Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
Z
stranger
Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

I was really surprised the combat didn't make me feel like I was playing DnD at all. Kept running into spells and mechanics that didn't work how I expected. Some of this was no doubt due to all the stuff that was missing because of the game being in alpha but a lot of it was weird design decisions too.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Zeraman
+1

I was really surprised the combat didn't make me feel like I was playing DnD at all. Kept running into spells and mechanics that didn't work how I expected. Some of this was no doubt due to all the stuff that was missing because of the game being in alpha but a lot of it was weird design decisions too.


This is a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by QuietCountryCafe
Please please please this.

Why is there so much access to healing via food, potions, and short/long rests? Why bother with a cleric? (Compounded by the ability for wizards to learn healing spells)



Wait...what...

Okay, if that was intended and isn't a bug then this is no longer any form of DnD, let alone 5E.
Wizards (and Arcane casters generally) should not be getting healing spells (except for Bards, but they are special snowflakes :)).
Really hoping this is an error and will be patched out, Wizards are already one of (if not the) most powerful classes in the game, they don't need to steal the cleric's schtick too.

Last edited by praxidicae; 10/10/20 10:34 PM.
Joined: Jan 2011
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2011
I'm not sure if others have mentioned this, but some of these non-5e things could be toggles. Surfaces, Bonus Skills etc so those that want more traditional can have that.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
The people who defend the rebalancing of classes, changing of abilties etc are jumping through hoops and looking kind of silly. The game was HEAVILY advertised as an adaptation of the TTRPG experience of 5e. 98% of us understand changes need to be made to translate the game into a videogame form, but the changes they make to mechanical aspetcs and classes and abilities have no grounding in translating gameplay. The changes just brings the game closer to DoS. So either the designers lack 5e knowledge or they lack respect for the IP they are pushing. I find it ridicoulous that a company that makes wacky and bad combats, feel they need to rebalance D&D because they know better. DoS2 combat consists of standing still in a sea of fire because moving tanks your HP (I know I am oversimplifying, but it needs to be done). Now they want to bring their gimmick to D&D.

It will probably be a decent and fun game. But I doubt it will be an amazing game for us 5e nerds. I just hope the devs can swallow thier pride and make a 5e purist game mode. I doubt it will even require much programming time. Options make people happy and let them play the way they want.

Last edited by Ascorius; 10/10/20 10:45 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ascorius
98% of us understand changes need to be made to translate the game into a videogame form



Yeah but it's way easier for idiots to keep arguing against the idea that we don't than it is to actually address the glaring issues with game design, so don't expect to get anywhere with this.

Last edited by Deemer; 10/10/20 11:08 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Giving a +1 in hopes this thread gets more notoriety. Some of the mechanical changes made to the already great 5e rules are a little concerning.
Ex.: I don't know if this a bug or not but wizards learning and casting cleric spells? and being able to change their prepared spells whenever ? it's almost like spontaneous casting e.g. sorcerer
Also currently there is too much emphasis in surface effects.
and many other concerns that I believe have already been covered in previous posts.
Echoing this thread : make it feel more like D&D

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

I can't comment on all the specifics that were mentioned in this thread, but I strongly support the general message of sticking to the 5e rule set. It would be amazing if I could go over my player handbook "design" a character and be able to create it in-game with little to no difference.

The feeling of the game is important.
I want to feel like I'm playing D&D (and or classic Baldur's Gate).
They're already having some issues with the fact that the game feels too much like DOS for a lot of people (I also think it's not the best business decision since they're relaying on the same audience rather then expend it by providing a 2 different experiences).

But.. I'm enjoying myself currently, and I trust Larian to provide a great game even if it won't match my "vision" of it.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
another person putting their hand up hoping for the game to get closer to the 5e rules, its a good ruleset, there really is zero need to change any of the core mechanics, sure by all means add some others and perhaps have options to turn on house rules. But wherever possible, please stick to 5e rules.

Surfaces are good as an addition to the game, but they should work on saving throws for entering and each round you're in it. Fewer things should create them too.
bonus actions for certain things might be nice to have be something you can toggle (bonus action healing potions ala Critical Role for example), but using items should be a standard action by default, as should disengaging etc.

Joined: Sep 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Sep 2020
It's funny, because by and large the same people who are defending these adaptations are the same people who, prior to early access, used "faithfulness to the rules" as an argument against things like RTwP and 6 person parties.

