climb ladders to avoid 3 clicks... They won't introduce consummables slots.

Cows can climb ladders, and even have animations for doing so, while halflings still have completely broken and ridiculous animations for climbing. *rolls her eyes* Their priorities are an enigma...

I don't think it's an enigma.

They are focusing on making the game into a meme.

It's all about flashy, comical, over the top. Attack and end the turn? Heck no, we gotta spin this gnome off windmill launch pad.

The core game is an afterthought, it's about trying to get something viral.

LOOK WE HAVE A COW.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Cow can climb ladders to avoid 3 clicks... They won't introduce consummables slots.

Cows can climb ladders, and even have animations for doing so, while halflings still have completely broken and ridiculous animations for climbing. *rolls her eyes* Their priorities are an enigma...

I don't think it's an enigma.

They are focusing on making the game into a meme.

It's all about flashy, comical, over the top. Attack and end the turn? Heck no, we gotta spin this gnome off windmill launch pad.

The core game is an afterthought, it's about trying to get something viral.

LOOK WE HAVE A COW.

I do think you are right, this is not a game they are making but something for twitch presenters to stream or for youtube clips.
I SINCERELY hope that they will change stuff around if they eventually understand that people WANT that, and that it would be good for balance reasons. If everyone is special, noone is.
Hello everyone,

BG1 and 2 have achieved the feat of being a very faithful transposition of AD&D into video games.

I just have one question for those who have played Early Access before:
By playing BG3, will I feel like I'm really participating in a D&D5 campaign, with the same rules and the same possibilities?

Thank you in advance for your answers
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Hello everyone,

BG1 and 2 have achieved the feat of being a very faithful transposition of AD&D into video games.

I just have one question for those who have played Early Access before:
By playing BG3, will I feel like I'm really participating in a D&D5 campaign, with the same rules and the same possibilities?

Thank you in advance for your answers
You will get something which is as close to 5e as vinegar is close to wine.
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Hello everyone,

BG1 and 2 have achieved the feat of being a very faithful transposition of AD&D into video games.

I just have one question for those who have played Early Access before:
By playing BG3, will I feel like I'm really participating in a D&D5 campaign, with the same rules and the same possibilities?

Thank you in advance for your answers
Given that you have opened one thread on the same subject this time last year, and have posted at least 15 times in various threads, again on the same subject, I wonder what you think that you will get from opening yet another thread on this
Sadurian,

Was there early access already last year? No.
Your remark is therefore irrelevant and unnecessary
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Hello everyone,

BG1 and 2 have achieved the feat of being a very faithful transposition of AD&D into video games.

I just have one question for those who have played Early Access before:
By playing BG3, will I feel like I'm really participating in a D&D5 campaign, with the same rules and the same possibilities?

Thank you in advance for your answers


I mean.. no, not really. Not as it stands right now.
No.
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Hello everyone,

BG1 and 2 have achieved the feat of being a very faithful transposition of AD&D into video games.

I just have one question for those who have played Early Access before:
By playing BG3, will I feel like I'm really participating in a D&D5 campaign, with the same rules and the same possibilities?

Thank you in advance for your answers

Nope. It is like with a very original DM.

By the way, I just wrote a feedback directly to WotC.
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
By the way, I just wrote a feedback directly to WotC.
Sounds like a good idea.

Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.
Originally Posted by Labayu
Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.

Exactly. Some simple options could alleviate a lot of frustration.
Larian could just mention the project of implementing D&D5 options (RAW) instead of offering silence on these topics.
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
By the way, I just wrote a feedback directly to WotC.
Sounds like a good idea.

Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.


HELL yes!!!! Hoping *SO* much for that!!!!!!
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
By the way, I just wrote a feedback directly to WotC.
Sounds like a good idea.

Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.


HELL yes!!!! Hoping *SO* much for that!!!!!!

The ideal order of business would be to get the game working properly first using 5E mechanics as written, then any Larianisms they implement to ‘improve’ D&D can be bundled into an option that you can leave on or turn off. Then the EA community could truly test which is more fun and provide definitive feedback.
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
By the way, I just wrote a feedback directly to WotC.
Sounds like a good idea.

Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.


HELL yes!!!! Hoping *SO* much for that!!!!!!

The ideal order of business would be to get the game working properly first using 5E mechanics as written, then any Larianisms they implement to ‘improve’ D&D can be bundled into an option that you can leave on or turn off. Then the EA community could truly test which is more fun and provide definitive feedback.

There is no way Larian is going to basically develop 2 sets of game rules to satisfy some ideal that they should. I mean that is just expecting too much. That sort of thing is what mods are for. If you are not happy with Larian's translation of 5e, you can always build a mod to suit your needs, or wait for someone to do it. Not to mention again, that they never stated it was going to be a 100% accurate translation of 5e rules, they stated from the beginning, that is was BASED on 5e. Game companies are generally very specific in their wording, that leaves them a level of control for artistic interpretation.
Well tbh i would be okay with small options like making some questionable bonus actions to main actions, and making jump less radical in distance (and remove disengage from it), change high advantage and backstab by toggles... small stuff like that no need to be 2 Completely different set of rules with huge Ui and design changes. Im not saying it would not be work, but i think it would worth it for the company as well and i think an AAA priced faithful to dnd game should give us something like that at least, tweaks, these can change the feel of gameplay quite much and open the game for much more players. A lot of smaller rpgs give us options like this. Im not asking for these because the rules are not dnd but these changes they made did not make the game more fun to me (i feel the contrary). I know there are mods but come on, mods are not every time getting updated with the game or mods i would need sometimes clash with each other so i like to play at least the first 2-3 playthroughs without them. This is still EA so im hoping they are listening
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
There is no way Larian is going to basically develop 2 sets of game rules to satisfy some ideal that they should. I mean that is just expecting too much.

No : Solasta, tiny in comparison to Larian, does it = it is easy for Larian + Swen said that "they would try to implement the rules as pure as they can".
They can. They should. Plus we know they could easily give some options to deactivate some of the main core changes (health food, jump, height, scrolls class limit, healing touch throw potion, explosives...)
+ It is more intelligent economically : they want to attract many public and their ideal is to satisfy many public, including D&D fans for future releases.
So, they have to do it.
Originally Posted by Labayu
Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.

Such a thing might require a mod at this point, actually. Which would be fine, if someone who knows the technical aspects of the game's coding could get things up and running relatively quickly. Stuff like tweaking high ground/low ground, backstab advantage, enemy AC/HP and the bonus actions would likely be possible. Adding in stuff like player-controlled reactions and the dodge action would be far more complicated since the proper coding framework for them probably doesn't exist yet, however.

Something like this happened in the D:OS2 community, with them creating a mod that was borne out of the grievances people had with the armor system called Divinity Unleashed. It ended up being way better balanced in the end since it was really a comprehensive rebalancing mod. The main feature was that it changed armor from essentially being an extended health bar that protected you from status effects into a damage reduction system, so while it did result in status effect spam like the first game, status effects were also rebalanced and it made utility battlemage builds viable all the way to endgame. It also adjusted spells like Bless to be far more usable, meaning blessed surfaces were now far more practical to utilize.

Experiencing how the changes from that mod impacted the experience for myself is part of the reason why my arguments in regards to BG3 are the way they are, even if I never actually did finish a full playthrough with the mod since I had basically played through the game like 5 times at that point and BG3/Solasta/Pathfinder: WotR had begun taking all of my attention by then. It was also starting to get difficult enough that I had to accept that I wasn't nearly as good at the game in terms of using conventional strategies as I thought I was, rather than abusing certain things that were overpowered in the vanilla version.

Ideally we shouldn't need a mod to begin with, but it is always a fallback option if some kind soul out there with enough time on their hands decides on that undertaking.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Ideally we shouldn't need a mod to begin with, but it is always a fallback option if some kind soul out there with enough time on their hands decides on that undertaking.

I would really rather the core game was right, considering it may well be built on for future releases (DLCs, spinoffs, sequels). We shouldn’t need mods for all of those too. Besides, the more Larian improvise, the more work they’re making for themselves trying to balance things later on (assuming they care about balance). I wish they would trust the rules. Flaming Sphere is just the latest example of how they’re trying to shoehorn D&D into their mechanics rather than build systems to make it work that will useful for other spells. I think we can extrapolate that Spiritual Weapon is going to be just as mangled.

Going so far off-piste is really going to hurt if Larian does end up pursuing a DM mode. Having a really strong foundation that could be used for people to build modules and run games like a VTT would be incredible, especially for folks who can’t play D&D in the same room. But that won’t work if the ruleset is some kind of bastardised offshoot that will only get more hackneyed as more subclasses, spells etc are added in from other sourcebooks.

Perhaps I’m better off placing my hope in the Solasta team, maybe if the game does well enough they’ll have the resources to work in that direction.
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I would really rather the core game was right, considering it may well be built on for future releases (DLCs, spinoffs, sequels). We shouldn’t need mods for all of those too. Besides, the more Larian improvise, the more work they’re making for themselves trying to balance things later on (assuming they care about balance). I wish they would trust the rules. Flaming Sphere is just the latest example of how they’re trying to shoehorn D&D into their mechanics rather than build systems to make it work that will useful for other spells. I think we can extrapolate that Spiritual Weapon is going to be just as mangled.

Going so far off-piste is really going to hurt if Larian does end up pursuing a DM mode. Having a really strong foundation that could be used for people to build modules and run games like a VTT would be incredible, especially for folks who can’t play D&D in the same room. But that won’t work if the ruleset is some kind of bastardised offshoot that will only get more hackneyed as more subclasses, spells etc are added in from other sourcebooks.

Perhaps I’m better off placing my hope in the Solasta team, maybe if the game does well enough they’ll have the resources to work in that direction.

I'm starting to suspect that the engine Larian is using just can't support the ability to use a player action to move a spell effect, which is why all summons are their own separate controllable entity. The engine also doesn't support true flight, which is why you have Harpies jumping everywhere, Flaming Sphere rolls on the ground, and so on and so forth. It would not be too much of a stretch to believe that Spiritual Weapon would work in exactly the same way. (Coincidentally, there is no example of true flight in D:OS2 either, there was a spell that allowed you to sprout wings in that game, but all it did was to give you the ability to spend an extra point of AP to jump huge distances for about 3 turns.)

I wish Larian would just go out and say it if my suspicions are correct. It would do wonders in managing expectations around here, and direct suggestions towards things that are actually possible to begin with. (And if they make a sequel, please for the love of all that's holy, build a new engine from scratch. The BG series does not deserve to be tied to a game engine that originated from an entirely different series, and I say this as someone that has never played BG1 and BG2)
Originally Posted by Melkyor95
Hello everyone,

BG1 and 2 have achieved the feat of being a very faithful transposition of AD&D into video games.

I just have one question for those who have played Early Access before:
By playing BG3, will I feel like I'm really participating in a D&D5 campaign, with the same rules and the same possibilities?

Thank you in advance for your answers

BG1&2 wasn't exactly what I'd call "very faithful" to AD&D, but relative to BG3/D&D5e, they certainly were. If you played DOS2, more than playing a faithful D&D rendition, with BG3 EA you are likely to feel like you are playing DOS2/3 with a good D&D5e themed mod. Don't expect faithful implementations as Larian's paramount concern is making a fun game. The subjective interpretation of fun is heavily skewed in favor of DOS-style of silly fun though...with not so much regard for immersion breaking or balance breaking aspects.

Embrace the cheese, or you will have a hard time of this.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I'm starting to suspect that the engine Larian is using just can't support the ability to use a player action to move a spell effect, which is why all summons are their own separate controllable entity. The engine also doesn't support true flight, which is why you have Harpies jumping everywhere, Flaming Sphere rolls on the ground, and so on and so forth. It would not be too much of a stretch to believe that Spiritual Weapon would work in exactly the same way. (Coincidentally, there is no example of true flight in D:OS2 either, there was a spell that allowed you to sprout wings in that game, but all it did was to give you the ability to spend an extra point of AP to jump huge distances for about 3 turns.)

You’re absolutely right and it’s only occurring to me now that Levitate, Fly, Telekinesis, Bigby’s Hand and many other spells are going to be ruined in this engine. This saddens me greatly.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
BG1&2 wasn't exactly what I'd call "very faithful" to AD&D, but relative to BG3/D&D5e, they certainly were. If you played DOS2, more than playing a faithful D&D rendition, with BG3 EA you are likely to feel like you are playing DOS2/3 with a good D&D5e themed mod. Don't expect faithful implementations as Larian's paramount concern is making a fun game. The subjective interpretation of fun is heavily skewed in favor of DOS-style of silly fun though...with not so much regard for immersion breaking or balance breaking aspects.

Embrace the cheese, or you will have a hard time of this.
Thank you for your reply.
When I read the other interventions and see streams on BG3, it comforts me in the idea that this game is like chocolate flavored cake and not like real chocolate cake.

It reminds me of a recent comment that said BG3 was to D&D5 what vinegar is to wine.

I imagine that it will be able to give pleasure to a lot of players but for a fan of D&D and who wants to make a D&D game - like BG1 and BG2 did - it seems to me much more complicated with this DOS3.
I'm hoping that AT LEAST the modding community CAN mod the game in such a way that it would require.
I love this game, but I do agree that they would improve the game by implementing more of the Core 5e rules. The more they steered away from the core rules, the more imbalances they create. Better off just going 5e and you'd have less difficulties later.
Does anyone here even know how much modders can do? I mean, there are already mods out there, but I haven't tried any. I am just interested to know if someone can predict just how much one can expect from future mods? Would it be possible to make it fairly accurate to PHB rules?
I've read many posts now, and after 200+ hours of gameplay it just seems to me that Larian would be better off being far more strict to 5e rules. Balance issues would be solved, mostly, if they did. Right now, it just seems like they are creating more work and overall dissatisfaction by not doing this.

Granted, I get why certain features are implements for ease of computer gameplay. For example, eating a cheese wheel as a bonus action saved my life several times. Still, I'd rather earn more money and buy more potions. It makes much more sense to drink a potion as an action than a rack of ribs as a bonus action.

As a final thought, each character has too many actions each turn which makes battle too volatile and uncontrolled. It is very frustrating when you have an enemy, for example the hag, take a half dozen actions before your characters get to go. This leaves too much room for things to go south real fast. One playthrough, she killed 2 members of my party before I even got to go. I didn't long rest beforehand, mind you, for realism sake, but they were full health. She just got too many actions in one surprise round.

Staying more strict to 5e would stop this kind of thing. The more you move away from 5e, the more balance issues you have to compensate for. Easier just to stay true to 5e in the end.
If you watched last Panel From Hell Video then you know, DnD is off table as it is far more easy to get Wizard of the Coast approve their own rules then implementing DnD rules.
That beeing said i would agree with you but sadly it wont happen.
I half-agree but ...


Larian has said they'd make the game according to their idea of fun. It doesn't appear as if all the complaints about combat around here, and what some of us would find "better", is really changing their mind. In fact it doesn't appear as if complaints about UI-and-controls, some of which are massively agreed upon, is really changing their mind either. I don't want to stop you from requesting they rethink their balance, but I'm personally not hoping for much impact.


Also, 5E rules and a satisfying balance (as per my tastes) are two different things.

I share the sentiment that the current balance is ridiculous, and I would be really quite happy to see a better-balanced, less-broken combat system. I don't care if the end result is strict 5E or not. In fact, I think there are many changes to 5E that could make is equally interesting or improve it. So 5E RAW is merely one option.

I believe that Larian adopting a closer-to-5E ruleset, even if temporarily, would immediately and drastically improve the combat. So I'd certainly support closer-to-5E rules, among other options. But again, I feel this is clearly not where Larian wants to go.
Yeah, i feel there could be more player involvement (reactions atm are just setup as automatic you dont have to decide anything during combat) and more tactical choice (a lot of universal bonus actions getting tired fast, the fact that i dont really have to position my chars around the enemies, they can just superhero jump away and back anytime with the disengage addition) than it is in the current build. Also there are some unneccessary clicking (backstab, dash double-click), small UI frustrations to be sorted out, but i dont worry about these, its still EA. Regarding universal actions i know Swen mentioned during an interview they tried out the dnd way and a lot of other alternatives and they felt with the dnd way player turns got too limited. I get their point but its kind of a double-edge sword, as now many people feel they went to the other direction too much and it already gets repetitive (and it will be a really long game designed for multiple playthroughs).

One thing i believe they could think about to improve on (also related to tactical level of combat) is the resource (spells, special skills, actions) management acpect and the pacing of the game. Lot of dnd rules, classes, enemies are designed around this aspect, so Larian either start to change each of these and get into a loop of further complaints or they have a think about how this can be brought closer to make it more exciting. At the moment the narrative and the tactical part of the game overlaps due to the camp including both (long rest and story progress) which makes this even more complicated to tweak but they might be able to separate the two. Im really looking forward to a DNd game which nails this aspect and the pacing is one (party heals, spells re-prepared) long rest/two-three-four encounters and combat decisions, preparation and resource management therefore feels very meaningful.

