Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 11 1 2 3 4 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I disagree with original post. Personally, I love the 5e ruleset. I think there is too much Divinity: Original Sin 2 stuff in the game that I have never liked. Way too many items, cumbersome inventory management, emphasis on characters made by Larian vs a party created by the player, treasure chests all over the place, tons of magic items everywhere.

I far prefer the spell system of 5e vs D:OS2, and the action, movement, bonus action vs action points.

As rough as it is, I am really enjoying the game. I'd love it even more if I could make my own 4 person party, didn't find random treasure chests in every single dungeon room full of junk, and didn't have to spend so much time moving useless vendor trash around in my inventory because my main character is constantly getting overloaded.





Last edited by Teluvatar; 11/10/20 04:04 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
F
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
F
Joined: Aug 2014
1. I agree that the fail or pass model isn't so great. The extent to which you fail or succeed should change the outcome of certain situations. If I fail to persuade someone by 1, I think it's reasonable to expect they'd react different than if I critically failed by rolling a 1 -- they might even react far worse than before in the latter case.

2. I never really had an issue with feeling like I missed anything, even though I'm sure I did. As you might expect in real life, people aren't just waiting around for you to trigger a scripted dialogue with them. If you don't encounter them at the right time, you just might miss whatever it is they were up to, which I think is perfectly fine.

I also actually think Lae'zel telling you to be careful who you tell you have a tadpole in your head *after* Nettie tries to kill you makes sense. It makes sense before, as well, but after is just as fine. She just witnessed you nearly get killed -- a fate she doesn't want to share, mind you -- because you were too open about that information. That's a good reason for her to tell you. It's not like Nettie is the ONLY person you'll ever encounter that might react poorly to being told you're turning into a mindflayer in the unforeseen future.

3. Regarding having to fight someone you don't want to, remember you can always knock them unconscious instead of killing them. If you fail to pickpocket Nettie, or convince her, or escape via the stone door in the room, AND you don't want to kill her... just knock her unconscious to take her key. You'll have to fight her, yes, but you won't have to kill her. When you return, she won't still be hostile, as far as I know. You simply can't experience EVERYTHING in one playthrough. Sometimes missing something the first go around is just what you should expect.

4. Charisma DOESN'T control all the roleplaying skills. Roleplaying =/= socializing. That said, I do agree that various other ability scores could be utilized in certain skill checks, e.g. Strength to intimidate.

5. I don't find modifiers particularly boring. Rather, there are just too few of them. My ability score modifier + my proficiency is all I've ever seen. It'd be nice to have circumstantial bonuses depending on prior events.

6. Strongly disagree. A 5e game needs to have 5e rules. I much more enjoy the 5e combat system than DOS2's combat system, similar as they may be.

Last edited by Fisher; 11/10/20 03:53 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
Just my 2 cents here regarding skill-checks.
what i think another thing Disco Elysium (and to be honest, tabletop) does well is it adds the need you seek for situational modifiers in addition to the character (skill/class/proficiency) modifiers to improve your chance of success for a key skill-check. Early in gameplay the player realizes if they make attempts to uderstand a problem like doing some investigation and/or prework maybe asking around or reading books about the subject - these usually doesnt require checks and can be performed by anyone willing to spend time on it - the results add up as situational modifiers to the key skill check in question
I agree trying skill-checks probably should involve XP gain as well (with no matter its a fail or a hit) as it would make it much more rewarding (in the end, you experience something interesting, new and you learn from your mistakes etc)

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.

OP - Yeah. That's everyone who was around for 5e's development said was going to happen. 5e was specifically designed for 'rulings, not rules' and to be free, easy & loose. This was a reaction to 4e which was mechanically tight & consistent but was focused on tactical combat.

As for why -1 to +5 doesn't feel like much? Welcome to statistics. The Standard Deviation on a d20 is 6, so modifiers less than 6 (while impactful on individual rolls) are statistically insignificant.