Last edited by tsundokugames; 11/10/20 02:15 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: Oct 2020
I requested this thread and the similar one be added to the feedback compendium: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=687814#Post687814

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

It sounds like you just don't want to play a game based on 5e. This argument is like playing Halo 3 and saying "Can you take out all the stuff that makes it Halo 3 and make it more like Call of Duty Black Ops?"

I feel like the game you want already exists. It's called Divinity Original Sin 2.


If I'm honest, yeah, I don't much care for 5e. Faithfully adapting it to a video game would create a dreadfully boring product, and fortunately Larian has explicitly said they're willing to make adjustments in the interest of making a good game. I skimmed the thread and saw all the "+1 more tabletop" replies and wanted to provide a divergent opinion, lest Larian think everyone playing the game cares a lot about fidelity to rules designed for a completely different format.


I'm with you on this one. While I do expect it to be a D&D game with D&D rulings, I do want them to tweak things both to increase usability and correct rough edges.

Yes, the purists will be mad and bawl, but the reality is that 5e is not some D&D perfection - it is a ruleset that is meant to streamline a lot of BS and a lot of unnecessary rolls, checks, knobs and so on of previous editions and it's also a work in progress by the makers themselves. It's kind of funny people are asking for a faithful 5e representation with all the variants and extensions there are to begin with and changes coming up.

I do think, for example, Larian does good by changing some stuff. For example Ranger 100% needs changes and whatever they did there already was greenlighted too. And yes, I'm down with them spicing things a bit with surfaces, weapon abilities and so on - far from everyone who will play BG:3 is some purist maniac and many others will take it up and be like "why this class is so boring" when they try out a fighter or rogue, which are as basic as they get by gaming standards. So it's cool there are extra few options there whether it's weapon specific skills, dipping, illithid powers and maybe a few other tricks to spice up the blandness.


So yes, in between religiously sticking to 5e ruleset is not worth it if the end result will be super stale or way too annoying in parts. I'm not asking to axe the die, that's as core as it gets, but some necessary convenience changes for the sake of more pleasant experience sure are welcome - all in all what I want out of BG3 is story and experience first and then D&D second.

Last edited by Gaidax; 11/10/20 08:31 AM.
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
Having surface stuff optional sonds neat to me. Configuring the damage values of spells should be easy enough (and part of the balancing process anyway), and there alreasy is code for surface versions of the spells. One of the things I always liked about the divinity games were that they had many different and meaningfull difficulty settings, so stuff that switch things up sounds fun to play with.

(as default however Id like the game to be as close to 5e as possible.)

Joined: Oct 2020
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dominemesis
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Slapstick
The more faithful they are to the 5th edition rules, the better. The ruleset is excellent, and should be adhered to as much as possible.
I will of course accept some adaption for video game purposes, but it should be where they can't adhere to the rules for technical reasons. Not just "because we think we can make it better than the currently huge success of 5e indicates that it is".
Yeah, this.


Absolute +1, especially because those like myself familiar with 5E wanted/hoped it would be faithful enough to the ruleset to let us recreate the characters/builds we've played in the tabletop. So far, that is absolutely not the case, and not just because of the lack of 5E content available in BG3 yet. Warlocks for example, overwhelmingly often use Darkness/Devil's Sight as a combo, which isn't even possible because Darkness in BG3 arbitrarily disallows ranged attacks into or out of it. That is just one of many examples littered all through these forums where the ruleset isn't implemented correctly and borks character concepts and builds that people may have hoped to reproduce in this game, which was advertised heavily as using 5E ruleset. I am holding out hope that Larian can ultimately deliver on that promise, but right now, they haven't, and I am disappointed in what we have presently in that regard.


This is a bug and should probably be posted as a thread in the bug reports forum if you'd like to see it fixed.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ascorius
The people who defend the rebalancing of classes, changing of abilties etc are jumping through hoops and looking kind of silly. The game was HEAVILY advertised as an adaptation of the TTRPG experience of 5e. 98% of us understand changes need to be made to translate the game into a videogame form, but the changes they make to mechanical aspetcs and classes and abilities have no grounding in translating gameplay. The changes just brings the game closer to DoS. So either the designers lack 5e knowledge or they lack respect for the IP they are pushing. I find it ridicoulous that a company that makes wacky and bad combats, feel they need to rebalance D&D because they know better. DoS2 combat consists of standing still in a sea of fire because moving tanks your HP (I know I am oversimplifying, but it needs to be done). Now they want to bring their gimmick to D&D.