I have to say, the effects, sounds and visuals are spectacular and the animations are fluid (though again, the Jumping animation seems just a little too unnatural to me), there are a variety of spells and actions (and some of them have really cool gameplay additions not just flat damage) which is nice so the foundation is cool but i also feel the whole thing could be MUCH more tactical even with small tweaks. This is still early EA so i believe they are experimenting with these things still, im hoping we will end up with some customizable rules.

I was pleasantly surprised when they admitted they had to change the original shown team-based initiative system because testers felt the longer times of lack of player involvement while enemies moved together kind of killed their interest, i think that was a good direction as they listened to feedback and even improved on it (with the function that chars can act at the same turn if next together) to make it more tactical. They also commented that new version is also spicing up decision making on actions rather than just using the same winner tactic over and over.

Oh this got longer than i planned. Anyway, due to the above im fairly optimistic, they always iterate on things, fingers crossed we get a "our plans for combat tweaks" community update in the near future so they can let us know how they plan to approach the common complains.
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Granted, I get why certain features are implements for ease of computer gameplay. For example, eating a cheese wheel as a bonus action saved my life several times.
Yeah, sometimes I can't be bothered to get up and make food while playing a game either.
Honestly, I love the game as it is. I just think it would be better and meet more of the desires of fans to be a bit more strict on 5e Core rules. Maybe they could do like Solasta devs are about to do in their most recent update and have difficulty settings. One setting is strict Hard Core 5e rules that don't allow people to throw barrels (I mean, an ogre makes sense to be able to throw a barrel but Gale???). So Core rules setting would be for all of us people who want a full D&D 5e video game experience. Difficulty settings give all players the ability to really enjoy the game. Those who want to be able to eat a rack of ribs as a bonus action would have a difficulty that is more Story Based. Those who want a full, immersive feel would have a Core rules setting. Those who are so good at 5e that the Core rules are not even a challenge could have a full blown Hellfire/Brimstone Challenge setting. It just seems like this would be a huge solve to a lot of the issues fans are having out here.

My advice to Larian would be to prioritize this above all other fixes. Loaded dice seems more like a band aid to the issue. Difficulty settings would be the full cure.

If you really want fans to feel like they are apart of the EA experience of developing the game, this seems like the next big fix you need to make. Then probably things like Day/Night/Real-time Clock with weather changing affects and limits on rests in the wild with random encounters for those who try to Fast Travel or rest in dangerous areas (basically outside of camp). Then probably items management, and maybe the lack of sifting through mundane items. Maybe that could be a setting too for Difficulties/Gameplay. Turn on/off the need to sort through low cost, mundane items so if there are fans who want total immersion they can sift through every empty sack and pick up every spoon, but for those fans who just want to pick up only valuable gear they can Turn Off Mundane Items so that they can't even click on such items. A Loot All would also be good with this, and a Select Multiple Items in the inventory so that you can move more than 1 thing at a time from one inventory to another would really improve gameplay.

As much as I want Half-Orc and Paladin and Barbarian and Dragonborn and Sorcerer and other such classes, until you fix these things, I think you're shooting yourselves in the foot. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but based on things I've read, it doesn't seem like I am.
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
[quote=Pandemonica]Plus we know they could easily give some options to deactivate some of the main core changes (health food, jump height, scrolls class limit, healing touch throw potion, explosives...)

While some of these things are abusable, I do not really agree that they need to create option toggles for anything that is a player choice (food, scrolls, consumables, barrels). Some people enjoy exploiting these features and it helps them have a more enjoyable experience, while those who disagree can set personal rules for themselves and avoid them. The same way someone who is playing a nuzlock run of pokemon might avoid using items.

As for things that can't be avoided like advantage I hope these will be solved later when they introduce difficulty. They are trying to appeal to a wide audience that might not understand DnD when they start playing. Things like height advantage are simple to understand so is good for a normal difficulty setting. Harder settings could restrict how easy it is to get advantage so that it forces you to use supportive spells and have a greater mastery of DnD.

In short don't limit the options on how to succeed and difficulty settings that make the unavoidable game rules "more DnD".
I see your point and while i agree that freedom is a good thing but i have several issues with the personal rules suggestion. Before i get to it, I want to say I like a lot of things in the game, so its not like i dont like everything Larian added to it or the overall direction they took. But as Larian said multiple times this is EA, its not about bugfixing but feedback on feel of the game and features, and there is a significant volume of people including me who likes the game but would like some feasable to implement tweaks implemented in-game for some of the rules so we can enjoy the game even more. Personally I dont care if a feature is less DND or not, im only interested in the overall feel of the game.

One issue i have with personal rule is that i don't really like to pay attention during gameplay to what personal rules i need to maintain, i prefer if the game I bought ensures that part once i set it up. i plan to play this game in coop as well, if all of us need to set and keep in mind personal rules its just even messier than the game letting us on agree on one preset of the rules beforehand.

Second, and i think most important one for me, is that its a completely different mindset you have when you are going into a battle or even plan with your resources before that, if you know you wont be really in "danger" even if you screw up you wont be in trouble probably. Another player's sacrifice matters less if we know its not really a sacrifice. The game becomes less tense, less exciting if you are the type of person who needs more challenge. This is subjective obviously, but i dont think im alone thinking that at the moment bg3 could be a little bit more tactical and it would be nice if it would have more meaningful resource management or some kind of mode which makes it more challenging. You can of course imagine for example that you HAVE TO prepare more resources before the next encounters because you will forbid yourself to long rest (which atm can make you skip some story in bg3 actually but thats another topic) or you say to yourself you cannot eat healing food during combat, but it will never feel the same, winning the battle will just never feel as rewarding as it could be when you win by the set rules with clever tactic. You just wont be trying that hard to win a hard fight, you wont feel that frightened when suddenly enemies surround you.

Third is that i think customizable rules can add to the game in long term. I plan to play the game multiple times so these could help to spice things up for additional playthroughs. Also these actually can help the devs to appeal to an even wider audience by giving more options.

Customizable rules (a lot of depth RPGs have some for a reason, Pathfinder, Pillars) can be overwhelming for new players so most clever way to do it is to have presets (this can be like "Authentical", "Homebrew" modes etc.) so people who doesnt want to deal with that just choose what they like and can get to the game quickly without starting to toggle everything. I agree its best to keep the current light setup of rules as a Story mode option or something (can be default, thats fine by me) there as a lot of players like to play like that for sure. But its clear there is a significant portion of players who like the game but would even like it more with some minor tweaks. Also people who play without these more restrictive rules would be able to try out the game with a different flavour once they got the hang of the lighter version and just see how the feeling of the game changes and becomes more challening. I can imagine the game can grow even more on them too.
Thats just my 2 cents on it!

English is not my native language so sorry if im not easy to understand.
Originally Posted by Mat22
(...)
English is not my native language so sorry if im not easy to understand.
Your post is very well written overall and clear ; better written than many born into English.

Your post made me think about another issue in the current BG3-EA : the user-interface needs to be made more user-friendly for the average player who does not know how D&D works.
The current indicator that shows you have an Action | Bonus Action* | Movement left is tiny and somehow UNDER the main hothars! I did not even see it except after a few hours of playing.
Suggestion: when you have a Bonus Action left, for example, everything that cost a Bonus Action could be under one hotbar section or be more clearly highlighted.
( I know they currently dim what cannot be used : the dimming effect could be increased to nearly invisible. Simple tweak. )

Solasta has its own way of doing it, but it works radically well: the UI only shows you what you can do at the moment. Once you did an Action for example, you only see what cost a Bonus Action* | Free item interaction** | Movement. All Actions are temporarily hidden and it makes it very easy and intuitive for players.

[ Nerd notes :
* it is 1 Bonus Action maximum per turn in 5e (official interpretation; not an opinion), but anyhow.
** In BG3-EA, you can interact with objects and switch weapons at will. Solasta applies the 5e limitation of one free item interaction per turn.]
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
By the way, I just wrote a feedback directly to WotC.
Sounds like a good idea.

Even if Larian insists on their innovations, it would be nice if there were an optional D&D 5e mode, especially in light of it supposedly being a D&D 5e based game.


If they made it an option that could be toggled, that would be amazing! I say this only because I pray that it wouldn't be long before a modder made a way to add an optional toggle for 3.5 rules, which I would MUCH rather have available to play by.
Originally Posted by fkhaller
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
[quote=Pandemonica]Plus we know they could easily give some options to deactivate some of the main core changes (health food, jump height, scrolls class limit, healing touch throw potion, explosives...)

While some of these things are abusable, I do not really agree that they need to create option toggles for anything that is a player choice (food, scrolls, consumables, barrels). Some people enjoy exploiting these features and it helps them have a more enjoyable experience, while those who disagree can set personal rules for themselves and avoid them. The same way someone who is playing a nuzlock run of pokemon might avoid using items.

As for things that can't be avoided like advantage I hope these will be solved later when they introduce difficulty. They are trying to appeal to a wide audience that might not understand DnD when they start playing. Things like height advantage are simple to understand so is good for a normal difficulty setting. Harder settings could restrict how easy it is to get advantage so that it forces you to use supportive spells and have a greater mastery of DnD.

In short don't limit the options on how to succeed and difficulty settings that make the unavoidable game rules "more DnD".


Yeah that would be wonderful, if they did include options that are far closer to the DND rules.
Originally Posted by Baraz
Your post is very well written overall and clear ; better written than many born into English.

Your post made me think about another issue in the current BG3-EA : the user-interface needs to be made more user-friendly for the average player who does not know how D&D works.
The current indicator that shows you have an Action | Bonus Action* | Movement left is tiny and somehow UNDER the main hothars! I did not even see it except after a few hours of playing.
Suggestion: when you have a Bonus Action left, for example, everything that cost a Bonus Action could be under one hotbar section or be more clearly highlighted.
( I know they currently dim what cannot be used : the dimming effect could be increased to nearly invisible. Simple tweak. )

Solasta has its own way of doing it, but it works radically well: the UI only shows you what you can do at the moment. Once you did an Action for example, you only see what cost a Bonus Action* | Free item interaction** | Movement. All Actions are temporarily hidden and it makes it very easy and intuitive for players.

[ Nerd notes :
* it is 1 Bonus Action maximum per turn in 5e (official interpretation; not an opinion), but anyhow.
** In BG3-EA, you can interact with objects and switch weapons at will. Solasta applies the 5e limitation of one free item interaction per turn.]

Thanks!
Yeah i played Solasta's EA for a couple of hours and it does have a simple but very clear and intuitive UI. Also it does a good job to make you understand what is happening on the battlefield. For BG3 these are still areas for improvement, even Swen was confused during the panel which Bonus actions (and how many times) he is able to use after he used an Action. I like that in Solasta you cannot just switch weapons and interact with items whenever you want so you have to think more carefully, i hope there will be a simple toggle to tweak how this work in BG3, would be nice.
Im unsure what is currently wrong with the current rules out of the complaints of AC class which from what i understand (in my limited knowledge of dnd) is that it effects accuracy to much?

I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.

When it comes to accuracy, you can simply change the equations slightly to offer a slightly better accuracy rate. Having lower AC makes the game much more interesting in the way that it validates tanking oriented build more inline with current industry standards of using a holy trinity (heal, tank, damage) form of game play. This is highly important for validating specific fighter and cleric builds geared toward that feat. If it was easier to hit people these builds, and subsequently heavy/plate armor would be heavily invalidated.

As a senior game designer i can recommend for you to provide feedback, and if there is enough of an outcry it should get fixed, but I'd rather you just find ways to alter the current game mechanics to be more of a compromise with the current system so the dev team can focus on pumping out more content, classes, itemization and races.
Originally Posted by Nouri
Im unsure what is currently wrong with the current rules out of the complaints of AC class which from what i understand (in my limited knowledge of dnd) is that it effects accuracy to much?

I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.

When it comes to accuracy, you can simply change the equations slightly to offer a slightly better accuracy rate. Having lower AC makes the game much more interesting in the way that it validates tanking oriented build more inline with current industry standards of using a holy trinity (heal, tank, damage) form of game play. This is highly important for validating specific fighter and cleric builds geared toward that feat. If it was easier to hit people these builds, and subsequently heavy/plate armor would be heavily invalidated.

As a senior game designer i can recommend for you to provide feedback, and if there is enough of an outcry it should get fixed, but I'd rather you just find ways to alter the current game mechanics to be more of a compromise with the current system so the dev team can focus on pumping out more content, classes, itemization and races.

Kind of a real question for you as a "senior game designer" that maybe will bring you closer to understanding what many people's problems are with all of Larian's homebrew rules.

If you spent literal decades tuning and refining your own personal game, to the point where you felt it was basically as balanced as you could have it, and some other developer decided to do a sequel to your game where they arbitrarily changed around large portions of the game's mechanics and added completely new ones as well because they found it to boring as is...you wouldn't have any problem with that?
Originally Posted by Nouri
Im unsure what is currently wrong with the current rules out of the complaints of AC class which from what i understand (in my limited knowledge of dnd) is that it effects accuracy to much?
The main issue is that it favors certain abilities for the player versus others, limiting player choice. Mainly attacks that are derived from "d20+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy AC"
benefit with a higher success rate and attacks derived from "8+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy d20+Modifier" (Spell Save DC) don't benefit. There are other factors, but this is big picture.

Originally Posted by Nouri
I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.
How does it offer new builds? We currently have less sub-classes than 5e and don't have the ability to multiclass. I'd actually like to see a write up on how the new rules are better. When it's been discussed with written thoughts and opinions, Baldur's Gate 3 appears to have fewer options for builds and tactics. I haven't seen anything to rationalize the opposite.

Originally Posted by Nouri
When it comes to accuracy, you can simply change the equations slightly to offer a slightly better accuracy rate. Having lower AC makes the game much more interesting in the way that it validates tanking oriented build more inline with current industry standards of using a holy trinity (heal, tank, damage) form of game play. This is highly important for validating specific fighter and cleric builds geared toward that feat. If it was easier to hit people these builds, and subsequently heavy/plate armor would be heavily invalidated.
But they didn't change the equation, and not all attacks and spells use the same equation. Someone actually did an in-depth review of the impacts of lowered AC and raised HP and it's mainly to make turns-to-kill more consistent with less variation.
Essentially if a player uses an attack from "d20+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy AC" it will take fewer turns to kill enemies than using "8+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy d20+Modifier" (Spell Save DC). In the current meta, the player has to take a handicap if the want to use spells based on "8+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy d20+Modifier" (Spell Save DC). Spells derived from Spell Save DC are there to help combat high AC enemies. Lowering AC takes away their intended use.
Originally Posted by Nouri
I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.
There is exactly 1 game out (also in early access) right now that is accurate to D&D 5e rules: Solasta. And even this game doesn't have the full 5e rules license, so a lot of its subclasses and rules are new.

Originally Posted by Nouri
When it comes to accuracy, you can simply change the equations slightly to offer a slightly better accuracy rate. Having lower AC makes the game much more interesting in the way that it validates tanking oriented build more inline with current industry standards of using a holy trinity (heal, tank, damage) form of game play. This is highly important for validating specific fighter and cleric builds geared toward that feat. If it was easier to hit people these builds, and subsequently heavy/plate armor would be heavily invalidated.
What are you trying to say here? You say that "Having lower AC...validates tanking oriented builds" but then you also say that "if it was easier to hit people these builds...would be heavily invalidated." These statements contradict each other, as having lower AC means it is easier to hit people.
Originally Posted by Nouri
Im unsure what is currently wrong with the current rules out of the complaints of AC class which from what i understand (in my limited knowledge of dnd) is that it effects accuracy to much?

I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.
You see, when I jumped into this EA I knew very little about the source material as well and on first glance thought that this game was doing a pretty ok job. But the more of the criticism I heard and the more I learned about 5e, the more I realized that those 'fun additions' to the base ruleset are only additions in name. Because for every little thing Larian implemented to shake up the 5e ruleset, like weapon dipping or height advantage, they crippled multiple other spells, abilities or other tactical options of 5e that aren't implemented yet and probably can't get implemented in the future without a string of more and more now necessary changes to even retain their usefulness.
So you could make the comparison that Larian pretty much dropped like a quarter of the cake to the ground in their attempt to put a few cherries on top of it.
Originally Posted by marajango
Originally Posted by Nouri
Im unsure what is currently wrong with the current rules out of the complaints of AC class which from what i understand (in my limited knowledge of dnd) is that it effects accuracy to much?

I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.
You see, when I jumped into this EA I knew very little about the source material as well and on first glance thought that this game was doing a pretty ok job. But the more of the criticism I heard and the more I learned about 5e, the more I realized that those 'fun additions' to the base ruleset are only additions in name. Because for every little thing Larian implemented to shake up the 5e ruleset, like weapon dipping or height advantage, they crippled multiple other spells, abilities or other tactical options of 5e that aren't implemented yet and probably can't get implemented in the future without a string of more and more now necessary changes to even retain their usefulness.
So you could make the comparison that Larian pretty much dropped like a quarter of the cake to the ground in their attempt to put a few cherries on top of it.


Yeah this is what I fear too. I feel that they should FIRST implement everything faithfully, THEN play around with homebrew stuff.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah this is what I fear too. I feel that they should FIRST implement everything faithfully, THEN play around with homebrew stuff.

That they did not do that, shows that they have not much respect for the 5e system and they just want to do their own thing, and they see the 5e brand just as a marketing asset.

