Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I haven't had the issue of casters feeling useless. Cantrips persist in being useful throughout and I am currently 3rd level, somewhere around the gnolls amd have rested probably twice, maybe three times. (I don't remember the conversation with Gale doing mirror image at the start happening on this run, but I got the convo with the devil just recently). I only ever rest when I start getting worried about a big fight coming. I can get past most fights without needing spell slots by judicious use of things like shove and cantrips. If I were to make any suggestion regarding rest it would be to make short-rests a two-per-long-rest thing instead of one, but even that's not really necessary.

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Long rest is already limited in some areas of the game (Like a certain building in a certain swampy area) I don't see how they couldn't implement that in all (mini-)dungeons at the least, to stick closer to dnd mechanics and make spellslots a more valuable resource.


I really dislike how I can just coast through the game on Magic missile spam and 4 bonus action revives per fight.

Joined: Nov 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2015
I've been relying heavily on cantrips rather than frequent rests. The problem for me is that once-per-rest abilities don't seem more likely to hit (or hit significantly harder) than unlimited-use ones. Missing with your once a day "big gun" when your stats and positioning are as favorable as you could make them is just not fun. Perhaps once crafting is added, there will be +accuracy food or potions that will help the player feel a little more in control?

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Imryll
I've been relying heavily on cantrips rather than frequent rests. The problem for me is that once-per-rest abilities don't seem more likely to hit (or hit significantly harder) than unlimited-use ones. Missing with your once a day "big gun" when your stats and positioning are as favorable as you could make them is just not fun. Perhaps once crafting is added, there will be +accuracy food or potions that will help the player feel a little more in control?


That is one of my big issues with d20 games in general because the way they implement just makes the probability issues of a flat-curve that much more aggravating. But it has carried over to a LOT of D&D computer games over the year (which is why I don't trust save-or-die spells much)

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Thrythlind
Originally Posted by Imryll
I've been relying heavily on cantrips rather than frequent rests. The problem for me is that once-per-rest abilities don't seem more likely to hit (or hit significantly harder) than unlimited-use ones. Missing with your once a day "big gun" when your stats and positioning are as favorable as you could make them is just not fun. Perhaps once crafting is added, there will be +accuracy food or potions that will help the player feel a little more in control?


That is one of my big issues with d20 games in general because the way they implement just makes the probability issues of a flat-curve that much more aggravating. But it has carried over to a LOT of D&D computer games over the year (which is why I don't trust save-or-die spells much)


Tbf, that's only a really big issue in the first two or three levels. Once you get your modifiers up to +6 or higher and sneak a couple of ways to gain advantage into the mix, you SHOULD be hitting most of the time.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Wi1em_
Meanwhile, the minority that are dnd purists, and not even all of them, a subset of that minority, will rub their hands and say "Yes, correct dnd, we approve, thank you Larian".

I quote from one of the earliest announcements regarding this game:
"As part of yesterday’s Stadia announcement, Larian Studios has revealed it is developing Baldur’s Gate III. Working in “close collaboration” with the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards of the Coast, the studio states the sequel will be “based off current D&D mechanics and spells” and will come to PC and Google Stadia."
https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news...baldurs-gate-3-for-pc-and-google-stadia/

Now that is pretty clear. Larian Studios are developing a game using D&D mechanics. It is a game that is part of the Baldur's Gate franchise, which has been based on AD&D/D&D rules from its inception. I see no reasonable explanation for someone to buy the game and then complain that it is using D&D rules and mechanics.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Gotta be honest, the resting system doesn't bother me in this game, sure in tabletop it's limited if your DM puts a time limit on your current objective somehow, and in the context of this story you should feel compelled to keep going. But BG1&2 didn't limit resting and it didn't cause a fuss, and I can imagine what the higher difficulties are going to be like so don't want my ability to go in to tough encounters fresh limited. Maybe each act could give you a reward for doing it in a certain amount of ingame days (like an NPC surviving and giving you an item you don't get for going slow) or something but this seems like it's asking to to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

Although I admit being able to fast travel FROM anywhere is probably the biggest contributor to this being a problem, maybe you can only camp if you can get to a fast travel point to make it to your camp and clicking on the campfire in your camp map is what allows you to rest for the night.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Well this is a independent video game, not a DnD simulator, so yes a lot players including me will take a rest after the fight as long as it's available. Unless the game somehow limit the use of long rest, otherwise it is kinda pointless.
My suggestion is to limit the use of long rest in hardcore difficulty, e.g. long rest cost money, or u can only take 1 long rest in every 30/60 min.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Pathfinder:Kingmaker approached this issue really well. You were always under a time limit, so resting has a tangible cost (ex. you had 35 days to complete X story beat, travel would probably cost you Y days, so resting too often would really put the squeeze on). You could also be attacked in your camp if you rested somewhere unsafe.

With fast travel from anywhere it gets a bit trickier though, since there's no time cost to traveling and you can just fast travel somewhere safe to rest and then make a boring trek back to where you were. Never underestimate the pain players will inflict on themselves for the sake of being optimized. But the entire rule system is balanced around short and long rests, so Larian needs to find some way to encourage you to push your party as far as they can go before resting.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by Wi1em_
> And for you Wi1em. Not every game needs to be enjoyable by everyone. We were told by Wizards of the coast and Larians Studio that we're about the be given the first 5e D&D pc game. Let us have that please.