As for the feelings of boring - each turn being "move a bit, attack, maybe bonus action" - that was specifically built by WotC because "we don't want people spending too long trying to figure out what they're doing this turn".

All of this? not great for a computer game where precision in positioning and keeping track of mastadonic item/creature states is built in and trivial.

Which is a lot of words to say "WAD: Working As Designed"

Joined: Oct 2020
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree as well. I think this topic is going to be the crux of many debates. Do you stray from the D&D 5e ruleset a bunch in the effort to potentially stream line and simplify the gameplay or do you try and hold true to the 5e ruleset?

My opinion is this is a D&D 5e game first and foremost and I believe that this is why this game will perform extremely well financially given the current fanbase of 5e. I believe that Larian will be able to add their flair to the game just like any DM would during tabletop but the balance will be ensuring that the flair added does not make the game unrecognizable from 5e any longer.

Joined: Sep 2018
Location: Hungary
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2018
Location: Hungary
I was about to type up a longer feedback based on 50 hours of gameplay, but OP already nailed down my points. Including the bit about the opening hook! Best opening ever (and love the story overall)! Unfortunately the points raised about DnD 5E are also spot on. The simplistic 1-2-3 choice combat turn may be great when having to wait for tabletop players making up their mind, but especially when played as a single player RPG the same design oversimplifies the combat. My rouge in a typical combat turn was like "I use sneak attack on that 7th goblin from the left with my bow. So it doesn't just do damage, but also does a bit more damage. Then I slightly step back to hide on the rooftop. Again." (Okay, okay the same rouge also summoned a magic hand, lobbing a barrel at someone. That one was cool.)

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Milkfred


The gameplay is about what I expected and wanted. I appreciate that it continues the trend of D:OS2 of allowing you creative solutions to problems, such as employing Suitably Ludicrous numbers of explosive barrels and so on. However, I think the overall gameplay is weaker than D:OS2 - but more on that on a moment.

So, here it is: the biggest issue facing Baldur's Gate 3 is that it is tied to a tabletop system. And this is an issue....
6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. .


5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with a lot of the issues you get into and how they don't feel great, but I don't think 5e is the problem. As you said, they could add in little situational bonuses based on previous actions and such and that would fit in totally fine in 5e.

You mention combat isn't as interesting as DoS2 and I think that is a problem, but I think right now they are half DoS and half 5E and if they just went with one or the other then it would be better. I was hyped for BG3 to play a 5E game. I love DoS 1 and 2 and will happily play a DoS3 with DoS based combat, but for BG3 I want faithful 5E combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Riovir
I was about to type up a longer feedback based on 50 hours of gameplay, but OP already nailed down my points. Including the bit about the opening hook! Best opening ever (and love the story overall)! Unfortunately the points raised about DnD 5E are also spot on. The simplistic 1-2-3 choice combat turn may be great when having to wait for tabletop players making up their mind, but especially when played as a single player RPG the same design oversimplifies the combat. My rouge in a typical combat turn was like "I use sneak attack on that 7th goblin from the left with my bow. So it doesn't just do damage, but also does a bit more damage. Then I slightly step back to hide on the rooftop. Again." (Okay, okay the same rouge also summoned a magic hand, lobbing a barrel at someone. That one was cool.)

that doesn't make sense to me...
i make simple rules for a TT game, so every single player doesn't take so long. okay
now i use the same system but i have to play every player character.
the system is the same, but the amount of characters i control increased.

how can it be, that when i control one character it's "simple" but when i control multiple characters, now it's oversimplified?
it got more complicated by controlling more characters.

Joined: Oct 2020
vel Offline
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
This is great feedback and I agree with much of the OP's sentiments, though perhaps not solutions.

There's another thread from a DM perspective that does a great job elucidating the issues.

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=686488#Post686488

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.