They are using the names from the D&D rules, but what the stuff does in their game has not much in common with it.

When they would be honest, they would change the class system. Then you would be able to choose between the following classes:
  • Pit Shover
  • High Ground Jumper
  • Magic Missile Spammer
  • Backstabber


I guess then everyone would have a better idea how to build characters and what each character's purpose is in combat.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah this is what I fear too. I feel that they should FIRST implement everything faithfully, THEN play around with homebrew stuff.

That they did not do that, shows that they have not much respect for the 5e system and they just want to do their own thing, and they see the 5e brand just as a marketing asset.

They are using the names from the D&D rules, but what the stuff does in their game has not much in common with it.

When they would be honest, they would change the class system. Then you would be able to choose between the following classes:
  • Pit Shover
  • High Ground Jumper
  • Magic Missile Spammer
  • Backstabber


I guess then everyone would have a better idea how to build characters and what each character's purpose is in combat.
xD
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah this is what I fear too. I feel that they should FIRST implement everything faithfully, THEN play around with homebrew stuff.

That they did not do that, shows that they have not much respect for the 5e system and they just want to do their own thing, and they see the 5e brand just as a marketing asset.

They are using the names from the D&D rules, but what the stuff does in their game has not much in common with it.

When they would be honest, they would change the class system. Then you would be able to choose between the following classes:
  • Pit Shover
  • High Ground Jumper
  • Magic Missile Spammer
  • Backstabber


I guess then everyone would have a better idea how to build characters and what each character's purpose is in combat.


Hehe, yeah... =)

I do love Larian though, and I still have hopes that they improve upon a lot of the things people are adressing. =)
More D&D less goofus D&D please.. Wizards should NOT learn clerics spells that is lore breaking.
Originally Posted by Rieline
More D&D less goofus D&D please.. Wizards should NOT learn clerics spells that is lore breaking.


Yeah that is just bizarre and makes me wonder why one would even bother playing a cleric?
Originally Posted by Rieline
More D&D less goofus D&D please.. Wizards should NOT learn clerics spells that is lore breaking.

Yeah I've been thinking "obvious bug, will be fixed in the next patch" but I'm starting to wonder . . .
It could be that someone over at Larian doesn't quite grasp the concept that there are different forms of magic and different ways of gaining access to it... they could be thinking of it like some sort of generic "source" that everyone can gain access to... but I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this is probably just a bug and will be fixed in future updates.
Folks, the "any class learn any spell" is a FEATURE of the Divinity engine. Swen is proud of it, it will not be changing.

Characters simply can either learn all spells, or no spells. I'm surprised you're surprised.
I vote against the thread creators intention. Please don't limit your creativity and what you could possibly create by adherences to a restricting rule system.
Originally Posted by Meril
I vote against the thread creators intention. Please don't limit your creativity and what you could possibly create by adherences to a restricting rule system.

Have no fear. Larian has answered your wish and agreed with you.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Folks, the "any class learn any spell" is a FEATURE of the Divinity engine. Swen is proud of it, it will not be changing.

Characters simply can either learn all spells, or no spells. I'm surprised you're surprised.

While that may be a thing for Divinity, that is not Forgotten Realms.

What's the point of a Class based system???
Originally Posted by Meril
I vote against the thread creators intention. Please don't limit your creativity and what you could possibly create by adherences to a restricting rule system.


why even play a game if you don't want to play the game's rules?

would you join a club of any sort just so you could tell them to change everything they do to suit you?

no, you join clubs that already have interests that suit you. You join them to take part in the already existing community.

your attitude is PRECISELY WHY games like BG3 exist.

So much "oh, pretty, good stuff" back patting by the cheerleading squad while the people looking for the actual game are getting ignored.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Folks, the "any class learn any spell" is a FEATURE of the Divinity engine. Swen is proud of it, it will not be changing.

Characters simply can either learn all spells, or no spells. I'm surprised you're surprised.

While that may be a thing for Divinity, that is not Forgotten Realms.

What's the point of a Class based system???
oh I totally agree with you, but the reason is that this game is built on Divinity first, not D&D. This is Divinity: Forgotten Realms (DOS3). people have REFUSED to acknowledge this for months, despite it's seeming appearance.

It will NOT change. Larian's track history of actually making changes sugggested or BEGGED by the players is abysmal.

It is a FEATURE and a TRAIT of Larian to be stubborn and bullheaded and do what they want until, like the DOS2 armor debacle, they have to be slapped into wakefulness.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Folks, the "any class learn any spell" is a FEATURE of the Divinity engine. Swen is proud of it, it will not be changing.

Characters simply can either learn all spells, or no spells. I'm surprised you're surprised.

While that may be a thing for Divinity, that is not Forgotten Realms.

What's the point of a Class based system???

So you can roll a battlemaster fighter with tons of scrolls so you can have the best of both worlds.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Meril
I vote against the thread creators intention. Please don't limit your creativity and what you could possibly create by adherences to a restricting rule system.


why even play a game if you don't want to play the game's rules?

would you join a club of any sort just so you could tell them to change everything they do to suit you?

no, you join clubs that already have interests that suit you. You join them to take part in the already existing community.

your attitude is PRECISELY WHY games like BG3 exist.

So much "oh, pretty, good stuff" back patting by the cheerleading squad while the people looking for the actual game are getting ignored.
Please cut out the snarkiness. You ought to be able to make your point without being confrontational.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Folks, the "any class learn any spell" is a FEATURE of the Divinity engine. Swen is proud of it, it will not be changing.

Characters simply can either learn all spells, or no spells. I'm surprised you're surprised.

While that may be a thing for Divinity, that is not Forgotten Realms.

What's the point of a Class based system???

So you can roll a battlemaster fighter with tons of scrolls so you can have the best of both worlds.
that's not D&D.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
Originally Posted by Meril
I vote against the thread creators intention. Please don't limit your creativity and what you could possibly create by adherences to a restricting rule system.


why even play a game if you don't want to play the game's rules?

would you join a club of any sort just so you could tell them to change everything they do to suit you?

no, you join clubs that already have interests that suit you. You join them to take part in the already existing community.

your attitude is PRECISELY WHY games like BG3 exist.

So much "oh, pretty, good stuff" back patting by the cheerleading squad while the people looking for the actual game are getting ignored.
Please cut out the snarkiness. You ought to be able to make your point without being confrontational.
I'll try. Just speaking my truth.

I am pointing to generalities in larger populations. The fact that they stem from micro interactions shouldn't be frowned upon.

I'm also not wrong.
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
oh I totally agree with you, but the reason is that this game is built on Divinity first, not D&D. This is Divinity: Forgotten Realms (DOS3). people have REFUSED to acknowledge this for months, despite it's seeming appearance.

Absolutely. I’ve resigned myself to that fact. I will try to offer up some small suggestions for balance but I’ve decided to just flip my brain to someone who doesn’t care about 5e rules and just want “rule of cool” fun. So I’ll be making more “fun” suggestions as well.
Honestly I’m kind of upset, but I knew this was going to happen. But I kind of want to turn that energy into learning how to mod this game. Might as well fully embrace it, and perhaps later we can set up a seminar to teach the community how the engine actually works.

My first order of business is to see if it’s possible to mod in subclasses that don’t normally exist like Solasta’s Greenmage.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Honestly I’m kind of upset, but I knew this was going to happen. But I kind of want to turn that energy into learning how to mod this game. Might as well fully embrace it, and perhaps later we can set up a seminar to teach the community how the engine actually works.
I applaud your optimism. Modding to rectify serious deficiencies like "any class can learn any spell" may be the thing that saves this game for a great many people who would have otherwise tossed it into the trash heap (just as I did with DOS2 after a few hours of trying it out).
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Honestly I’m kind of upset, but I knew this was going to happen. But I kind of want to turn that energy into learning how to mod this game. Might as well fully embrace it, and perhaps later we can set up a seminar to teach the community how the engine actually works.

My first order of business is to see if it’s possible to mod in subclasses that don’t normally exist like Solasta’s Greenmage.

I know I asked this before, but I don't have Solasta. If you have the definition of the class, im sure it could be attempted.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Honestly I’m kind of upset, but I knew this was going to happen. But I kind of want to turn that energy into learning how to mod this game. Might as well fully embrace it, and perhaps later we can set up a seminar to teach the community how the engine actually works.

My first order of business is to see if it’s possible to mod in subclasses that don’t normally exist like Solasta’s Greenmage.

I know I asked this before, but I don't have Solasta. If you have the definition of the class, im sure it could be attempted.

It’s a wizard with archery and some nature spells. It’s a weird blend of wizard/ranger/Druid. Solasta doesn’t have multiclassing and the full D&D license so I think this was their solution to fill a niche.

That being said, it’s a popular choice among testers.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
It’s a wizard with archery and some nature spells. It’s a weird blend of wizard/ranger/Druid. Solasta doesn’t have multiclassing and the full D&D license so I think this was their solution to fill a niche.

That sounds like it would be entirely fixed with the introduction of multi-classing... which I will be absolutely livid about if it is not eventually introduced here.
Originally Posted by The_BlauerDragon
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
It’s a wizard with archery and some nature spells. It’s a weird blend of wizard/ranger/Druid. Solasta doesn’t have multiclassing and the full D&D license so I think this was their solution to fill a niche.

That sounds like it would be entirely fixed with the introduction of multi-classing... which I will be absolutely livid about if it is not eventually introduced here.

It may actually be slightly better. It’s a full wizard with bow proficiency with some nature spells ( I think they get light armor proficiency too). I think they also have some features of sharpshooter at higher level like ignoring some cover.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by The_BlauerDragon
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
It’s a wizard with archery and some nature spells. It’s a weird blend of wizard/ranger/Druid. Solasta doesn’t have multiclassing and the full D&D license so I think this was their solution to fill a niche.

That sounds like it would be entirely fixed with the introduction of multi-classing... which I will be absolutely livid about if it is not eventually introduced here.

It may actually be slightly better. It’s a full wizard with bow proficiency with some nature spells ( I think they get light armor proficiency too). I think they also have some features of sharpshooter at higher level like ignoring some cover.

This is very much doable.
Originally Posted by Scribe
This is very much doable.

Well then. I guess you are right. Mods are the only way to salvage BG3 now.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Scribe
This is very much doable.

Well then. I guess you are right. Mods are the only way to salvage BG3 now.

Yeah, it's funny. In most games I am extremely against mods. I played with very few in BG1 or 2, I played 1 in Q3A, zero in Total War. However Neverwinter Nights gave me the basics of coding (like, real basics) and I used to implement prestige classes.

At this point, that's all I'm asking from Larian. Let us mod what we want both into, and out of, the game.
The notion that it is a homebrew that Wizards can learn any spell is utter nonsense. Think about it: ALL other casters have a restricted list of spells, related to their class, BUT suddenly the Wizard can learn them all. WTF. It does not hold water.

I accept that Larian has its own version of D&D, that BG3 is its own thing ... but don't act like it is normal that the Wizard has this super-feature, while all other casters do not have access to all the spells of a given level.

nb : I played a Wizard and just refused to learn non-Wizard spells by principle. I can already hear the usual response: well that is your choice, an option... which is not the f..... point! Saying the Wizard-learning-any-spell from scrolls is normal or not broken is just utterly stupid.
The thing is these weird house rules are making other subclasses useless. Why play a Divine Soul Sorcerer (yes, that would probably be added much much later) when the Wizard can learn all spells? Their house rules will make it much harder to add stuff from the books.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
It may actually be slightly better. It’s a full wizard with bow proficiency with some nature spells ( I think they get light armor proficiency too). I think they also have some features of sharpshooter at higher level like ignoring some cover.

They don’t get the ability to ignore cover, and level 5 isn’t a straight upgrade for them like it is for other classes (they get doubled cantrip damage but are still encouraged to use the bow due to higher hit rate and better average damage, when everyone else gets double attack or actually do fully benefit from the cantrip upgrade). But they do get the Archery fighting style, which is what pushes them from a mere wizard with a bow into scary ass archer with even scarier full wizard spell progression. Borrowing a few Ranger spells like Goodberry (food is actually really important in Solasta) and Hunter’s Mark is just the cherry on top.

They’re a super fun utility caster otherwise, even if the other homebrew archetype Shock Arcanist is way stronger (I think they get the ability to automatically upcast cast certain spells by 1 spell level with no limit?). Greenmage is still far and above the most popular Solasta archetype purely for their sheer utility and the swapping between bow and spell playing style though. It’s a niche that doesn’t exist anywhere in official 5E.
the hp bloat is one thing but, why does Larian see the need to nerf the moon druid beast shape, while enemies get a buff.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Honestly I’m kind of upset, but I knew this was going to happen. But I kind of want to turn that energy into learning how to mod this game. Might as well fully embrace it, and perhaps later we can set up a seminar to teach the community how the engine actually works.

My first order of business is to see if it’s possible to mod in subclasses that don’t normally exist like Solasta’s Greenmage.


Yeah I am sadly prone to feeling resigned aswell, mostly because Larian doesn't seem to communicate much at all with us on these forums, and so we will never learn their intentions and opinions. If they never really listen to us, do you know if it's possible to mod to such an extent that you can make BG3 faithful to the PHB rules?

In fact, does anyone here know about that? To what extent does it seem likely we will be able to mod the game?
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Yeah I am sadly prone to feeling resigned aswell, mostly because Larian doesn't seem to communicate much at all with us on these forums, and so we will never learn their intentions and opinions. If they never really listen to us, do you know if it's possible to mod to such an extent that you can make BG3 faithful to the PHB rules?

In fact, does anyone here know about that? To what extent does it seem likely we will be able to mod the game?

Going off of what Scribe says, quite a lot if your only intention is to alter the mechanics and add new classes. As far as messing with anything related to objects go, that is probably still up in the air. But there might be a rise in the amount of people interested in modding very soon, so it might be beneficial for the community as a whole to do a deep dive into the game's coding and maybe even get some basic tutorials set up.

I want to mod in Greenmage because it seems like a decent entry point for me to learn about modding in general, because I've never attempted such a thing before. It wouldn't really change anything fundamental in the game's coding.

Here's a list of everything the Solasta Greenmage archetype gets.

[Linked Image from cdn.discordapp.com]

(The below isn't relevant as BG3 EA doesn't extend past level 4, but I'm just listing it here for posterity's sake.)

[Linked Image from cdn.discordapp.com]

(There will probably be one more higher level feature for all archetypes late in the game, Solasta's level cap is currently stated to be level 10... But Solasta's current EA content is said to span somewhere close to the halfway point of the game, and you hit level 6 at the start of the current end of the dungeon.)

Here's an example of how a Greenmage Wizard actually fights.



Effective use of concentration spells are hugely important to the Greenmage archetype, as between Hunter's Mark, Faerie Fire, and Flaming Sphere, they have extremely good sustained ranged damage. The struggle is figuring out WHICH concentration spell to utilize in any given situation. Note that the above footage was before the update that got rid of dim light disadvantage, which was an indirect nerf to Flaming Sphere's tactical viability as a mobile bright light source. The devs made this specific fight much harder by adding a few more enemies and changing AI tactics to start prioritizing ways to impose disadvantage on ranged characters, though they've since been on record admitting that they may have overtuned the new version of the fight.
If you are interested in modding I would contact the guy from the mod DnD Rebalancing.

https://github.com/ZerdBG3/DnD-Rebalancing/issues

He is already working on many issues, like stopping wizards from learning cleric spells.
I’ve heard of his efforts. It seems like he’s got a lot on his plate already, so I’d rather not impose myself as a complete newbie. Or at least not now.
Looks like a n Eldritch Archer archetype of a Magus from PF1E.
Originally Posted by Ariwch
Looks like a n Eldritch Archer archetype of a Magus from PF1E.

Zero cookies for guessing what I rolled for WotR Beta. :P
Ideally, there'd be no need for mods though.
Mods should really help to understand the consequences of our suggestions and how the game would be with small adjustments.

I'd really love to have a mod just to change the advantage from highground and backstab for a +2 to attack rolls.

This would be very constructive to think and adjust what we're talking for monthes (another exemple : locked food in combats maybe except goodberries,...).

I guess it should be really easy to do but I have 0 skills in modding^^
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Mods should really help to understand the consequences of our suggestions and how the game would be with small adjustments.

I'd really love to have a mod just to change the advantage from highground and backstab for a +2 to attack rolls.

This would be very constructive to think and adjust what we're talking for monthes (another exemple : locked food in combats maybe except goodberries,...).

I guess it should be really easy to do but I have 0 skills in modding^^

Yeah that's what I was suggesting in another thread.

If DnD Rebalancing gets updated for patch 4, give it a shot.
The author of that mod is also working on giving +2 AC bonus to combatants on higher ground.

I enjoyed the game much more with the mod, but didn't play since a couple months. Too busy with playing PF:K and PF:WotR 😁
Also patch 4 was lacking for me, so I will give BG3 another try with patch 5 or 6, if the party controls get improved and if the mod gets updated.
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Mods should really help to understand the consequences of our suggestions and how the game would be with small adjustments.

I'd really love to have a mod just to change the advantage from highground and backstab for a +2 to attack rolls.