Right. So how do you balance resting? As other have said here, it's not strictly defined by the ruleset and as it currently is resting has no reason to exist at all (note: resting is not the same as party camp; you can have the camp but no resting mechanic to restore spell slots).


Originally Posted by Wi1em_
And then, on top of that, you get feedback from the absolute majority of players, which never played tabletop in their life and just expect a decent game, who will be annoyed by the 100%-ish dnd mechanics and, even though they might like the game in general, will be a bit disappointed by the end result.

And this is what I'm very curious about: how will Larian tackle the problem of pleasing the minority that came for dnd vs the majority that came for a fun, modern game, that is by default expected to take into account all the RPG development experience of past decades. The logic for those people is very simple:

1. I love RPGs
2. Larian makes great RPGs
3. Let's watch gameplay on YouTube
4. Wow, graphics, dialogues, fun combat! Take my money!
5. Get annoyed at dnd

Meanwhile, the minority that are dnd purists, and not even all of them, a subset of that minority, will rub their hands and say "Yes, correct dnd, we approve, thank you Larian".


Well. Let's start with the rest issue.

Now, in low levels, casters are bit weak and need more long rests than melee or be careful how they spend their spell slots and that's why they've got unlimited cantrips to not feel completely useless when those slots are used. But that's how the classes are balanced. Melee characters are stronger in the beginning and casters are stronger in the end game where enemies have high psychical damage reduction/AC. So, to balance early game, you design the encounters to be doable without having to burn up your spells slots in every fight. Right now it feels the combat is out of balance being harder than they should for a low level party. And that's because they are designed around mechanics like surfaces and bonus actions that is not normally implemented in D&D rules.

Let's take NWN for example(I know this is not NWN but it's a D&D game):

As a caster, I can rest pretty much everywhere, it takes like six seconds and restores all my spells and has absolutely no drawback to it what so ever. And because of that, I ofc rest whenever I feel that I'm low on spells making the whole rest mechanic feel tedious. Why not just give me unlimited spells and skip the whole rest mechanic so I can go on playing the game as the overpowered god that I am?

You can ofc argue that this decision is up to the player to make. But wouldn't not taking a rest make my character seem kinda stupid? Like, hey hero, lets rest up so you're not gimping yourself for the next fight. -NO, you weakling! I'm the HERO OF NEVERWINTER! I DON'T HAVE THOSE MORTAL WEAKNESSES LIKE THE NEED OF REST! Eh, ok. it was just a suggestion. -DON'T TALK BACK TO ME YOU SHRIMP!(5 minutes later the hero died because he was out of spells)

So, for the sake of immersion, which a rpg is very much about...I don't mind having unlimited long rests, if I don't have to take one after each encounter, and I don't mind making an encounter easier by blowing all my spells if I know that there will be a risk doing so. i e limits/hazards to a long rest. Simply put. there should always be a repercussion based on my actions.

As for the "majority of players"? I could just as easily advocate that since BG3 has been marketed as a 5e D&D game, the "majority of players" i. e the target audience, are those that look forward to a, as true as possible, rendition of the tabletop game to a crpg. And in my opinion, as the game is marketed, this game should target D&D fans, not the majority of pc players that never played the tabletop game before. Those players are more than welcome to try the game, and maybe they even find it to their liking so much that they get interested in tabletop D&D but the game should not be catering their interest in a more traditional rpg game.

I guess it's time for Larian studios to come clean with what their target audience is. D&D fans or the broad mass? Targeting a smaller audience(and D&D fans is not a small market btw) does not have to mean a failure in revenue. Dark Souls was marketed as a game for those players that wanted a hard challenge and was not meant for the majority of video game players. And I would like to say that the game series became a success


Joined: Oct 2020
Wi1em_ Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
> And in my opinion, as the game is marketed, this game should target D&D fans, not the majority of pc players that never played the tabletop game before. Those players are more than welcome to try the game, and maybe they even find it to their liking so much that they get interested in tabletop D&D but the game should not be catering their interest in a more traditional rpg game.

Certainly, that's why I'm saying I'm interested to see how Larian will address this. Meanwhile, I see no harm in providing a non-dnd-player point of view. I'm sure Larian welcomes feedback from all kinds of backgrounds, especially from a mass, non-dnd player.

To me, BG3 looks like the next best thing after Dragon Age: Origins. I don't care if it's DnD, I just want a good game. And from a good game perspective, Dragon Age yet feels better:

- With the characters. Every name is a stroke of genius in background, voice acting, dialogues, story. Alistair. Morrigan. Sten. Duncan. To me, they're masterpieces.

- With the introductions. All the so very different ways and personal dramas of PCs. Noble betrayal , brother rivalry, gangsters, freaking Harrowing - just wow.

- Combat I actually prefer in DOS, but DA:O was decent in that area.

I subconsciouly compare BG3 to DA:O, because I want to see the same level of awesomeness from the guys who, in my mind, are absolutely capable of delivering it.

But even then, DOS2 is a very good game on its own. Larian, already on top of their DOS2 success, are making a new huge RPG. Of course it's expected to be at least as good as other notable RPGs of the past, be it DnD or not, many people want the game to be an atomic bomb in the RPG genre. How they're going to achieve that with marketing it as DnD... well... may be they won't. And BG3 would still be good. Just not the atomic bomb many people want. smile

Last edited by Wi1em_; 13/10/20 08:55 PM.
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

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