It will probably be a decent and fun game. But I doubt it will be an amazing game for us 5e nerds. I just hope the devs can swallow thier pride and make a 5e purist game mode. I doubt it will even require much programming time. Options make people happy and let them play the way they want.



This kind of messages is not helpful, just dismissive towards the dev. If you don't like Larian studio generally, I think it's pretty bold to come to their forum saying how they are shitty about game design and how they not respectful with the IP (they have the confidence of Wizards btw). As some people understand, this is an adaptation of d&d, not a game for d&d players only. You never put yourself someone new to this or just a beginner. For some people it feels already maybe a lot too much like a tabletop game.

Obviously there is some changes to be made. This is the first week of a very long early access. But I trust Larian to make the good decisions here, between the demands of purist and others gamers alike.


A d&d and Divinity enthousiast,

Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
Originally Posted by praxidicae
Originally Posted by Skallewag


There is a huge difference in a class being viable for a dip an the class being viable for higher levels.
Warlock is a very good dip class, the problem with them is their scaling for higher levels.


I know that the standard Warlock dip is a 2-3 levels for Invocations and/or Pact Boon, but I've played warlocks into level 10/11 range without them feeling weak or underpowered, it's all about maximising the utility of your invocations and spell choices.

Once you get to 12+ and there isn't much else there beyond the Mystic Arcanum, but honestly I've never had a game that started at 1 get much beyond the Tier 3 range anyway (and dipping 2-5 levels into Rogue or Fighter for Cunning Action or Action Surge is almost always worthwhile).

I'll completely agree that mechanically speaking the class is pretty front-loaded and that you get most of what you want from it in the first 10-11 levels or so, but I don't really consider it one of the weaker classes in the game (particularly if Hexblade is being permitted), though I suppose a lot of the class's utility is dependent upon how frequently your group can/do short rest (at the time in question I was playing with a Monk and a Fighter as two of the other three party members, meaning that short rests were fairly regular throughout the gaming day).


It is a difficult task for sure to design a class that is both fun and rewarding to play as a pure class or fun to do as a multiclass without being stupidly overpowered when combined with certain stuff. Warlocks however are definetly one of the classes that has a somewhat weaker lategame if you aim for the higher levels of the class. The combination of their slimmselection of high level spells and how they transition from spell slots to the mystic arcanum stuff make them a lot less versatile and potent as high level casters. Im not saying they are unplayably bad, its just that a lv 17 warlock is a lot more lackluster than a lv 17 wizard, bard, druid, cleric, sorc is as a high level caster.

Looking round at how warlocks are being played in various groups its very common for people to not pick up a lot of stuff beyond a certain level. Some leave the class early after having picked up some eldritch invocations, warlock unique spells and quickcharging spell slots, some stay in it a bit longer but ultimately multiclass into something else. The reason for this is that higher level warlock stuff isnt very rewarding and they are worse at being high level casters. The one perk of short rest recharging magic you mention is powerfull indeee, but it doesnt scale beyond 5th level magic.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Yes, in several of these instances, it would not hurt the balance (with no major technical issues I guess) to follow a bit more d&d 5 rules...

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
One has to admit though none of the designs changes and balancing decisions are that huge that they couldn't be easily changed back to 5e. I think Larian should trust 5e balancing a lot more and only address things that have well known issues there (rangers) and things that absolutely can't be transfered properly.

I understand that they are worried that you won't be able to do more than 'move and attack' with many classes at the beginning and thus many non-D&D-players would complain, but that is part of the ('questionable' wink ) charm of 5e. Action economy has to be closer to 5e as its such a key aspect of the game design that changing it can damage balancing too much (as we see).

Biggest issue to revert back to 5e is going to be jumping distance as the environment design is based on that. Still jumping has to be nerved for combat. Its annoying how much jumping is in there.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
old hand
Offline
old hand
1
Joined: Aug 2014
Cheese tactics are so readily available.

Shadowheart the clumsy Cleric is engaged in melee with 1 enemy. Typical combat turn:

1) Circle behind enemy
2) Attack with advantage from "behind" even though it's a clean 1v1
3) Jump 5 meters to a safer location and Disengage as a bonus action without triggering AoO.

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5