This would be very constructive to think and adjust what we're talking for monthes (another exemple : locked food in combats maybe except goodberries,...).

I guess it should be really easy to do but I have 0 skills in modding^^

Yeah that's what I was suggesting in another thread.

If DnD Rebalancing gets updated for patch 4, give it a shot.
The author of that mod is also working on giving +2 AC bonus to combatants on higher ground.

I enjoyed the game much more with the mod, but didn't play since a couple months. Too busy with playing PF:K and PF:WotR 😁
Also patch 4 was lacking for me, so I will give BG3 another try with patch 5 or 6, if the party controls get improved and if the mod gets updated.

Yea I never take the time to try this mod but I saw it and it looks awesome.
I only tried a playthrough with 6 characters, which was way more fun but also way more easy.

I think an updated D&D rebalance mod + 5 character party should be very interresting.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Great list, keep adding the things you notice please.Also intelligent goblins are very annoying!
Originally Posted by Ghonroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Great list, keep adding the things you notice please.Also intelligent goblins are very annoying!


Goblins are supposed to be at least moderately intelligent. I rather like the goblins in this game honestly, except that they all seem to go for high ground to get advantage (basically every fight is a race to get advantage) and sometimes they have gear they perhaps shouldn't have and such.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Ghonroth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Great list, keep adding the things you notice please.Also intelligent goblins are very annoying!


Goblins are supposed to be at least moderately intelligent. I rather like the goblins in this game honestly, except that they all seem to go for high ground to get advantage (basically every fight is a race to get advantage) and sometimes they have gear they perhaps shouldn't have and such.


Yea, when i see goblins all split into 6 different directions all going for high ground i just sigh. It's one thing to have tactical awareness, but come on, they act like they knew you were coming and all have pre-assigned battle locations that they've practiced for weeks
Originally Posted by Ixal
I doubt that Larian really tried.
They just used the DOS combat engine with all its quirks and special abilities and added a D20 to it. But the core is not D&D

Yeah I agree the Core of BG3 just does not get my D&D experience so saying this is D&D 5e is just not telling a whole truth. Mind you I have been playing D&D/AD&D since the 80's and BG3 system just breaks it.

I mean I am thrown back when my fighter in BG3 could use the scrolls and I was like WTF, and the Dip action.. Waaa? The move and Jump bit, everyone can lockpick anything etc etc. It is the simple basic rules of D&D and if those are not used correctly and possible expansions/addon's to BG3 will really really break the game. For those who come from TTRPG and play this will go 'This is not 5e D&D'. Really if BG3 is not really using 5e rules (just a hodgepoge of a system) then do not market it as 5e D&D. Of course I do not know how much of an eye WOTC really is watching about the game (if at all).

Now the game graphics is absolutely beautiful as is the voice, getting the mannerism's etc. I mean this game looks great (as a Alpha version 4 and we know we are all test bunnies) compared to games that are actually released.

We all should ask ourselves 2 questions:

1: Are we enjoying the game? Me basically Yes

2: Is this D&D 5e? Me not really
Originally Posted by ZetaZeta
Though I do think they should definitely remove the one-summon limit. Changes from the base rules, when they're going to make them, should be:

1. Stuff that improves the core game - taking advantage of stuff you can do with a computer handling the rules. Limiting people to one summon makes things worse.

2. Stuff that is necessary because it can't be done without a DM to handle things. Obviously that's not the case here.

3. Stuff that doesn't break core, iconic D&D stuff. Limiting summons basically guts the entire concept and gameplay style of D&D summoners; summoning hordes is very much central to many iconic classes, builds, and spells.

4. Stuff that is intuitive or which makes the game more intuitive. The summon limit is awkward, game-y, and makes no in-universe sense.

Seriously this is an inexplicable change. Back in D:OS2 they argued it made the game easier to balance, but D&D is already balanced around having multiple summons, so in this case they broke the game's balance in order to make things less interesting and less fun, while losing an iconic part of the source material in the process. What an awful decision.

I agree. Now for TTRPG DM's are very hesitant to let a player summon more than the player can handle (aka bog down the game) but BUT if the DM knows the player can handle it then sure go ahead.

I myself have played a Necromancer that could summon many Skeletons at once and handled it with ease and not slow the game down. Even playing a druid summoning multiple creatures and was able to handle it without slowing the game down. Of course the DM knew I could do it so he let me AND I did not over do it (the table is a party not a 1 man army). Now mind you doing all that for a TTRPG is quite a bit of paper work LOL.

BUT the rules for summoning should be followed in a PC game just like a TTRPG (aka your move action is used to either move you character OR your summon creature.. not both).
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Good intention to please who ?
Probably not those that buy this game as a D&D game...

Just check at 6:40. That's so ridiculous...


I laughed so hard. It is sad but also so damn true AND funny. Thank you for this smile
Even though I have done some posts on being a TTRPG and looking in on BG3. What about the reverse? What is someone plays a PC game that says it is using D&D 5e rules then wants to actually play a TT D&D 5e session/game? I think they will be in for a totally different system knowing what they 'think' is 5e from playing a PC, is not the same as 5e TT rules/mechanic wise. And yes TTRPG is very very different than PC RPG and I am sure we all would like BG3 to really, really be a great bridge to both of those.

I can see someone playing a level 1 fighter at a TTRPG session telling the table they can cast scrolls just as good as the wizard, or pick locks just as good as the the rogue, or the face man as the bard (yeah I know no bards yet in BG3) but I think you get the picture then having the other players at the table go 'WTF?'
Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen
Even though I have done some posts on being a TTRPG and looking in on BG3. What about the reverse? What is someone plays a PC game that says it is using D&D 5e rules then wants to actually play a TT D&D 5e session/game? I think they will be in for a totally different system knowing what they 'think' is 5e from playing a PC, is not the same as 5e TT rules/mechanic wise. And yes TTRPG is very very different than PC RPG and I am sure we all would like BG3 to really, really be a great bridge to both of those.

I can see someone playing a level 1 fighter at a TTRPG session telling the table they can cast scrolls just as good as the wizard, or pick locks just as good as the the rogue, or the face man as the bard (yeah I know no bards yet in BG3) but I think you get the picture then having the other players at the table go 'WTF?'

Exactly. Which is why I am surprised that WotC hasn't taken a more active hand. They want BG3 to introduce new players to the ruleset just like BG2 did for so many.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen
Even though I have done some posts on being a TTRPG and looking in on BG3. What about the reverse? What is someone plays a PC game that says it is using D&D 5e rules then wants to actually play a TT D&D 5e session/game? I think they will be in for a totally different system knowing what they 'think' is 5e from playing a PC, is not the same as 5e TT rules/mechanic wise. And yes TTRPG is very very different than PC RPG and I am sure we all would like BG3 to really, really be a great bridge to both of those.

I can see someone playing a level 1 fighter at a TTRPG session telling the table they can cast scrolls just as good as the wizard, or pick locks just as good as the the rogue, or the face man as the bard (yeah I know no bards yet in BG3) but I think you get the picture then having the other players at the table go 'WTF?'

Exactly. Which is why I am surprised that WotC hasn't taken a more active hand. They want BG3 to introduce new players to the ruleset just like BG2 did for so many.

Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.

That's probably the thinking -- can we introduce the game to new players.

But I think they will be making a mistake if they don't keep a close eye on the ruleset. If the ruleset is always in flux and the interpretations of it differ radically why go the license at all? Why not make something really similar -- which is what PoE did and it's what Pathfinder is doing. Someone needs to set the standard that other deviate from.

(and right now that looks like Solasta even though it's just an SRD game)
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.

That's probably the thinking -- can we introduce the game to new players.

But I think they will be making a mistake if they don't keep a close eye on the ruleset. If the ruleset is always in flux and the interpretations of it differ radically why go the license at all? Why not make something really similar -- which is what PoE did and it's what Pathfinder is doing. Someone needs to set the standard that other deviate from.

(and right now that looks like Solasta even though it's just an SRD game)

I think the main difference is this. Pathfinder and POE are marketing their 5e based game to established D&D players. People that are fully educated in the 5e ruleset and are trying to establish their brand as a major player in the field. Where BG is different. I think it has way more name recognition, and even people that have little to no experience with it, have heard of it. So it is the perfect title to bring in new people, rather than cater to just existing enthusiasts. So what brings in new people? Production value, story, and fun play. I know to a 5e player, when you see things like the jump, push, barrels it is an affront to your playing in TTRPG etc. But to regular, casual players, it is fun and engaging. They really have no idea what advantage/disadvantage is, or that this or that is not in the ruleset.

So I think BG3 has two things they want to accomplish, and I think some people need to consider this. YES, they have to base the game on 5e, and utilize the ruleset, but most importantly, they need to focus on the story of D&D, the mythology etc. Because that is what draws new people in. But at the same time, they have to put some "cheese" into it to attract the average player. That is something that I think this game does way better than PoE, Solasta or Pathfinder. Where the latter provides more accurate adherence to the ruleset, BG3 offers more attraction the the wider player base. I think WoTC is quite aware of this, and want this to happen.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.
What makes this kind of argument ridiculous every time it's used is the implied but completely unproven assumption that whatever they are doing should work better on that type of audience.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.
What makes this kind of argument ridiculous every time it's used is the implied but completely unproven assumption that whatever they are doing should work better on that type of audience.

Considering the sales of the game just for EA, I would say it is working just fine. Maybe get out of the habit of just focusing on posting snark and anger towards other players in all your posts, and you might be open to others opinions.
Tuco: Can you please start dialling down the edgelord setting in your posts. We all get that you don't like the game or the way it is heading. However, I'm sure that you can express this without coming across as some sort of snidey professional malcontent.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Considering the sales of the game just for EA, I would say it is working just fine. Maybe get out of the habit of just focusing on posting snark and anger towards other players in all your posts, and you might be open to others opinions.
I've asked many times that you report posts rather than get involved in arguments. By engaging with abrasive posts, you run a real risk of being part of the problem and dealt with accordingly.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.
What makes this kind of argument ridiculous every time it's used is the implied but completely unproven assumption that whatever they are doing should work better on that type of audience.

Considering the sales of the game just for EA, I would say it is working just fine. Maybe get out of the habit of just focusing on posting snark and anger towards other players in all your posts, and you might be open to others opinions.

How could the sales of the game be related to mechanics players didn't experienced at all about before buying it ?

The sales of the game comes from : Larian's new game + D&D new game + Baldur's Gate name. That's what the hype was about.

No one knew the deep mechanics of the game before playing it and whatever they had done, they would have sold the game the same.

They just said that it would be as close as the ruleset as possible, that's all what we knew before buying.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Actually I would say WoTC wants to introduce more people to the actual game of TTRPG etc, rather than the ruleset. So it makes total sense to all BG3 some room to make it more appealing to the casual base. That is more people that can be brought into the D&D playerbase overall, where they can than deal with whatever homebrew 5E ruleset some DM wants, if even that. A lot of DMs stay with 2e and 3e.
What makes this kind of argument ridiculous every time it's used is the implied but completely unproven assumption that whatever they are doing should work better on that type of audience.

Considering the sales of the game just for EA, I would say it is working just fine. Maybe get out of the habit of just focusing on posting snark and anger towards other players in all your posts, and you might be open to others opinions.

How could the sales of the game be related to mechanics players didn't experienced at all about before buying it ?

The sales of the game comes from : Larian's new game + D&D new game + Baldur's Gate name. That's what the hype was about.

No one knew the deep mechanics of the game before playing it and whatever they had done, they would have sold the game the same.

They just said that it would be as close as the ruleset as possible, that's all what we knew before buying.


Precisely! They did say, or at least imply, that it would be as close to the ruleset as possible, and now they are just silent. I just want them to COMMUNICATE more! Do they ever read these forums? Are they aware that quite many people want a ruleset that is closer to the original? Do they care? Do they intend to ever change their vision? We just don't know, and I would love to know. I still LOVE this game, I just hope that it will eventually be much closer to the pen and paper experience in many ways, but I also do like some of their home brewing. I just want to know how THEY think about these things, but we never get anything... radio silence.... frown

But I do *LOVE* Larian Studios, and I love this game, and I *HOPE* so damn hard that this game will be the best RPG ever. I still have hope.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Precisely! They did say, or at least imply, that it would be as close to the ruleset as possible, and now they are just silent. I just want them to COMMUNICATE more! Do they ever read these forums? Are they aware that quite many people want a ruleset that is closer to the original? Do they care? Do they intend to ever change their vision? We just don't know, and I would love to know. I still LOVE this game, I just hope that it will eventually be much closer to the pen and paper experience in many ways, but I also do like some of their home brewing. I just want to know how THEY think about these things, but we never get anything... radio silence.... frown

But I do *LOVE* Larian Studios, and I love this game, and I *HOPE* so damn hard that this game will be the best RPG ever. I still have hope.

I sincerely doubt we will ever have communication with the developers. The best we can hope for, and in my experience, is that there is someone who's job it is to review the forums and give a lowdown to the devs about specific complaints/requests. Pretty sure most studios do their best to insulate their developers from forums and has rules against them engaging with them. Especially, open forums. I think if these forums were just available to people that have verified purchases that might change, but I doubt it. But again, that is just my assumption of what is going on in Larian from my experience with previous developers and EA.

My thoughts (and these are just my thoughts) is considering they have done modifications to the existing mechanics, and have not removed any of them, they are probably going to maintain what they have done, while dialing it in. I doubt very much they are going to just scrap an existing full ruleset to redefine it at this point. Things like height advantage/disadvantage will stay about the same as it is with patch 4 (because I believe the made some changes to the previous version in patch 4). We still haven't seen anything past the starting area, so there is no way to presume to know what they are going to do with that. But if you expect Larian to come and just post every little thing they are planning on doing, I just don't see that happening. If they are going to address something, it will be when they fix/change it and will list it in patch notes.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
How could the sales of the game be related to mechanics players didn't experienced at all about before buying it ?

The sales of the game comes from : Larian's new game + D&D new game + Baldur's Gate name. That's what the hype was about.

No one knew the deep mechanics of the game before playing it and whatever they had done, they would have sold the game the same.

They just said that it would be as close as the ruleset as possible, that's all what we knew before buying.

I don't know about you, but I read the reviews before purchasing the game. I knew it was not a 1:1 5e ruleset ahead of time, that Larian had changed things up and I was perfectly fine with it. I am sure plenty of others are too. But the major draw of interest is name recognition (and that name recognition DOES NOT just mean people that played the previous version, there are a lot of people that have just heard good things about the game). Also, people that have gotten the DoS series and like Larians game style. This is also straying from my previous reply about what MAYBE the thoughts were with WoTC and Larian to bring in a broader base to entice into getting into the D&D gaming, and why that would justify offering a more "casual friendly" introduction to possible new people.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Tuco: Can you please start dialling down the edgelord setting in your posts. We all get that you don't like the game or the way it is heading. However, I'm sure that you can express this without coming across as some sort of snidey professional malcontent.
What are you even talking about?
Aside for the gratuitous namecalling as "edgelord" that you could have easily kept for yourself, nothing in my post was even remotely about my like or dislike of the game in general.
I was specifically addressing a recurring logical fallacy in many of Pandemonica's posts.

Originally Posted by Sadurian
I've asked many times that you report posts rather than get involved in arguments. By engaging with abrasive posts, you run a real risk of being part of the problem and dealt with accordingly.
How aren't they are "part of the problem" already?
Leaving alone the annoying recurring attempts at tone policing others and being constantly aggressively dismissive of any criticism, apparently he (she?) is under the impression that any sort of questionable design decision is some godsend to lure "the casuals" (you know, the "silent million") to the game in droves.
Except at no point this assumption was EVER corroborated by any evidence or even just anything resembling some robust logic.


Originally Posted by Pandemonica
I don't know about you, but I read the reviews before purchasing the game. I knew it was not a 1:1 5e ruleset ahead of time, that Larian had changed things up and I was perfectly fine with it. I am sure plenty of others are too.
I thought we were advocating for the best interests of the casual audience. You know, the one that DOES NOT read reviews.
Also, yeah, I'm sure a lot of people would be perfectly fine with pretty much anything. Even a spoonful of crap, if the name Larian was chiseled on the handle.
When someone is basically the ground zero of expectation you'd have to go out of your way to disappoint him. Which doesn't mean that catering to a complete lack of standards is the ideal path to take.
Indeed. We are here to post suggestions and make the game as good as possible, in accordance with what people desire. There does seem to be a large number of people who want things to be more true to actual DND rules, which Larian professed to care about.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
How could the sales of the game be related to mechanics players didn't experienced at all about before buying it ?

The sales of the game comes from : Larian's new game + D&D new game + Baldur's Gate name. That's what the hype was about.

No one knew the deep mechanics of the game before playing it and whatever they had done, they would have sold the game the same.

They just said that it would be as close as the ruleset as possible, that's all what we knew before buying.

I don't know about you, but I read the reviews before purchasing the game. I knew it was not a 1:1 5e ruleset ahead of time, that Larian had changed things up and I was perfectly fine with it.

I bought the game "minute 1" (day 1) because it's Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of all time so I want BG3 to be the best RPG of all time.