This isn't purity testing. If your expectation going into a completely different series is that it'll operate the same as an unrelated IP, that's patently ridiculous. This is an entry in one of the most iconic RPG series of all times that is known for trying to faithfully adapt a tabletop system. I agree the game should be to make a good game first, but if you're not prepared to make a sequel to Baldur's Gate, then don't half-ass it.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm afraid I disagree with OP on almost everything said. It seems like some people want Divinity Original Sin 3, but this isn't a Divinity game. It's Baldur's Gate and if anything, I feel like Larian aren't following the 5e rule-set closely enough.

While I enjoyed DOS2 and won't deny that it was successful, a lot of people didn't like the surface mechanics or how combat relied on action points. It was a great tactical RPG, but it was quite far from a tabletop experience in video game form and it seems obvious to me that's what Larian is going for with BG3.

I don't think the game is perfect as it is in early access, but I'd prefer they improve on lackluster features rather than try to rework this into Divinity with a Baldur's Gate skin.

1) I enjoy what they've got of skill checks, however I do agree that rolling a 1 should have different consequences than rolling a 13 when you need a 15. This could be fixed by adding more possible outcomes for skill checks, but that would mean more work since it means adding more dialogue and reactions. Hopefully they're willing to put that work in, because I think it would be worth it.
2) I'm not sure how they should handle camps yet, though I agree it's a problem if character moments are skipped over because we aren't going to camp enough. I'm sure that's something Larian will work on fixing; I noticed a few times that certain flags didn't get set for me, such as when Wyll talked about wanting to kill Spike not long after we killed Spike. That at least seems like a bug to me, which should be getting fixed sooner or later.
3) I don't want to experience everything in a first playthrough, because I want to discover new things if I start a new game. If people want to experience everything in one playthrough, then they're playing the wrong type of game and should be playing a linear RPG without choices. Personally I love how my experience playing a Tiefling Warlock will be vastly different from what I get playing Dwarven Fighter.

I feel the same about failed perception checks, however maybe it would be better to hide the roll on certain things so that players don't even know they failed on perception. Not only will this make traps more of a surprise, but players will get more good surprises on a second playthrough. I'm normally a bit iffy on hiding rolls, but I feel it's necessary since there isn't a DM to create a new experience every time.
4) I didn't experience Nettie, but I'll be looking forward to it on my next playthrough. That said, I do find it odd if the only way to get an antidote from her is to attack her. I'd imagine that you could roll a persuasion check, bribe her, or even pickpocket it from her if nothing else works. This is D&D, after all.
5) One thing worth noting is that Larian hasn't implemented the Sorcerer class yet and their spellcasting ability is based off of charisma. So if you want a spellcaster that is also great with people, a sorcerer will be an excellent choice.

With that said, why should players be able to succeed every persuasion check if they aren't charismatic? If I'm playing a Barbarian with 10 charisma, then I think it goes without saying that I should be pretty awful at talking to people. If you want to play a Barbarian with 18 charisma then that's also fine, but you should expect there will be sacrifices made elsewhere.
6) Sorry, but I hard disagree with you on modifiers. D&D already has ways to buff certain modifiers, such as spells that make you more likely to succeed on persuasion checks. This should work perfectly fine once Larian gets more of the PHB incorporated into the game.

I do find it interesting you mention Disco Elysium, though. I agree it's a good game, but it's also a very psychological RPG and that's why it makes sense your character would become more intimidating after punching out someone. I think the game was great, but I'm not sure how much of its mechanics Larian would want to incorporate into a D&D game.
7) When it comes to combat, I again disagree with this being a "downgrade". I can see why 5e's combat wouldn't appeal as much to people that enjoy controlling the environment to win fights, but that's not what Larian is going for with this game and it isn't what people want from a Baldur's Gate game.

In fact, combat may actually have been my least favorite part of DOS2. Action points were tied to both movement and the ability to attack, which meant feeling like I had to root myself to one spot so I could sling out as many attacks as possible. Surface effects meant a lot of the game was finding ways to combine the right elements rather than relying on each characters strengths.

