Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I have seen the 5e ruleset being implemented in videogame form and it works a lot better than what BG3 currently has to offer, mechanically at least. So no, the reason BG3 "sucks right" now aren't purists, its because Larian did not make a decision whether or not they want to implement 5e or DOS.

The problem aren't purists, or those who aren't its that the game right now is neither.

If you want the game to be more like DOS than everything 5e is annoying, I get that, I don't agree with it, but I get it.
If you want the game to be 5e anything that deviates too much from it is annoying, there is a reason 5e groups seldom do big homebrew additions these days.


Last edited by CrestOfArtorias; 14/10/20 05:32 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by ReaLMoisan
Originally Posted by clavis
Originally Posted by Vezin117
Originally Posted by clavis


There are so many modules out for D&D 5e that do exactly what you are saying a game could not accomplish. My current group is playing Descent Into Avernus right now. That is a premade D&D game that the DM doesn't really have to put as much effort into. All of the things you mentioned are basically in the module already. Seems like a cop out response to justify not implementing 5e rules right away and adjust them over the next year to make it more enjoyable.


unsure which post your quoting. Most of my posts though are focused on the differences between being able to do things on the fly as a DM with group in front of them, versus tweaking things from a video game developers stand point. The game developers can't adjust on the fly, and can't get direct feedback

never played Descent into Avernus as of yet, but Descent was built for pnp. and some of it would not carry over to video games, specially to players that have never played 5e before. there would have to be adjustments made to aid them, while still balancing game for hardcore, or just 5e players in general.

I believe he's referring to programs like Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds that I mentioned earlier. Basically, these programs have all the mechanics (numbers) for D&D already. You just download and install the adventure and input the character sheets, and the program handles all the dice rolls, attacks, damages, skill checks, saving throws, spell effects, monster stats, etc. And even displays everything on a hexagonal map, tracking movement, sight lines, distances, character and enemy placements, cover, elevation, fog of war, etc. So the DM just narrates the adventure, and the players just decide their actions, etc. Essentially, it's almost like re-creating a PC game of D&D where everyone communicates through mics, usually via Discord, and use the program to play the adventure. Suggesting that the core mechanics of 5e D&D are already proven to work well in a PC game. Not saying these two programs are identical to a PC game, there's still a DM. But everything is pre-loaded before the session starts, and it's amazing how infrequently the DM actually has to deviate from the core adventure, and just lets the adventure play itself.


Ahhh, yet there again is the the thing with DM being actively involved. so if need be he can adjust, and Roll20 is easier to adjust things then say hard coded games such as this. Also again you may very well know your players, or have a group of veterans. Are you get a newbie in with a group of veterans, who can aid them as they progress, when they have troubles. Since you can still talk through discord and such. Here we have a forum, where subtopics may or may not get answered, and even if they do get answered it may be incorrect based upon character stats, or misinformation, which even the veterans get wrong at times, or someone trolling. I myself forgot that dual wield was changed, and was corrected. Among this is the changes in place which may confuse new players as to whats wrong according to forum subtopics etc. Add to this the topics about this not being BG, D&D etc. which can paint things in a poor light. Especially when quiet often these posts at first don't have any reason to why people feel that way. Though later on it can change and does so widely. anyway I ramble as usual.

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Originally Posted by CrestOfArtorias
I have seen the 5e ruleset being implemented in videogame form and it works a lot better than what BG3 currently has to offer, mechanically at least. So no, the reason BG3 "sucks right" now aren't purists, its because Larian did not make a decision whether or not they want to implement 5e or DOS.

The problem aren't purists, or those who aren't its that the game right now is neither.

If you want the game to be more like DOS than everything 5e is annoying, I get that, I don't agree with it, but I get it.
If you want the game to be 5e anything that deviates too much from it is annoying, there is a reason 5e groups seldom do big homebrew additions these days.




What he said. Right now the issue is that there are too many rules of 2 different types of rules, and they both are clashing and ruining the balance.

Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Way too many enemies have exploding acid arrows and fire bombs. There should be a proper Goblin Alchemist or Arsonist that would use Alchemists fire.

Where are the basic fodder goblins with low HP? Let Wizards feel useful when they drop 4 of them with Sleep. Or martial classes killing them in one hit. I don't want level scaled enemies that mean all enemies become the same.