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1 but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I bought the game "minute 1" (day 1) because it's Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of all time so I want BG3 to be the best RPG of all time.

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1 but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.

Which in a way proves my point about name recognition. I am not a fan of some of the things that are happening. Personally, I think it is a joke a Druid in bear form can climb at ladder. Haven't seen any kangaroos yet, but I am hoping (sorry a little sarcasm), fast travel doesn't really bother me, though I do wish maybe there was a chance to get engaged in a random encounter like in DA:O when using it. As for the level of difficulty, honestly I don't find it that difficult at all, if anything I wish they made the combat more difficult, and no I do not use barrels at all before you say it.

My whole point being that Larian is going to maintain surfaces, maintain barrels (I mean it is in all their games afterall), I actually like the verticality, but you can counter it easy enough. I mean there is some things personally I would like changed, that I feel make the game better. But I don't expect them to communicate what they are, or are not considering. I just don't understand where this whole idea that a developer is required to communicate their every intention to me as a customer. I really don't know any game developer who devotes their time to communicating that information in public forums. Generally I get their answers in patch notes, or very rarely in perhaps a latest news post.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I bought the game "minute 1" (day 1) because it's Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of all time so I want BG3 to be the best RPG of all time.

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1 but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.

Which in a way proves my point about name recognition. I am not a fan of some of the things that are happening. Personally, I think it is a joke a Druid in bear form can climb at ladder. Haven't seen any kangaroos yet, but I am hoping (sorry a little sarcasm), fast travel doesn't really bother me, though I do wish maybe there was a chance to get engaged in a random encounter like in DA:O when using it. As for the level of difficulty, honestly I don't find it that difficult at all, if anything I wish they made the combat more difficult, and no I do not use barrels at all before you say it.

My whole point being that Larian is going to maintain surfaces, maintain barrels (I mean it is in all their games afterall), I actually like the verticality, but you can counter it easy enough. I mean there is some things personally I would like changed, that I feel make the game better. But I don't expect them to communicate what they are, or are not considering. I just don't understand where this whole idea that a developer is required to communicate their every intention to me as a customer. I really don't know any game developer who devotes their time to communicating that information in public forums. Generally I get their answers in patch notes, or very rarely in perhaps a latest news post.
idk, still dont really get what your points are or how they are really constructive to a thread in the 'suggestions & feedback' forum space, but i guess thanks for still posting with us into the ether fam wink 20 pages long and counting
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
[ redacted to shorten quote ]

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1
but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.
Well said ! Loved your colorful description of the combat oddities. :P Though I do not mind the surfaces (not to be confused with the fire barrels in our backpacks).
Same here. I adapted my expectations, took a break, in order to just enjoy it for what it is. And there is still nearly a year before release.

Nb : I am currently making characters for my first playthrough of Icewind Dale : Enhanced Edition and they really butchered some of the rules big time (eg. Wisdom does not help some Saving Throws), with a lot of homebrew too. I hear a lot of positive feedback still about this IWD video game adventure. // This does not mean I like Larian's changes to the combat rules and spells.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I bought the game "minute 1" (day 1) because it's Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of all time so I want BG3 to be the best RPG of all time.

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1 but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.

Which in a way proves my point about name recognition. I am not a fan of some of the things that are happening. Personally, I think it is a joke a Druid in bear form can climb at ladder. Haven't seen any kangaroos yet, but I am hoping (sorry a little sarcasm), fast travel doesn't really bother me, though I do wish maybe there was a chance to get engaged in a random encounter like in DA:O when using it. As for the level of difficulty, honestly I don't find it that difficult at all, if anything I wish they made the combat more difficult, and no I do not use barrels at all before you say it.

My whole point being that Larian is going to maintain surfaces, maintain barrels (I mean it is in all their games afterall), I actually like the verticality, but you can counter it easy enough. I mean there is some things personally I would like changed, that I feel make the game better. But I don't expect them to communicate what they are, or are not considering. I just don't understand where this whole idea that a developer is required to communicate their every intention to me as a customer. I really don't know any game developer who devotes their time to communicating that information in public forums. Generally I get their answers in patch notes, or very rarely in perhaps a latest news post.


They are not "required" to do anything, but I seriously hoped they would go above and beyond in all regards, including communication with the playtesters and fans. Do you not at least agree that communication would be preferable to radio silence? o_ô
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I bought the game "minute 1" (day 1) because it's Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of all time so I want BG3 to be the best RPG of all time.

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1 but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.

Which in a way proves my point about name recognition. I am not a fan of some of the things that are happening. Personally, I think it is a joke a Druid in bear form can climb at ladder. Haven't seen any kangaroos yet, but I am hoping (sorry a little sarcasm), fast travel doesn't really bother me, though I do wish maybe there was a chance to get engaged in a random encounter like in DA:O when using it. As for the level of difficulty, honestly I don't find it that difficult at all, if anything I wish they made the combat more difficult, and no I do not use barrels at all before you say it.

My whole point being that Larian is going to maintain surfaces, maintain barrels (I mean it is in all their games afterall), I actually like the verticality, but you can counter it easy enough. I mean there is some things personally I would like changed, that I feel make the game better. But I don't expect them to communicate what they are, or are not considering. I just don't understand where this whole idea that a developer is required to communicate their every intention to me as a customer. I really don't know any game developer who devotes their time to communicating that information in public forums. Generally I get their answers in patch notes, or very rarely in perhaps a latest news post.


They are not "required" to do anything, but I seriously hoped they would go above and beyond in all regards, including communication with the playtesters and fans. Do you not at least agree that communication would be preferable to radio silence? o_ô

I would, but I have also been in forums where the developers did not give the answers that some people wanted, and got death threats and doxxed. So I can understand their hesitation to possibly put their people through that. Also, this is not beta or alpha, it is early access so I see it as slightly different than playtesters. So I can patiently wait until I see if they changed some things in patch notes or latest news. I mean they addressed and modified the height modifiers which people were discussing, with no mention at all. So that at least shows they are getting informed of requests.
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I bought the game "minute 1" (day 1) because it's Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the best RPG of all time so I want BG3 to be the best RPG of all time.

I'm perfectly fine that the game is not a 1:1 but I was far from thinking that the game would be like this on many things.

From silly mechanics (i.e dipping in a candle, cows that climb ladders, kangaroos, eating pig head while fighting,...) to world design (no/useless worldmap, TP to fast travel, theme park feeling, such a resting system/camp), to combats (victory in verticality, tons of surfaces, no tactics at all), to itemization, to this random mmorpg style UI, to this ridiculous level of difficulty,...

Seriously, I would never have imagined this^^

But I'm still here playing the game after so many hours so it probably means that I'm fine with the game on many things and that I still hope it can suits more some of my expectations at release.

Which in a way proves my point about name recognition. I am not a fan of some of the things that are happening. Personally, I think it is a joke a Druid in bear form can climb at ladder. Haven't seen any kangaroos yet, but I am hoping (sorry a little sarcasm), fast travel doesn't really bother me, though I do wish maybe there was a chance to get engaged in a random encounter like in DA:O when using it. As for the level of difficulty, honestly I don't find it that difficult at all, if anything I wish they made the combat more difficult, and no I do not use barrels at all before you say it.

My whole point being that Larian is going to maintain surfaces, maintain barrels (I mean it is in all their games afterall), I actually like the verticality, but you can counter it easy enough. I mean there is some things personally I would like changed, that I feel make the game better. But I don't expect them to communicate what they are, or are not considering. I just don't understand where this whole idea that a developer is required to communicate their every intention to me as a customer. I really don't know any game developer who devotes their time to communicating that information in public forums. Generally I get their answers in patch notes, or very rarely in perhaps a latest news post.


They are not "required" to do anything, but I seriously hoped they would go above and beyond in all regards, including communication with the playtesters and fans. Do you not at least agree that communication would be preferable to radio silence? o_ô

I would, but I have also been in forums where the developers did not give the answers that some people wanted, and got death threats and doxxed. So I can understand their hesitation to possibly put their people through that. Also, this is not beta or alpha, it is early access so I see it as slightly different than playtesters. So I can patiently wait until I see if they changed some things in patch notes or latest news. I mean they addressed and modified the height modifiers which people were discussing, with no mention at all. So that at least shows they are getting informed of requests.


I can be patient too, I just have *hopes*. =)
I truly do hope they choose to communicate more, because I would love to know whether or not our input even matters to them. Like, is there even a point in suggesting some things, or are their minds entirely made up? Would love to know that.
Did they remove advantage rolls from high ground attacks? I still seem to get advantage - unless its now from somehing else?


Originally Posted by Pandemonica
....

I mean they addressed and modified the height modifiers which people were discussing, with no mention at all. So that at least shows they are getting informed of requests.
Originally Posted by booboo
Did they remove advantage rolls from high ground attacks? I still seem to get advantage - unless its now from somehing else?


Originally Posted by Pandemonica
....

I mean they addressed and modified the height modifiers which people were discussing, with no mention at all. So that at least shows they are getting informed of requests.

There was a discussion thread in regards to this after patch 4. They did not remove it, but from others tests they have adjusted it.
Ah ok - interesting! I'll dig it up - thanks!
Originally Posted by booboo
Ah ok - interesting! I'll dig it up - thanks!
It got merged into the feedback thread. Here is the starting post: undocumented combat change.
Was thinking about Larian's homebrew Shove and how this would interact with the Polearm Mastery feat. Couldn't you just use your bonus attack to shove an enemy outside reach and every time the enemy comes back within the reach of your weapon, you get a free opportunity of attack? With the Sentinel feat also stopping the enemy from closing distance to within their own weapons reach?

How wouldn't combat devolve to something kin to a pinball game unless Larian makes evermore homebrew to accommodate their cheese?
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Was thinking about Larian's homebrew Shove and how this would interact with the Polearm Mastery feat. Couldn't you just use your bonus attack to shove an enemy outside reach and every time the enemy comes back within the reach of your weapon, you get a free opportunity of attack? With the Sentinel feat also stopping the enemy from closing distance to within their own weapons reach?

How wouldn't combat devolve to something kin to a pinball game unless Larian makes evermore homebrew to accommodate their cheese?
Possibly an issue, but only if there were only one enemy and you could hit them reliably and they didn't have a ranged attack and their top priority was to get close to/move past your character (instead of another). It seems like a specific enough situation that a little cheese probably isn't a big deal.
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Possibly an issue, but only if there were only one enemy and you could hit them reliably and they didn't have a ranged attack and their top priority was to get close to/move past your character (instead of another). It seems like a specific enough situation that a little cheese probably isn't a big deal.

This isn't really all that specific and the cheese isn't really that little. Assuming your shove didn't cause a fall that outright killed the enemy (which is not acceptable cheese in of itself - especially since your halfling can push a 300 kilo ogre, or an 8 legged super giant spider, like a feather/Bambi on ice, but not the other way around), you would get an attack in exchange for a bonus action - unless the enemy change targets. Which it shouldn't as it would require omniscient meta-knowledge. And even so there would need to be an alternative melee target reachable in melee without triggering opportunity attacks in the process. Or the enemy would need a viable ranged alternative (forcing a melee monster to go with a clearly inferior ranged option pretty much wins any fight). Dueling the deadliest swordsman in all of Faerun? The player wins unless the swordsman also happens to be Robin Hood.

Larian would need a much more advanced AI capable of learning tactics to adapt to the player (or cheat with omniscience). And this is just one of likely hundreds of things negatively affected by the cheese.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Possibly an issue, but only if there were only one enemy and you could hit them reliably and they didn't have a ranged attack and their top priority was to get close to/move past your character (instead of another). It seems like a specific enough situation that a little cheese probably isn't a big deal.

This isn't really all that specific and the cheese isn't really that little. Assuming your shove didn't cause a fall that outright killed the enemy (which is not acceptable cheese in of itself - especially since your halfling can push a 300 kilo ogre, or an 8 legged super giant spider, like a feather/Bambi on ice, but not the other way around), you would get an attack in exchange for a bonus action - unless the enemy change targets. Which it shouldn't as it would require omniscient meta-knowledge. And even so there would need to be an alternative melee target reachable in melee without triggering opportunity attacks in the process. Or the enemy would need a viable ranged alternative (forcing a melee monster to go with a clearly inferior ranged option pretty much wins any fight). Dueling the deadliest swordsman in all of Faerun? The player wins unless the swordsman also happens to be Robin Hood.

Larian would need a much more advanced AI capable of learning tactics to adapt to the player (or cheat with omniscience). And this is just one of likely hundreds of things negatively affected by the cheese.
Various thoughts:
1) I would love it if shove were changed. It should be a full action. I'm not sure (in the video game) how success/failure works under the hood or how far you can push someone. I don't use it often. It seems like you can probably push farther than you should be able to.
2) Depending on the enemy, if they have decent wisdom and spend any time watching you, they should be able to change their strategy. An enemy doing the same dumb thing over and over and expecting a different result is usually a poorly designed enemy.
3) Most fights in this game involve multiple enemies. You might be able to keep one away from you, but you only get one bonus action and you only get one reaction, so you're not going to stop their friends from swarming you.
4) In order to get those feats, you're sacrificing ASIs - you don't just get to take them for free. So two feats that, when combined, feel a little cheesy in a very specific combat situation vs an increase of up to four in ability modifiers, which tend to have more general utility. Doesn't seem like a big deal. I'd rather take the ASIs.
5) If you dual wield, you can already get an attack in exchange for a bonus action, without all the complexity. It's a little weaker, but it's not nothing.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Was thinking about Larian's homebrew Shove and how this would interact with the Polearm Mastery feat. Couldn't you just use your bonus attack to shove an enemy outside reach and every time the enemy comes back within the reach of your weapon, you get a free opportunity of attack? With the Sentinel feat also stopping the enemy from closing distance to within their own weapons reach?

How wouldn't combat devolve to something kin to a pinball game unless Larian makes evermore homebrew to accommodate their cheese?
It is possible in PnP too. Only difference is in PnP you replace one of your "blade" (assuming you are using a glaive) attack with shove. Here you replace your blunt side attack. Damage difference no mor then 6 (cause blade is d10 and blunt side is d4).
Another thing that worries me is how some of the new spells and abilities, for instance, are implemented. The land druid has access to forms it shouldn't have access to, the bear form is quite nerfed for the moon druid, and you cannot activate spells you previously cast, like Moonbeam, while wildshaped. And the Flaming Sphere spell is really weird in how that works contra how it works in PNP. o_o
Originally Posted by Dastan McKay
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Was thinking about Larian's homebrew Shove and how this would interact with the Polearm Mastery feat. Couldn't you just use your bonus attack to shove an enemy outside reach and every time the enemy comes back within the reach of your weapon, you get a free opportunity of attack? With the Sentinel feat also stopping the enemy from closing distance to within their own weapons reach?

How wouldn't combat devolve to something kin to a pinball game unless Larian makes evermore homebrew to accommodate their cheese?
It is possible in PnP too. Only difference is in PnP you replace one of your "blade" (assuming you are using a glaive) attack with shove. Here you replace your blunt side attack. Damage difference no mor then 6 (cause blade is d10 and blunt side is d4).

That is simply not true. When you shove, you can't attack with the blunt side of a glaive or polearm.
Here is the description of the feat "Polearm Master":
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by Dastan McKay
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Was thinking about Larian's homebrew Shove and how this would interact with the Polearm Mastery feat. Couldn't you just use your bonus attack to shove an enemy outside reach and every time the enemy comes back within the reach of your weapon, you get a free opportunity of attack? With the Sentinel feat also stopping the enemy from closing distance to within their own weapons reach?

How wouldn't combat devolve to something kin to a pinball game unless Larian makes evermore homebrew to accommodate their cheese?
It is possible in PnP too. Only difference is in PnP you replace one of your "blade" (assuming you are using a glaive) attack with shove. Here you replace your blunt side attack. Damage difference no mor then 6 (cause blade is d10 and blunt side is d4).

That is simply not true. When you shove, you can't attack with the blunt side of a glaive or polearm.
Here is the description of the feat "Polearm Master":
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
Shove is a "Special melee attack" so wouldn't it fall under the rules of Polearm Master??
Originally Posted by SRD
Shove: Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
This is one of those that RAW isn't super clear because Shove is only defined as a "special melee attack", so you can say you push someone with the "stick" of your polearm (like a hockey cross-check), and that should technically qualify.

However, by RAI / Sage Advice, it shouldn't work.

Jeremy Crawford ruled that shoving isn't a melee weapon attack.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/11/are-grapple-and-shove-melee-weapon-attacks/

The Polearm Master bonus action attack triggers on "attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear" - those weapon key words implying that the bonus action is allowed when a subset of melee weapon attacks is used.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
This is one of those that RAW isn't super clear because Shove is only defined as a "special melee attack", so you can say you push someone with the "stick" of your polearm (like a hockey cross-check), and that should technically qualify.

However, by RAI / Sage Advice, it shouldn't work.

Jeremy Crawford ruled that shoving isn't a melee weapon attack.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/11/are-grapple-and-shove-melee-weapon-attacks/

The Polearm Master bonus action attack triggers on "attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear" - those weapon key words implying that the bonus action is allowed when a subset of melee weapon attacks is used.
Eh, I'd still allow it in my games. Even if we listen to Jeremy Crawford that shoving isn't a "melee weapon attack", Polearm Master doesn't use that exact phrasing.
Also Shove (in 5e raw) is pretty weak, so I'm against things that nerf it further.