In 5e movement is its own separate thing, which means I'm encouraged to move around. Thieves feel like agile fighters darting around a battlefield and even spellcasters are encouraged to move out of harms way. Lack of surface effects mean this is less a question of "who can combine the elements" and more a question of utilizing your creativity and each character's own unique skillset.

Last edited by Empress_Kuno; 11/10/20 05:51 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


That is actually a really good question, and I'm kind of waffling back and forth between the answer as I play more and more of the game. It feels like the combat encounters are designed from a DOS2 mentality: use surfaces to turn the tide in your favor, which is sort of a thing in 5e, but not to this extreme. I'm not advocating for a 1 to 1 port of the tabletop rules (how do you translate a spell like create water to a video game and capture all the unique applications in 5e?). The more I play, the more I realize the surface system DOES have a place in BG3, but it can't be handled the same way as in DOS2.

As a DM, I cannot count the number of times a player wants to use an ability/skill/spell to interact with the environment in a way that forces me to make a quick judgement call. I think the surface system can fill that gap, but I don't think the answer is to overhaul numerous cantrips/abilities to make them create surfaces when they weren't designed to do so.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
To be perfectly honest, I was never a fan of D&D-rules and I would probably never use it for pen&paper RPGs because they are incredibly limiting. Still BG3 was advertised as a D&D 5e game and actually this got me excited to try it. Larian made it very clear they want to bring D&D 5e to PCs and stick to the rules. If they didn't make the statement I would probably not care as much about a new BG-game.

I absolutely don't want DOS3. It was a fine game, but its combat was far from what I would call great (mind you, I've been playing turn-based games for ~20 years, so its not about that, I just don't enjoy the focus on surfaces and other DOS2 specific things). So I have to agree with those who say 5e isn't the issue here. I would actually want to see less deviation from it as it disturbs balancing.

I do agree that the conversations and skill checks might need some tweeking, but overall I like the idea of this not being a game where you get your perfect result, but more a bit of a random experience that you shouldn't take too serisouly in the sense of getting the 'perfect playthrough'. I think this game could also really shine in coop where you and your friends simply deal with the dice instead of worrying about the 'correct' outcome. Take this away and we have DOS3, which many simply don't want (not judging that game by any means, but its simply not what advertised).

Last edited by biomag; 11/10/20 05:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


Because 5e would remove almost all of the creative solutions available and turn everything into an RNGesus match, especially at the early encounters.
5e isn't a good game. It's not tightly designed. It's not complex. It's not tactically deep.

Because it was designed to be that way. It was designed to play fast with a human DM & players keeping track of everything. People have to keep track of what options are available, where everyone is in combat, etc.

The computer does all that for you, trivially, when you turn it into a computer game. But because 5e is meant to be run by a person, where enemies can respond as creatively as PCs, there isn't depth in the rules because the depth is supposed to come from the people playing.

But there's no people that can think outside the context of the game. Now it's just shallow combat where you either win the d20 slot machine, or find an exploit that lets you stay out of range.

All of this was hashed out and settled half a decade ago when 5e came out. WotC looked at the feedback, went "yup. you're right. but we want Rulings not Rules, people to not have to think about what they're doing on a turn, and fast play that feels like Classic D&D" and mumbled something about an optional tactical module for those that wanted it. [Said tactical module has never come out, and will never come out unless one of WotC's partners needs to create it while making a licensed product]

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
While I disagree with a majority of your post the one I want to bring up is the circumstantial modifiers bit - because I was confused that you weren't seeming to notice it - as well as the idea of multiple choices in dialogue. To the former: I immediately noticed circumstantial modifiers, I was rolling as a tiefling warlock with my proficiency in persuasion, I was noticing dialogue options that were focused on persuading a person toward something they were already leaning toward had a much lower target number (generally a 1, though in some cases a 5) for my to succeed while trying to persuade someone against their views (specifically Kagha) required a 15 or better on the roll to make happen. I also found, when replaying it, that sometimes Deception or Intimidation had the lower rolls made available to them vs Persuasion in similar encounters - the amount of times I had a 10 roll was minimal compared to the 1s and 5s - at least when it came to my Charisma checks, my character was a himbo until he received a crown of knowledge.