I definitely agree tabletop rules should be altered where they don't work for a CRPG. But so far only the changes to reactions fit that bill.

I would actually prefer to first play with 100% accurate 5e rules and then consider if monsters need to be beefed up or if combat is so boring we need explosives and surfaces.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Balance is indeed one issue but the bigger issue IMHO is that both systems do not blend well together. It creates a very strange hybrid where I as a 5e player (I play 5e 2-3 times a week) am puzzled by the way some of the mechanics are implemented and that some very core mechanics are not there, or have been replaced for no real apparent reason.

As an example I would raise the often cited changes to the action economy, which totally erased the identity of the rogue class. As a game designer myself I can only wonder as to what the reasoning behind this is, especially since the rogue wasn't really adjusted in a meaningful way. Another example would be the complete lack of the "dodge" action, which is a pretty important piece of melee combat.
There is the addition of the "dip" bonus action, a mechanic Larian implemented most likely because they want surfaces to be a pretty important core part of combat.

It ends up being a bit of a "mess" where it appears that they wanted to make a game that is very different from how 5e is usually played and this disconnect is almost tangible. If for instance you play Solasta to contrast the experience, you will find that, as a 5e player, the game just flows like water. BG3 right now feels more like an awkward dance lesson where you were told it would be tango but instead its disco fox.

Last edited by CrestOfArtorias; 14/10/20 06:12 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
P
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
P
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Way too many enemies have exploding acid arrows and fire bombs. There should be a proper Goblin Alchemist or Arsonist that would use Alchemists fire.

Where are the basic fodder goblins with low HP? Let Wizards feel useful when they drop 4 of them with Sleep. Or martial classes killing them in one hit. I don't want level scaled enemies that mean all enemies become the same.

I definitely agree tabletop rules should be altered where they don't work for a CRPG. But so far only the changes to reactions fit that bill.

I would actually prefer to first play with 100% accurate 5e rules and then consider if monsters need to be beefed up or if combat is so boring we need explosives and surfaces.


The changes to reactions aren't even necessary, it is entirely possible to pull off reactions correctly simply by have a pop up or something ask if you want to use your reaction on that enemy. Maybe make it so like with Hellish Rebuke, you have to cast it first and then whenever you get attacked it will ask if you want to use the reaction on that enemy or not, but as it is now you just use your reaction on whatever the next enemy to hit you is which is annoying when it is almost always some cannon fodder enemy with only 1 hp left and my hellish rebuke hits him for 20 damage.

Joined: Jun 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2020
I think there should be a limit to "level adjusting" the enemies. Imagine being a lvl 10 party and encountering a goblin guard, with 180+ hp. All the while the owlbear had less HP, the ogre magi, phase spider matriarch, even the Bulette was weaker... how far will Larian go in order for EVERY fight to be a "challenge" up to the party's level?

If I'm a good explorer, I'd like to go see the dragon. Even if I'm level 5. So now I'm looking at the dragon... is he level 5??? that would be so stupid and would damage immersion. But it would be as stupid as during endgame, fast travelling to Blighted Village, we encountered level 12+ goblins who could very well anihilate a level 9 party.

BG1 made it pretty simple, to have a good challenge. The game was hard, not easy, and it didn't have to resort to tricking it's own systems. I'm not saying Larian is "ruining" anything, but to dismiss plainly this kind of post because of some kind of conviction that Larian is doing it better than the makers of all those "old" games, or even new games like Pathfinder Kingmaker, is just bollocks. Larian's DOS design, whether people like it or not, make leveling almost irrelevant, compared to other companies' implementation of 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E or even Pathfinder, and so many other similar systems.

Of course, that doesn't mean they are doing a bad job at all, to the contrary, but people who think enemies' stats should be like in BG2/NWN2 for example, or even PF:K are not trolls, or idiots, or "non believers", and they don't necessarily have bad intentions. Lastly I'll say this: while I liked a lot DOS 2, I liked more BG2, and even PF:K, even considering it's bad graphics and optimization. Why? it's not Larian's fault, I just like Dungeon and Dragons, since 2E. When they made DOS 2 they couldn't use the DnD systems, and with that limitation they made something great. Now they are in major leagues, and major leagues involve a LOT MORE PRESSURE. Now they have DOS 2 fans to please all the while DnD and Pathfinder fans, and BG fans will demand the game to feel:

-Like a BG game.
-Like a DnD 5E game.
-Like a true sequel to a game considered to be the best RPG to ever have been made (BG2).