In BG3, this is kind of irrelevant since shove is a bonus action. With polearm master and sentinel, you could totally do this strategy of shove and then prevent the enemy from reaching you. As people above have said, you're sacrificing ASIs for feats.
However, in BG3 disengage is also a bonus action. So you could just disengage instead of shoving the enemy away, which is guaranteed to succeed.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Eh, I'd still allow it in my games.

Totally fair. Like I said, the RAW is pretty ambiguous.


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Even if we listen to Jeremy Crawford that shoving isn't a "melee weapon attack", Polearm Master doesn't use that exact phrasing.

Hmm, I'd reckon you'd have an easier time arguing that shove can be defined as a melee weapon attack (since it's never clearly stated it is not), as opposed to saying something that is not a melee weapon attack (shove) can qualify for a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear attack - all of which are melee weapons.


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Also Shove (in 5e raw) is pretty weak, so I'm against things that nerf it further.

I'd say Shove is still pretty useful in 5e RAW.

It's a much more debilitating debuff in 5e because unlike BG3, you can shove someone prone as opposed to away. This means they can't get up until their turn (that can be an entire initiative order), and your party can dog pile the advantage attacks. It also scales well for martials because they gain extra attack and can shove and attack in the same turn.

It's one of the easiest and cheaper ways for to gain advantage in 5e RAW, a system where advantage is more rare/expensive compared to BG3.


Shove in BG3 is deadly more so because of cliffs than the attack itself. I wouldn't argue it's not more powerful, but it's also a different kind of powerful which is much more terrain dependent.


Originally Posted by mrfuji3
In BG3, this is kind of irrelevant since shove is a bonus action. With polearm master and sentinel, you could totally do this strategy of shove and then prevent the enemy from reaching you. As people above have said, you're sacrificing ASIs for feats.
However, in BG3 disengage is also a bonus action. So you could just disengage instead of shoving the enemy away, which is guaranteed to succeed.

If we're strictly talking about BG3, can't the enemy just bonus action jump in (from outside of the polearm reach) and attack?

They should eat an opportunity attack from Polearm Master + Sentinel (which should counter Jumps OA immunity), but I doubt Sentinel would literally stop someone dead mid-air.

STR attackers will always have great jump distance (since it scales on STR). DEX Attacks are a little worst off, but if they use DEX they can always just switch to range.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Also Shove (in 5e raw) is pretty weak, so I'm against things that nerf it further.

I'd say Shove is still pretty useful in 5e RAW.

It's a much more debilitating debuff in 5e because unlike BG3, you can shove someone prone as opposed to away. This means they can't get up until their turn (that can be an entire initiative order), and your party can dog pile the advantage attacks. It also scales well for martials because they gain extra attack and can shove and attack in the same turn. ... [snip]
Shoving Prone is very powerful in an optimal situation but there's some significant qualifiers
1.) It gives ranged attacks disadvantage. Most parties are ~25-50% ranged, plus the fact that you (the person who knocked the enemy prone) dont get a full turn with the enemy prone. Thus, the remaining members of the party are probably more like ~33-75% ranged characters.
2.) It requires good initiative order, where all/most of your allies go before the enemy. Often only 1, or maybe 2, allies will go before the enemy's turn.

Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
In BG3, this is kind of irrelevant since shove is a bonus action. With polearm master and sentinel, you could totally do this strategy of shove and then prevent the enemy from reaching you. As people above have said, you're sacrificing ASIs for feats.
However, in BG3 disengage is also a bonus action. So you could just disengage instead of shoving the enemy away, which is guaranteed to succeed.

If we're strictly talking about BG3, can't the enemy just bonus action jump in (from outside of the polearm reach) and attack?

They should eat an opportunity attack from Polearm Master + Sentinel (which should counter Jumps OA immunity), but I doubt Sentinel would literally stop someone dead mid-air.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but enemies don't have the Jump+Disengage ability in BG3. I've only seen goblins disengage, and that's a special ability of goblins.
Edit: The minotaur/bulette have this, but again this is a special creature ability, not a generic one
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Shoving Prone is very powerful in an optimal situation but there's some significant qualifiers
1.) It gives ranged attacks disadvantage. Most parties are ~25-50% ranged, plus the fact that you (the person who knocked the enemy prone) dont get a full turn with the enemy prone. Thus, the remaining members of the party are probably more like ~33-75% ranged characters.

100% I agree it's situational depending on your build and party composition and not a definite a go-to strategy in every party.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
2.) It requires good initiative order, where all/most of your allies go before the enemy. Often only 1, or maybe 2, allies will go before the enemy's turn.

I get what you're saying. You don't necessarily need to win initiative and go first - rather, you need to have the cycle work out so that between your turn and your targets turn, you have allies in between to go. There's definitely still RNG in there for sure. It's not as bad as it sounds if it's done with coordination between the melee characters - i.e. you should only shove when you know your teammate is going to get a turn.

For example, look at the following initiative orders (PC = player character, underline = "shover"):

PC1, Enemy, PC2 (PC2 shoves, so initiative will cycle around and PC1 gets to go before Enemy can get up)

Enemy, PC1, PC2 (PC1 shoves, enemy doesn't get to stand up before PC2's turn)

PC1, PC2, Enemy (PC1 shoves, enemy doesn't get to stand up before PC2's turn)



Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Correct me if I'm wrong, but enemies don't have the Jump+Disengage ability in BG3. I've only seen goblins disengage, and that's a special ability of goblins.

I haven't really noticed/kept track on my end either.

The only times I remember jumps used extensively outside of the Goblin Racial disengage is the Minotaur and Owlbear. I don't remember for the human fights (because they are so rare unless you go evil).
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I get what you're saying. You don't necessarily need to win initiative and go first - rather, you need to have the cycle work out so that between your turn and your targets turn, you have allies in between to go. There's definitely still RNG in there for sure. It's not as bad as it sounds if it's done with coordination between the melee characters - i.e. you should only shove when you know your teammate is going to get a turn.

For example, look at the following initiative orders (PC = player character, underline = "shover"):

PC1, Enemy, PC2 (PC2 shoves, so initiative will cycle around and PC1 gets to go before Enemy can get up)

Enemy, PC1, PC2 (PC1 shoves, enemy doesn't get to stand up before PC2's turn)

PC1, PC2, Enemy (PC1 shoves, enemy doesn't get to stand up before PC2's turn)
True, only the cycle matters, not winning initiative. All those initiative orders are good situations to shove (assuming at least 1 PC has extra attack). However, if you add a ranged PC3 that goes after PC2, then shove becomes neutral or suboptimal in all of those situations.
Of course, if that PC3 can target a different enemy or can use AoE/Save Spells, then shoving is back to being a good idea. Which circles us back to "Prone is situationally very good."

I guess I just want Shove to be a bit more useful in all situations. It'd probably be too powerful if standing up provoked AoOs...maybe Prone could grant disadvantage on Dex STs? Then it would synergize well with both casters and melee characters.

Originally Posted by Topgoon
The only times I remember jumps used extensively outside of the Goblin Racial disengage is the Minotaur and Owlbear. I don't remember for the human fights (because they are so rare unless you go evil).
Ah right, I also forgot about the Owlbear.
We don't fight many humans, true, but I don't remember either the dwarves or myconids jumping at any point.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Of course, if that PC3 can target a different enemy or can use AoE/Save Spells, then shoving is back to being a good idea. Which circles us back to "Prone is situationally very good."

In the case of facing a single enemy, don't forget about readied action either (I'll fire X when he is no longer prone).

If the Ranged attack is a caster, they don't lose their extra damage at level 5+ since it's a spell. Rogues will keep their sneak attack too (as long as the prone target is engaged when he gets up)

It's not as great as someone who has the Extra Attack function, since they will lose their extra attacks. However, if you have Extra Attack (so likely a Ranger or Fighter), you can just draw your melee weapon and join the pile on if you're in range.

If for some crazy reason the Fighter or Ranger must use their bow, they can still shoot from 5 ft out for a neutral roll - advantage (prone) cancels out the disadvantage (threatened). Recall - Prone gives advantage to any attack from 5 ft, not just melee weapons. It's a terrible choice if it doesn't finish the prone enemy though. However, if they have the Crossbow Expert or Gunner feat, doing that will actually gain them advantage, and tons of style laugh

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I guess I just want Shove to be a bit more useful in all situations. It'd probably be too powerful if standing up provoked AoOs...maybe Prone could grant disadvantage on Dex STs? Then it would synergize well with both casters and melee characters.

I think it has to be situationally good, otherwise you'd always use it - kind of like the issue many people have with the backstab system in BG3. If backstabbing is always the way to go and is available to everybody, then you're just adding an extra step/clutter into the combat equation.

Example - I posted this vid in the Gith Patrol thread for an unrelated reason, but this timestamp shows the unnecessary struggles I had dealing with the UI caused by the need to backstab as the optimal strategy.
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In the case of facing a single enemy, don't forget about readied action either (I'll fire X when he is no longer prone).

If the Ranged attack is a caster, they don't lose their extra damage at level 5+ since it's a spell. Rogues will keep their sneak attack too (as long as the prone target is engaged when he gets up)
Aha, while the caster is concentrating on their readied spell, another enemy bursts from the bushes and attacks the caster, hopefully making them lose concentration and waste the spell slot!
More seriously, the caster probably already had a spell they were concentrating on, as that's basically how all casters are played in 5e. 1st turn: cast concentration spell. 2nd-nth turn, cry about not being able to cast all your other cool concentration spells. :P

Originally Posted by Topgoon
I think it has to be situationally good, otherwise you'd always use it - kind of like the issue many people have with the backstab system in BG3. If backstabbing is always the way to go and is available to everybody, then you're just adding an extra step/clutter into the combat equation.
Yeah probably. Although this case is a bit different since you're giving up an attack in order to attempt to shove, whereas backstab is free and guaranteed. Every melee class in BG3 should always backstab, whereas only some melee classes in 5e should sometimes shove (and even then, you still might fail). I think shove would still be situational even if prone also gave disadvantage on Dex STs, but hey maybe not. I'm certainly not a game designer.

Originally Posted by Topgoon
Example - I posted this vid in the Gith Patrol thread for an unrelated reason, but thistimestamp shows the unnecessary struggles I had dealing with the UI because backstabbing is the universal best melee strategy.
Gotta love that pathfinding, unable to find a safe path around an enemy. But you can do it manually using 5ft baby steps. :\
I hope they make it possible to shove enemies prone, rather than just pushing them away.
Really, the more they deviate from the core rules, the more they need to adjust and alter things because of all the consequences of their homebrewing choices. They really ought to FIRST try and make things very true to the rules and get that working before they alter things, since there are numerous things they couldn't foresee and now they have to change because of their modifications. All the new classes and everything that they are yet to implement will likely be quite different from the core rules. smirk
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Really, the more they deviate from the core rules, the more they need to adjust and alter things because of all the consequences of their homebrewing choices. They really ought to FIRST try and make things very true to the rules and get that working before they alter things, since there are numerous things they couldn't foresee and now they have to change because of their modifications. All the new classes and everything that they are yet to implement will likely be quite different from the core rules. smirk

I couldn’t agree more. And as EA testers it’s impossible to judge whether their “improvements” are necessary or not because we don’t get to try it any other way.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Really, the more they deviate from the core rules, the more they need to adjust and alter things because of all the consequences of their homebrewing choices. They really ought to FIRST try and make things very true to the rules and get that working before they alter things, since there are numerous things they couldn't foresee and now they have to change because of their modifications. All the new classes and everything that they are yet to implement will likely be quite different from the core rules. smirk
So true.
I never played any of the DOS games so I don’t know how EA went with those games. Was there serious balance issues in DOS at roughly the same development cycle as BG3? Were they ever fixed?

Because BG3 seems to have a lot of balance issues and it’s only going to get worse as they add more classes and as levels increase.
After more than 5 months of silence from Larian and hundreds of post on those topics from countless D&D fans, I have completely lost faith in Larian about D&D5.
My young daughter is still fond of the game.
For my part I have left related forums, and I do not play the game anymore.
I just do not care at all anymore.
When the next patch will come, maybe I will have a look at D&D5 rules content, just with a tiny hope.
Today, it will be ToEE with Temple+
Originally Posted by Lunar Dante
After more than 5 months of silence from Larian and hundreds of post on those topics from countless D&D fans, I have completely lost faith in Larian about D&D5.
My young daughter is still fond of the game.
For my part I have left related forums, and I do not play the game anymore.
I just do not care at all anymore.
When the next patch will come, maybe I will have a look at D&D5 rules content, just with a tiny hope.
Today, it will be ToEE with Temple+


I agree that the lack of communication is disappointing. Would be lovely to know if they could even theoretically consider implementing rules that are truer to core, whether it is innate or as an option. I wonder how hard it would be to make optional DND ruleset content?
I'm surprised that this isn't a Mega-thread yet. 22 pages and not a Mega-thread.

Sleep (the status) in patch 4 works more as intended from 5e RAW and it's made sleep more enjoyable to use. I would be very happy if Patch 5 was focused on better rule/status/spell implementation.
Agreed. It's time for it to become a megathread.
This definitely should be a megathread, especially since it is one of the main conversations of this site in which many other topics relate to.
How does it become a mega thread? Do I need to do something? I am the OP.
I think it's simply up to the mods.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I never played any of the DOS games so I don’t know how EA went with those games. Was there serious balance issues in DOS at roughly the same development cycle as BG3? Were they ever fixed?

I played DOS 1 and 2 including EA. Small bugs were fixed, but I don't recall any massive changes based on players who disagreed with certain aspects of the design. Larian tends to stick to their major design decisions. Either that, or by the time players are able to give feedback in EA, it's too late for the changes players would like to see.

For example, DOS1 had an issue where melee-based characters in your party were not as effective compared to magic users. If you didn't choose a party with a heavy tilt towards magic you'd have a very difficult time. There were also complaints about the more "goofy" aspects of the story line with attempts at humor. They didn't change any of that in DOS1 but they did tone that down a bit in DOS2.

In DOS2 there was a brand new armor system that some players absolutely hated (I didn't love it myself, but never felt that strongly about it). They never changed that, as far as I know.

The overall impression I have from those games and how they're handling this one, is that they're very interested in fixing bugs, and they may slightly tone down something here and there where the fix is easy, like eliminating a few of the surface effects resulting from spellcasting. But they probably won't change any fundamental aspects of the design like the party size, the camp rest mechanic, or the use of homebrew departures from 5e rules. Either because it's what they want, or it's already been baked into the cake and it's too late to change.
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
The overall impression I have from those games and how they're handling this one, is that they're very interested in fixing bugs, and they may slightly tone down something here and there where the fix is easy, like eliminating a few of the surface effects resulting from spellcasting. But they probably won't change any fundamental aspects of the design like the party size, the camp rest mechanic, or the use of homebrew departures from 5e rules. Either because it's what they want, or it's already been baked into the cake and it's too late to change.

Yeah I agree. I think for the most part, the base mechanics of this game are baked in and final, maybe some tweaking here and there but I don't see them changing anything major like Party size, or any other major game designs. I think at this stage, they are just interested in crash reports and some issues with Stadia and other items like that. But that is just my opinion on the matter, so who knows what Larian is thinking. They saw that height advantage was needing a tweak and so they tweaked it.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I think it's simply up to the mods.


Perhaps they don't want this to become a mega thread simply because it's inconvenient, as it asks something from them they don't like? I don't know.

It's like some have said recently; they didn't change too much in EA with their previous games and are perhaps unlikely to change much in this, but ..... I would appreciate it if they at least communicated that! Just something like "we know lots of you want us to be more faithful with the core rules, but we refuse to make changes like that" or something. At least then we'd know.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I think it's simply up to the mods.


Perhaps they don't want this to become a mega thread simply because it's inconvenient, as it asks something from them they don't like? I don't know.

It's like some have said recently; they didn't change too much in EA with their previous games and are perhaps unlikely to change much in this, but ..... I would appreciate it if they at least communicated that! Just something like "we know lots of you want us to be more faithful with the core rules, but we refuse to make changes like that" or something. At least then we'd know.

Their Early Access statement on Steam - ''We use automatic data collection tools to help us better balance the game but we also listen to forum feedback and use that to drive internal debate.''
Doubt they'll ever make their opinions known on this forum or through patch notes, hold your breath for another Reddit AMA so we can go full force and get conclusive answers to all of our questions.
Originally Posted by S2PHANE
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I think it's simply up to the mods.


Perhaps they don't want this to become a mega thread simply because it's inconvenient, as it asks something from them they don't like? I don't know.

It's like some have said recently; they didn't change too much in EA with their previous games and are perhaps unlikely to change much in this, but ..... I would appreciate it if they at least communicated that! Just something like "we know lots of you want us to be more faithful with the core rules, but we refuse to make changes like that" or something. At least then we'd know.

