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.
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
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.
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).
Last edited by Baron Munchausen; 01/03/2104:16 PM.
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?'
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Tuco; 01/03/2110:29 PM.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
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.