Now for the multiple choices in dialogue - you used Nettie as an example. Nettie is a poor example for an encounter, to be honest. I much prefer using the first time you encounter Astarion as a perfect example of how the game decides the outcomes - considering the choices you have available to you during your meeting with Astarion being physical (a head butt), dialogue, or just to wait and hope everything goes right. Kagha is also a great example, as you can make use of your race (in my case tiefling) to try and push for a better outcome. Both Kagha and Astarion are, what I as a DM, would classify as an actual encounter where Nettie is a Plot Vehicle. She isn't really meant for anything more than to be there as a stopgap on the Plot in showing just how the world views the affliction. There is nothing wrong with the Nettie encounter from a campaign perspective, though - it's perfect for what it's meant to be. It isn't, however, the measuring stick you should be using for determining how dialogue encounters go when you're using the absolute worst example of one.

Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


Because 5e would remove almost all of the creative solutions available and turn everything into an RNGesus match, especially at the early encounters.
5e isn't a good game. It's not tightly designed. It's not complex. It's not tactically deep.

Because it was designed to be that way. It was designed to play fast with a human DM & players keeping track of everything. People have to keep track of what options are available, where everyone is in combat, etc.

The computer does all that for you, trivially, when you turn it into a computer game. But because 5e is meant to be run by a person, where enemies can respond as creatively as PCs, there isn't depth in the rules because the depth is supposed to come from the people playing.

But there's no people that can think outside the context of the game. Now it's just shallow combat where you either win the d20 slot machine, or find an exploit that lets you stay out of range.

All of this was hashed out and settled half a decade ago when 5e came out. WotC looked at the feedback, went "yup. you're right. but we want Rulings not Rules, people to not have to think about what they're doing on a turn, and fast play that feels like Classic D&D" and mumbled something about an optional tactical module for those that wanted it. [Said tactical module has never come out, and will never come out unless one of WotC's partners needs to create it while making a licensed product]


you haven't played 5e on TT yet, did you?
there are immense tactical differences, if you build your party to compliment one another. it is just a different tactical experience than DOS.
instead of using every explosive barrel in the environment, you use your battle master fighter maneuver to give your rogue a second sneak attack, effectively doubling his damage output by making one less attack yourself.
there is lots of different tactics in 5e.
using hold person with your wizard, to guarantee your teammates critical hits on an enemy.
so many things. they are just not as obvious as explosive barrels.

Last edited by mahe4; 11/10/20 06:11 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by mahe4
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by porrage

5e isn't the problem. You're the problem. I don't mean you as a person, specifically. But just looking at what you're talking about here... You want Baldur's Gate 3 to be a follow up to Divinity Original Sin 2. Of course you're going to think the 5e ruleset is to blame. The game you want isn't Dungeons & Dragons. You want more Divinity Original Sin. If you're comparing it to DOS2 then you've already missed the point.

This strain of purity testing what it means to be a D&D game is not particularly convincing. For people who are not bought in to the 5e ruleset, the game feels like a regression from the fun and dynamic combat of D:OS2. The goal should be to make a good game first and a D&D game second.

and the claim, that 5e rules would make everything boring is just as convicing, since the rules now aren't 5e rules. they are heavily changed. how can anyone be certain, that a 5e video game would be more or less exciting?


Because 5e would remove almost all of the creative solutions available and turn everything into an RNGesus match, especially at the early encounters.
5e isn't a good game. It's not tightly designed. It's not complex. It's not tactically deep.


What creative solutions? You mean cheesing status effects and surfaces to cause as much CC as possible to tip the battle in your favor? I'd like to know what you consider to be "tactically deep."

Page 2 of 11 1 2 3 4 10 11

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