Their Early Access statement on Steam - ''We use automatic data collection tools to help us better balance the game but we also listen to forum feedback and use that to drive internal debate.''
Doubt they'll ever make their opinions known on this forum or through patch notes, hold your breath for another Reddit AMA so we can go full force and get conclusive answers to all of our questions.


Ahh yeah, good call. I do hope they really listen to forum feedback though! I mean, I think they do to an extent at least. They have made some nice changes, and I do truly think the game is way better now than EA release.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I'm surprised that this isn't a Mega-thread yet. 22 pages and not a Mega-thread.
Generally, megathreads result from many merged threads on the same topic and so become a more general topic discussion than the original. However, this topic is certainly worthy of that status, albeit with a change of title to encourage that more open discussion.
Sorry to say but this title doesn't looks good at all.

This thread is not a question.
This thread ask for a better implementation.

Should BG3 adhere more to DD5 rules ?
It should be better if you really want to tone down the purpose of this thread (not sure about the chosen words but you get the idea).
I agree with Maximuuus. The question is not how strictly is does adhere to the rules but rather how much it should.
Has anyone actually made a list of all the changes made from 5e to larian edition?

IMO they took the bare minimum of what they could from 5e and slapped on whatever they wanted. I remember Sven complaining in the newest youtube vid that spell levels was not the same as character levels and was told that would never change. This is the red flag that Larian would or has changed everything they could or wanted to. From Health, armor, combat mechanics, races, classes, ect.
More feats like::
Ambidextrous: +1 DEX, allows for dual-wielding with non-light 1 handed weapons
Discretion of Coedymwarth: +1 DEX, grants proficiency with Light Armor, Shortsword, Shortbow and Longbow
Eager for Battle: +1 DEX, grants advantage on initiative rolls
Follow Up Strike: When attacking with a two-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to deal an additional 1d4 + STR bonus damage of the same type
Hauler: +1 STR, now doubles your carrying capacity (rather than increasing it by a flat 40 lbs)
Might of the Iron Legion: Now requires proficiency with Medium Armor
Powerful Cantrip: Now works with every cantrip that deals damage, not only ones with saving throws
Raise Shield: When you are about to get hit by a ranged attack while wielding a shield, you can use your reaction to gain +3 AC until the end of the attacker's turn
Rush to Battle: You can use your bonus action to increase your movement speed by 15', but you suffer -2 AC until the start of your next turn
Sturdiness of the Tundra: +1 CON, grants proficiency with Medium Armor, Warhammer, Light Crossbow and Heavy Crossbow
Take Aim: You can use your bonus action to negate all advantages and disadvantages on your ranged weapon attacks until the end of your turn
Twin Blade: When you are about to get hit by a melee attack while dual-wielding (2 weapons), you can use your reaction to gain +3 AC until the end of the attacker's turn
Uncanny Accuracy: Now works with all ranged attacks (including spells).
Oh wait, wrong games...
So you're saying you want Larian to homebrew more?
I am glad it's now a mega thread (feel slightly honoured!), but I agree that the title really could benefit from adding a "should", or pose a similar question. While there is merit in discussing just how much the game adheres to the rules, it's also good to know whether or not people want the game to be closer to the core rules or not.
Sadurian, could we have a pin or something on this thread ?
It tooks me 20 minutes to find it (it was a request from a player in another thread that I haven't found yet)

If not, I'll save it in firefox.
Titles for open discourse are usually a good thing.

Originally Posted by fallenj
Has anyone actually made a list of all the changes made from 5e to larian edition?

Baldur's Gate 3 and PHB
Niara's Spell Thread

Linking this here for ease of reading.
no word about exhaustion, reactions etc?
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Sadurian, could we have a pin or something on this thread ?
Given that it overlaps so much with the new Megathread discussing how closely BG3 follows D&D5e, I will merge the two. It will look a bit odd to begin with because this thread is older than that one.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Titles for open discourse are usually a good thing.

Originally Posted by fallenj
Has anyone actually made a list of all the changes made from 5e to larian edition?

Baldur's Gate 3 and PHB
Niara's Spell Thread

Linking this here for ease of reading.

Thanks DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Sadurian, could we have a pin or something on this thread ?
Given that it overlaps so much with the new Megathread discussing how closely BG3 follows D&D5e, I will merge the two. It will look a bit odd to begin with because this thread is older than that one.

OK cool thanks! =)
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I couldn’t agree more. And as EA testers it’s impossible to judge whether their “improvements” are necessary or not because we don’t get to try it any other way.

You can just play Solasta and have a perfectly working combat system that is (at least for me) about 10 times more fun than BG.

So yeah, for me, all that tweaking and half baked homebrew messing with the rules is completely unneccessary.

D&D 5e was developed with a lot of playtesting and an amazing humility from the game designers who listened to the community.
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I couldn’t agree more. And as EA testers it’s impossible to judge whether their “improvements” are necessary or not because we don’t get to try it any other way.

You can just play Solasta and have a perfectly working combat system that is (at least for me) about 10 times more fun than BG.

So yeah, for me, all that tweaking and half baked homebrew messing with the rules is completely unneccessary.

D&D 5e was developed with a lot of playtesting and an amazing humility from the game designers who listened to the community.


Larian clearly wanted to do "their thing", which is essentially DOS 2. I get it, they have their flair and their style. But the thing is; if they would have just started by implementing things well and true to the core rules, it would have been easier to start tweaking from that position. Actually, many of their stuff could have been made to fit far better even following the 5e rules, to be honest. Now it just feels like they're aimlessly changing things and it's spiralled out of their control. Too much homebrewing and changing a few things here and there until everything kind of ... is a mess.
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Originally Posted by Thomson
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
I couldn’t agree more. And as EA testers it’s impossible to judge whether their “improvements” are necessary or not because we don’t get to try it any other way.

You can just play Solasta and have a perfectly working combat system that is (at least for me) about 10 times more fun than BG.

So yeah, for me, all that tweaking and half baked homebrew messing with the rules is completely unneccessary.

D&D 5e was developed with a lot of playtesting and an amazing humility from the game designers who listened to the community.


Larian clearly wanted to do "their thing", which is essentially DOS 2. I get it, they have their flair and their style. But the thing is; if they would have just started by implementing things well and true to the core rules, it would have been easier to start tweaking from that position. Actually, many of their stuff could have been made to fit far better even following the 5e rules, to be honest. Now it just feels like they're aimlessly changing things and it's spiralled out of their control. Too much homebrewing and changing a few things here and there until everything kind of ... is a mess.
What surprises me is creative items like oil flasks are native to D&D. There's room for sandbox ideas and creativity, native to the core rule set.

The current homebrew stifles creativity, I don't enjoy the encounter against Minthara at the gate at all. Zevlor literally says they didn't have any better ideas than to bury barrels to ignite. (Instead of doing anything to protect the exposed hill on the horn side of the gate). There are barrels around for the player to toss to keep the fire going. The player is railroaded into a barrel fight. Rather than let the player be creative, the tieflings figured it out for the player. We could have a cool quest to plan how to protect the gate.

The Ogre tosses goblins in barrels and the goblins are protected from collision damage. The Ogre toss should work like the spell catapult, those goblins should be taking 3d8 bludgeoning damage.

The way I've enjoyed this fight is to summon the Ogres from the Blighted Village. They will take out goblins and tieflings, no barrels required. It's just sad that it makes it harder to protect the tieflings.
What I would like to see is a list, by Larian, containing all the changes they made to the official rules and why they had decided is better in that way. This will make many players happy.
Yeah would be nice.
Originally Posted by Gustavo R
What I would like to see is a list, by Larian, containing all the changes they made to the official rules and why they had decided is better in that way. This will make many players happy.

YES, atleast make it a true talking point between players and Larian. Post their changes in an itemized or numbered list on various locations like steam and here, or even group them by type, like "No. 7: Changes to Summoning * Find Familiar blah blah blah" and then ask us what we feel about each change and WHY we feel that way. Try and get as many people as possible in on that discussion for varied views and so that a vocal minority doesn't absolutely dominate. Some of their changes have been positive and some negative, and looking at all of them in a directed discussion could not hurt at all.
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by Gustavo R
What I would like to see is a list, by Larian, containing all the changes they made to the official rules and why they had decided is better in that way. This will make many players happy.

YES, atleast make it a true talking point between players and Larian. Post their changes in an itemized or numbered list on various locations like steam and here, or even group them by type, like "No. 7: Changes to Summoning * Find Familiar blah blah blah" and then ask us what we feel about each change and WHY we feel that way. Try and get as many people as possible in on that discussion for varied views and so that a vocal minority doesn't absolutely dominate. Some of their changes have been positive and some negative, and looking at all of them in a directed discussion could not hurt at all.


Exactly!!!! <3
LOL, like Larian would talk to its community about critics.....

After almost half a year of silence, ignorance and lots of collecting data like „how often people pet the dog“ asking for such things is like asking Microsoft if they would please change their windows logo for some sort of fruit 🍎.
Oh come on, the data gathering they are doing is very important and significant, and I am also sure they listen a great deal more than we give them credit for. I do believe they aren't really the best at communicating on the points raised on these forums, but I still VERY much have faith in them. They are one of my absolute favourite game companies, maybe even my number one favourite, and they are currently undertaking the game that I would consider the most profound game of my life so far, so I remain very hopeful! =)
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Oh come on, the data gathering they are doing is very important and significant, and I am also sure they listen a great deal more than we give them credit for. I do believe they aren't really the best at communicating on the points raised on these forums, but I still VERY much have faith in them. They are one of my absolute favourite game companies, maybe even my number one favourite, and they are currently undertaking the game that I would consider the most profound game of my life so far, so I remain very hopeful! =)

Data gathering without context is useless. When they see everyone abusing broken stealth, backstab, jump/disengage, etc instead of using actual 5e spells and skills they could easily assume that because people are using the tactics, that those are what people find to be compelling and fun about the game, when rather, the game itself railroads you into using those tactics unless you want to spend your playtime savescumming.
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Oh come on, the data gathering they are doing is very important and significant, and I am also sure they listen a great deal more than we give them credit for. I do believe they aren't really the best at communicating on the points raised on these forums, but I still VERY much have faith in them. They are one of my absolute favourite game companies, maybe even my number one favourite, and they are currently undertaking the game that I would consider the most profound game of my life so far, so I remain very hopeful! =)

Data gathering without context is useless. When they see everyone abusing broken stealth, backstab, jump/disengage, etc instead of using actual 5e spells and skills they could easily assume that because people are using the tactics, that those are what people find to be compelling and fun about the game, when rather, the game itself railroads you into using those tactics unless you want to spend your playtime savescumming.

Of course! That is why I hope they also scour the forums and such to get opinions!
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Oh come on, the data gathering they are doing is very important and significant, and I am also sure they listen a great deal more than we give them credit for. I do believe they aren't really the best at communicating on the points raised on these forums, but I still VERY much have faith in them. They are one of my absolute favourite game companies, maybe even my number one favourite, and they are currently undertaking the game that I would consider the most profound game of my life so far, so I remain very hopeful! =)

Data gathering without context is useless. When they see everyone abusing broken stealth, backstab, jump/disengage, etc instead of using actual 5e spells and skills they could easily assume that because people are using the tactics, that those are what people find to be compelling and fun about the game, when rather, the game itself railroads you into using those tactics unless you want to spend your playtime savescumming.

I agree 100% - I have made this point on other fora and here. It hope that they understand this, but time will tell.
I think them gathering data is good, but direct conversation can and would be an improvement for getting quality feedback.

If you see that people keep killing an NPC and then looting him, you may assume many things from that.
a) That NPC is easy to hate and people dislike him.
b) That NPC might have good rewards.
c) Maybe the NPC went aggro.
d) Something Else Entirely

However, without asking, a developer won't actually know for certain. Maybe they will be able to rule out C by looking at the data BUT how will they know if people like the NPC or not, or if people are killing them for the rewards, or doing it out of RP, or just murderhoboing. However, by asking they could get a far better picture. Maybe the NPC is being killed because people enjoy fighting them. Or something else in the game indicated that this may be an NPC to kill. Or they just plain need rewrites. Maybe they are actually popular as an NPC but people are killing them anyways.

Data needs context, and asking us is the best way to get context.
This is Larian's own forum and we are willing to talk, they just need to ask.
What we need in the game, to please the audience that expects something true D&D and something more Larian System, is a settings' tab where you can choose something True D&D. For example:

- Sneak attack: everyone can do (Larian) / only rogues or character with the right feat (D&D)
- Rogue’s sneak attack: Click to select (Larian) / Automatic when the attack
- Sneak attack’s weapon: Any weapon (Larian) / Light weapons only
- Jumping cost: Bonus Action (Larian) / Action (D&D) / Out of combat only (Optional)
- Explosive barrels' damage: Hight damage (Larian) / Low damage / None
- Monster's HP: Larian System / Monster Manual
- High ground advantage: Yes (Larian) / Modifier +2 / None
- Low ground disadvantage: Yes (Larian) / Modifier -2 / None
- Disengage cost: Jump (Larian) / Action / Bonus Action / Cause automatic opportunity attack
- Climbing stairs cost: None / Normal Movement / Double Movement
- Throwing enemies cost: Action / Impossible
- XP gain: Larian System / Monster Manual / Half XP (difficult)
- Short rest per day: 1 / 2 / 3 / Unlimited
- Short rest cost: None / Resources
- Fatigue: None / Occasional / Realistic
- Long rest frequency: Unlimited (Larian) / Only when exhausted
- Time track: Irrelevant / Timed quests (difficult and possible broken)
- Choices' restriction by alignment: None (Larian) / Restricted
- Inventory system: Individual / Shared / One for the whole party
- Encumbrance: None / Light (Larian) / Realistic (difficult)
- Charisma modifier when shopping: From the selected character (Larian) / Highest bonus in the party / Average of everyone in the party
- Prices: Based on reputation / Fixed / Based on supply and demand
- Incidence of magic items: Common (Larian) / Rare (D&D) / Low-fantasy
- Eat and drink in combat cost: None / Action / Bonus Action / Impossible (difficult)
- Who can learn cleric spells: All spellcasters / Clerics only
- Who can learn mage spells: All spellcasters / Wizards only
- Who can use scrolls: Anyone / With the correct feat / All spellcasters / Only the original spell class
- Automatic formations: Yes (Larian) / No (please)
- Who starts the dialogues: Selected character (Larian) / Always the protagonist / The higher charisma's character
- Who fights when its starts: Only nearby characters / All characters
- Shove cost: Bonus Action (Larian) / Action / Actions Attack / Impossible
- Spells damages (e.g. Firebold): Larian System / PHB
- Rogues progression (e.g. Expertise feat, Cunning Action…): Larian System / PHB
- Dipping cost: Bonus action / Action / Impossible
- Objetc interactions cost: Unlimited (Larian) / Bonus Action / Action
That would be like a wet dream, yeah. But you forgot reaction system! We need options to have Larians automatic crap or options for controlled reactions =)
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
Oh come on, the data gathering they are doing is very important and significant, and I am also sure they listen a great deal more than we give them credit for. I do believe they aren't really the best at communicating on the points raised on these forums, but I still VERY much have faith in them. They are one of my absolute favourite game companies, maybe even my number one favourite, and they are currently undertaking the game that I would consider the most profound game of my life so far, so I remain very hopeful! =)

Data gathering without context is useless. When they see everyone abusing broken stealth, backstab, jump/disengage, etc instead of using actual 5e spells and skills they could easily assume that because people are using the tactics, that those are what people find to be compelling and fun about the game, when rather, the game itself railroads you into using those tactics unless you want to spend your playtime savescumming.
I'm afraid of this too. I use all the exploits because I like to play "well" within the rules of a game, but at the same time I hate it and it's frustrating because you realize how much better the game could be. It just makes me want to stop playing.

A well worded poll would be much more informative for them.

I think the game has already strayed so far from 5e that it really needs an official "5e RAW" mode to keep D&D players happy. Something like that needs to be designed right from the start instead of haphazardly slapped on top as an afterthought.
Good suggestions @Gustavo R but I'd modify a few things

- Sneak attack: I think you're talking about Backstab here, in which case the D&D option should be that no one can Backstab. Alternatively, see below
- Backstab: Backstab Advantage (Larian) / Flanking Advantage (D&D optional) / Flanking +2 (balanced) / No Backstab (D&D core)
- Monster's HP: The D&D 5e option would have to also change Monster AC, otherwise the goblin fights (the ~only monster Larian has significantly adjusted HP&AC-wise) would become trivial.
- XP Gain: I don't think having a "Monster Manual" XP gain would really make sense. 25%, 50%, 100%, and 150% of Larian XP would be better
- Who can use scrolls: I'm not sure that there is a feat that specifically gives you the ability to cast scrolls. I'd replace this option with "With a successful Arcana check"
Originally Posted by Gustavo R
What we need in the game, to please the audience that expects something true D&D and something more Larian System, is a settings' tab where you can choose something True D&D. For example:

- Sneak attack: everyone can do (Larian) / only rogues or character with the right feat (D&D)
- Rogue’s sneak attack: Click to select (Larian) / Automatic when the attack
- Sneak attack’s weapon: Any weapon (Larian) / Light weapons only
- Jumping cost: Bonus Action (Larian) / Action (D&D) / Out of combat only (Optional)
- Explosive barrels' damage: Hight damage (Larian) / Low damage / None
- Monster's HP: Larian System / Monster Manual
- High ground advantage: Yes (Larian) / Modifier +2 / None
- Low ground disadvantage: Yes (Larian) / Modifier -2 / None
- Disengage cost: Jump (Larian) / Action / Bonus Action / Cause automatic opportunity attack
- Climbing stairs cost: None / Normal Movement / Double Movement
- Throwing enemies cost: Action / Impossible
- XP gain: Larian System / Monster Manual / Half XP (difficult)
- Short rest per day: 1 / 2 / 3 / Unlimited
- Short rest cost: None / Resources
- Fatigue: None / Occasional / Realistic
- Long rest frequency: Unlimited (Larian) / Only when exhausted
- Time track: Irrelevant / Timed quests (difficult and possible broken)
- Choices' restriction by alignment: None (Larian) / Restricted
- Inventory system: Individual / Shared / One for the whole party
- Encumbrance: None / Light (Larian) / Realistic (difficult)
- Charisma modifier when shopping: From the selected character (Larian) / Highest bonus in the party / Average of everyone in the party
- Prices: Based on reputation / Fixed / Based on supply and demand
- Incidence of magic items: Common (Larian) / Rare (D&D) / Low-fantasy
- Eat and drink in combat cost: None / Action / Bonus Action / Impossible (difficult)
- Who can learn cleric spells: All spellcasters / Clerics only
- Who can learn mage spells: All spellcasters / Wizards only
- Who can use scrolls: Anyone / With the correct feat / All spellcasters / Only the original spell class
- Automatic formations: Yes (Larian) / No (please)
- Who starts the dialogues: Selected character (Larian) / Always the protagonist / The higher charisma's character
- Who fights when its starts: Only nearby characters / All characters
- Shove cost: Bonus Action (Larian) / Action / Actions Attack / Impossible
- Spells damages (e.g. Firebold): Larian System / PHB
- Rogues progression (e.g. Expertise feat, Cunning Action…): Larian System / PHB
- Dipping cost: Bonus action / Action / Impossible
- Objetc interactions cost: Unlimited (Larian) / Bonus Action / Action

Impressive work.

Much effort. So organize. </doge>

I don't know if Larian is checking these forums so make sure to send via feedback button as well.
I am absolutely a big advocate for options, give us customizability, the option to implement homebrew as we see fit like how we would at a dnd table.
Originally Posted by Gustavo R
What we need in the game, to please the audience that expects something true D&D and something more Larian System, is a settings' tab where you can choose something True D&D. For example:

Well this would be a huge step forward, but probably would take too many resources to implement.

I would be happy with a "win combat" button. I like the story, I like the atmosphere but I think the combat is irredeemable broken for me.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Good suggestions @Gustavo R but I'd modify a few things

- Sneak attack: I think you're talking about Backstab here, in which case the D&D option should be that no one can Backstab. Alternatively, see below
- Backstab: Backstab Advantage (Larian) / Flanking Advantage (D&D optional) / Flanking +2 (balanced) / No Backstab (D&D core)
- Monster's HP: The D&D 5e option would have to also change Monster AC, otherwise the goblin fights (the ~only monster Larian has significantly adjusted HP&AC-wise) would become trivial.
- XP Gain: I don't think having a "Monster Manual" XP gain would really make sense. 25%, 50%, 100%, and 150% of Larian XP would be better
- Who can use scrolls: I'm not sure that there is a feat that specifically gives you the ability to cast scrolls. I'd replace this option with "With a successful Arcana check"

Exactly!
Thank you. I used to play AD&D back in the day. I am far from being an expert in D&D 5e.
Dear developers at Larian studios and fans,

I know this is not the first time this has been posted and sadly, this topic often times contains rants from dissapointed players. However, I want to present to you a post from reddit with a very constructive discussion that has gained huge attention.

This is the link to the post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...ate_3_should_be_like_5e_and_here_is_why/

Please make sure to read the comment section aswell, for it contains a constructive discussion of many more things!

Please read this post thoroughly. But also, read the discussion of players in the comments. There are many multiple things to discuss. For example advantage gained from high ground vs spending a full action and a spell slot on faery fire to gain advantage. The ability to constantly dip any weapon into a torch, or a candle, which can be dropped from your inventory during combat, to gain 1d4 bonus fire damage on every single attack. The amount of potions, scrolls and food and lots of other things.

This is the post without the comment section:

So recently there was a thread explaining why the poster thought that BG3 doesn't have to play like 5e. It gained some traction but to me, this really missed the issues of why people don't like the changes made in Larian's take on the franchise. In a nutshell, Larian has caused some massive imbalances with changes they've made to the game.

Shove is a premier example, it is an instant kill button on some enemies, free damage on others, and as a bonus action you always have access to it from level one and always exists as an option after your primary actions are taken. But that's not all, this also invalidates what is normally the premier reason for a tank character to grab the shield master feat, because it enables shove as part of the attack action, allowing you to knock enemies prone, create space for allies, position enemies better, or indeed, yeet them off of cliffs. But that is something that normally exists as a FEAT LIMITED TO A WEAPON TYPE for a reason.

Want another easy one? Disengage as a bonus action. Disengage is meant to be a "get out of jail" card used by character in a disadvantage situation at the cost of their turn. The only class which is meant to get it as a bonus action is the rogue with the use of cunning action. By giving it to everyone, you only nerf the rogue and for no real reason either, I mean who asked for this change? It almost completely eliminates opportunity attacks as a threat entirely. On that note, who should get access to sneak attack? A rogue using a light weapon, that is why daggers exist in 5e.

Consumables at the moment are absolutely nuts, barrels provide free fireballs on standby to anyone who picks them up and the floor effects are infuriating.

Larian has, by changing so many aspects of 5e, completely killed any sense of balance in their encounters. The thing that 5e is so often praised for was butchered and watered down and the worst part is it was done for no real reason. I would actually like to see Larian discuss and explain why many of these changes were done, because it seems to me they have put themselves into a slow spiral of making numerous small changes to cover gaps that their previous changes made in the system, instead of just faithfully keeping the system that was not broken in the first place.

So let me conclude this with discussing some of the points usually made in defense of Larian's take.

Reactions would slow down combat!
Not by any significant margin. Just look at how Solasta handles it. It takes more time for me to go to my hot bar, select the opportunity attack option I might want active, toggle it, remember to toggle it back off when needed then to just press "Yes" or "No" to an onscreen prompt and you can definitely limit those prompts in the same way Solasta does by only giving you the option for something like the shield spell if it would change the outcome.

Some classes have excessive buff options like divination wizard or bardic inspiration that would also bog things down.
I guarantee you anyone who played those classes or chose to have them on their team would definitely want the options that are supposed to be available to their class when appropriate instead of simply removing features because someone forgot to toggle them.

Some abilities don't translate as well to a videogame
Some, but very little. Most spells or abilities in 5e exist on a mechanical standpoint. The ones that exist in that fashion will translate perfectly fine. The one's that don't are ones that are typically at the DM's discretion or effect NPC (Zone of Truth is a good example, good luck with that one). Reactions however, are not one of those things.

But my floor effects!
Make them limited to spells that would actually use it or remove them entirely, this isn't divinity. But it definitely feels like it with all these elements from divinity lazily transferred over.

EDIT: To be clear. Shoving in 5e is something that requires an action. Same goes for Disengage. No one is saying to remove those actions from the game, but simply make them actually cost an action like normal instead of a bonus action like in 5e. I've responded to too many comments who think I am advocating for the shove button to be deleted.


Thank you all for reading! Good luck developing the game and stay safe!
The reaction system from Solasty is dire and I am strongly against all pop-ups in combat.
The problem is that the number of pop-ups will increase significantly the farther in the game and also as the number of enemies increases.
I can already see the number of windows when you try to fight the goblin camp.
The situation will be even worse if you have a team of reaction-based classes.
I could survive it if we could reduce the number of available reactions significantly by converting most of them into bonus actions.
What I certainly wouldn't want is asking about using smite with every attack.
I don't really want to see a popup every 5 seconds.
If larian managed to introduce reactions without interrupting the game with pop-ups, it would be great, but if the alternative was the Solasty system, I prefer it to stay as it is.
The Reddit post is excellent, as are many comments on it! Great to post it here!

In regards to the reaction system, there is clearly a divide, although it seems most agree the current system is lacking. Optional ways of dealing with it would be great, so you can have the current or popups, which according to quite a few isn't at all slowing down or disturbing but rather giving options during the enemy turns. Perhaps there are other ways though? Like maybe time slowing down and a "reaction button" lighting up that you can click and then you get popups with options, but if you don't click during the time window, nothing happens or the pre-selected reactions occur? Then you could set that "reaction time" window up and down in options, or turn it off? I don't know, but I am sure there are other ways to implement these things rather than just popups.
The best solution would be a DA-like system. In DAO, you were able to determine how NPCs are supposed to work in combat.
It was a prioritized system and I think it would have worked pretty well in BG3.
Of course it wouldn't be perfect, but it would always be better than the current and much nicer than the Solasta's system.
Well, I still would like several options most of all. That's clearly the best for all involved. Me personally, I would choose a Solasta-like system any day. So, having multiple options clearly is the absolutely best route for everyone =)
Hey, I'm the one who posted the reddit discussion here. I do believe there are good arguments on the reaction system for those who want pop ups and those who do not. I don't know what the best option would be, but I am open to test it myself once Larian implements it into the game.

However I think one thing we can all agree on, is that shove and jump are huge problems when it comes to balance. Even throwing enemies is incredibly powerful and often overlooked. Yes we all know its fun. But there comes a point where shoving a minotaur from stealth is simply too much.

Shove can be stronger than spells since it can insta-kill almost anything and its only a bonus action.
Jump allows the player to ignore attacks of opportunity and get advantage on every single attack.
Candles and Torches allow weapon users to deal an additional 1d4 fire damage on every single attack. Simply drop it from your inventory, dip your weapon, pick the torch or candle up after the battle. This can be done anywhere, at any time. Its too powerful and I don't think this is intended design. It also makes poison bottles obsolete.
(Of course unlimited long rests are a huge balance issue too, I could write an entire essay on this and have done so already, but lets keep this discussion for another thread...)
Gaining advantage is way too easy via high ground and/or attacking from behind. This creates another problem: Imagine you are playing a Warlock and you have the decision to use a spell Slot and a full action on Faery fire or Darkness to give yourself advantage. Why would you ever waste your spell slots like that if you can simply get to the high ground? Warlocks have a tadpole ability for a free teleport. Or you can use a magic item for a free cast of misty step. Or simply run and jump.
In my opinion, there can certainly be bonuses to attacking from high ground. But advantage is too powerful. Maybe +1 or +2 on attack rolls, but not more!

I think everyone will understand that while DnD 5e is not perfectly balanced, things are designed the way they are for good reason. And sadly, the game is suffering in terms of enjoyment and balance simply because Larian decided to deviate from the rules. Not all of those deviations are neccesary.

I think advantage from high ground vs casting Faeri fire is one of the best examples of how Larian's design hurts the balance of the game, but also limits the options for players. If things stay the way they are currently, I don't see myself ever casting Faery fire or Darkness.

Also lets not forget that the Darkness Spell prevents the player from casting spells and doing ranged attacks while inside Darkness, even with Devil's Sight. And it also blocks projectiles from passing through.
This is another deviation from the rules. And many of use voiced their opinion about this already. This is a severe nerf to Darkness and frankly its not even worth it to use this spell as a Warlock now. We do not have Hexblade and we do not have pact of the blade. Casting Darkness to make some dagger attacks is a very poor use of your spell slot and the opportunity cost is too high. You could be doing much better things with your action and spell slot. This is sadly another example of how deviation from the rules has made a spell worse than it should be, just like Faery Fire.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The best solution would be a DA-like system. In DAO, you were able to determine how NPCs are supposed to work in combat.
It was a prioritized system and I think it would have worked pretty well in BG3.
Of course it wouldn't be perfect, but it would always be better than the current and much nicer than the Solasta's system.

DAO's tactics system worked because the game was RTwP, in fact, it's probably the best implementation of RTwP that still allows some measure of control of the characters.

It would be a poor choice for any turn-based game.
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=768999#Post768999


Excellent points! I do agree with all of them. I am glad that all those things are being discussed in multiple forums too, it's a great way to get Larian's attention I hope. =)
Jumping, shoving, throwing, high ground, "backstab" and reactions are widely discussed topics, but I would also add that monster types and even summons and wild shape forms do not use the stats of the PHB. In many cases, perhaps that's fine, but I am also thinking that it does screw up some things aswell, balance-wise.
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
The best solution would be a DA-like system. In DAO, you were able to determine how NPCs are supposed to work in combat.
It was a prioritized system and I think it would have worked pretty well in BG3.
Of course it wouldn't be perfect, but it would always be better than the current and much nicer than the Solasta's system.

DAO's tactics system worked because the game was RTwP, in fact, it's probably the best implementation of RTwP that still allows some measure of control of the characters.

It would be a poor choice for any turn-based game.

I don't see a better solution to the reaction system
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I don't see a better solution to the reaction system

A tactics tree like DOA would never automate reactions better than the player just being given the opportunity to stop and choose.

It's not a solution to your wish for the reaction system to not exist. The entire point of a reaction, is to give the player the opportunity to break and "react" accordingly. If you don't want to be able to do that, a solution would be to have a toggle switch to disable reactions for that character.
Well, there could be multiple options. A "stop and choose" system, or an automated system, or reactions off.
They could keep the reaction system and remove healthbars on enemies so people can stop meta gaming they need that OA specifically on one creature over another.
Since RANGERS are being changed, would it be possible to get a non-spellcasting, non-magical Ranger archetype at level 2? You know.. Aragorn? Why do all Rangers have to be spellcasters?

I'd just like to play a lightly armored warrior with lots of skills, tracking, mobility, stealth, favored enemies, worldly knowledge, all that flavor. But no magic!

And the Wasteland Wanderer resistances to elemental damage in BG3 are too powerful and feel too magical. A skill should translate into a Save bonus. Resistance to something implies magic or a natural physiological resistance like Tieflings' resistance to Fire because they are half infernal. I don't think Rangers should get resistances, at least not at level 1.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Since RANGERS are being changed, would it be possible to get a non-spellcasting, non-magical Ranger archetype at level 2? You know.. Aragorn? Why do all Rangers have to be spellcasters?

I'd just like to play a lightly armored warrior with lots of skills, tracking, mobility, stealth, favored enemies, worldly knowledge, all that flavor. But no magic!

And the Wasteland Wanderer resistances to elemental damage in BG3 are too powerful and feel too magical. A skill should translate into a Save bonus. Resistance to something implies magic or a natural physiological resistance like Tieflings' resistance to Fire because they are half infernal. I don't think Rangers should get resistances, at least not at level 1.

Tbh, I'd rather them just move to Tasha's guide stuff with ranger, having it that when you level you have the option of normal PHB or the Tasha's option.
And Rangers in dnd, even back in 2e, would eventually get some form of casting due to their connection with nature. They are less Aragorn and more a cross between Fighter and Druid, that said I would like to see some more of the ranger subclasses added cause I think a few are more martial than others, though all do get magic in some form.

The lightly armored warrior with lots of skills and such can be done with fighter I think. If multiclassing is added you could get one level of ranger and the rest in any martial class, giving you the flavorful level 1 abilities if ranger while having the magic less lightly armored warrior steal thing about.
Adding this in here. Original Post
Surfaces should be behaving more to the core rules. Please, give the player oil flasks they can buy from a vendor, not near-weightless oil barrels. Please let the player have an action to extinguish immediate flames from throwables.

Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Sordak
>surfaces, i dont mind.t hey are good.
the only reason people dont like them is because the Original Sin games had them
>break concentration, good. Positioning should be extremeley important for casters and quite frankly they are incredibly overtuned in 5e anyway.
Adding in some clarifications to help the discussion.

Surfaces are native to D&D, you can create surfaces in 5e with oil flask + produce flame. The issue is that surfaces are massively buffed by borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin. Surfaces need to behave more like rules-as-written. Oil Flask

On positioning though, with high ground Advantage and low ground disadvantage casters rarely get to choose their positioning. That's the other side of the discussion. The player could be safely positioning their casters, but the game is incentivizing them to do otherwise.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
About surfaces I'm not going to talk about DoS... I don't care but you're wrong according to me because it completely break the concentration mechanic. Your concentration is broken all the time so all those spells are close to useless.
When you dodge the arrow or the potion, the fire surface is still created under your feet so you always take damages. This is a problem for concentration spells but not only...

It's very much a rule implementation issue. Surfaces shouldn't be breaking concentration.

EDIT: Also, where's our DC 10 dex check to extinguish the flames? Alchemist's Fire
Baldur's Gate 3 needs a patch just for rule implementation.
The bow and crossbow must have diffrerent distance.

SHORT Bow 80/320
lONG bOW 150/600

CROSSBOW LIGHT 80/320
CROSSBOW HEAVY 100/400

IN BG3 IT THE SAME FOR ALL RANGE WEAPON HOPE THAT WILL BE FIX THESE
© Larian Studios forums