And DOS fans will ask for it to be:

-"Like a Larian game".
-Not overly "complicated", but deep (I've seen them complain about DnD's complex systems)
-A fun, balanced and tactical combat experience (from their DOS perspective)

In my opinion they have a problem. Mostly it's about flavour. They cannot please both fandoms truly. DOS 2 was too funny, too fluffy and too jokingly/not serious compared to BG1/2's style and objectives, and as such, both games' fans will expect different results. The same can be said with rules implementation, enforcing, balancing and the like. My opinion is: they should try their best for everyone, but ALWAYS privilege the GOOD NAME AND REPUTATION of Baldur's Gate. If they don't, they won't get to develop BG 4, and anyways we'll still get DOS 3 eventually, so no need for DOS fans (me included) to despair.




Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I understand wanting to change encounters, but see changing monsters as an usually inferior solution.

Surprising players and challenging our expectations keeps things fresh and keeps us on our toes. Still... if you create a goblin encounter and then give all of them much more health and better attacks, but still label them like every other 'goblin'. That's just false advertising, confusing tabletop players and lets them feel pathetic.
It also sets the expectation of what a 'Larian goblin' is. This moves the goalposts and resolves nothing.

As a DM I would expect a some flak from the players regarding wholesale increase in goblin health. In a homebrew campaign, that's ok, in Faerun not.
After all, solutions that address lore, expectations and player challenge are readily available.

For example.
Larian wants to create a fight with four goblins. It turns out that the goblins pose no challenge at all. Someone doesn't like this and decides to give the basic goblin more hitpoints.... Don't do that.

There are many alternative solutions, that keep the 'goblin^' what it is and make the fight more memorable.
1. Let it be. Easy encounters have their place. (It sets an easy precedent to subvert late on.)
2. Let the goblins flee. Goblins are craven. Fair fights are for honourable folk.
3. Let the goblins have the high ground/stealth/surprise. Let them only be there/attack in the dark.
4. Add more goblins in the initial group. (This, so much this. Faerun goblins love numerical superiority.)
5. Add more goblins that reinforce the first few goblins.
6. If you really want four tough goblins, make them clearly different from the standard goblin and call them something appropriate like 'Chosen of Maglubiyet'. This change should be visually obvious and be reflected in their name.
7. Give them better equipment. This must be obvious and have a place. Like 'vault guardians' that use wands and scrolls from the 'treasure vault' that they guard.
8. Smarter goblins >> Make the AI work better. >> Targeted/injured goblins use the dodge action to give disadvantage on attacks against them.
9. Give the goblins a box full of potions, for their use. The players can destroy the box or kill the goblins quickly and loot it or steal the box beforehand. >> This is very rewarding, when cunning/lucky players get to collect the unused potions.
10. Add different monsters that support the goblins. Like wolfs, that the goblins ride on.
11. Let the dead goblins attract a different monster, like rabid vultures, carrion devourers or others.
12. Traps. Let the four goblins run around and try to activate traps. The players try to kill them fast enough, but probably only kill 2-3 before the first trap triggers.
13. Transform the 'goblins'. For example let the players obliterate a bunch of goblins in the entryway of a crypt and when returning to the exit encounter them again as much tougher 'Zombie goblins.' (Applause if you gave the player an easy option to bribe or circumvent this group altogether).

Most importantly:
Orks. Why use goblins if you handle them like orks?
If your moster fights like an ork, use an ork. If your bugbear fights like a super velociraptor, call it a super velociraptor.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Larian changed enemies HP because they lowered their AC, in other ways fights will be boring if you can kill half your enemies in one turn.
You can tell "so they shouldn't do this" but it was necessary.
They can't add more enemies if you don't want to wait 10 minutes for your turn. Remember this is turn-based game.
It's primarily a game so it has to be fun. This is the first problem. Do you know XCOM memes?
How many times have you used a sacred flame and it actually hit?
If you don't hit enemy for several turn in row game can quickly become frustrating. Even with lowered AC you miss many times.
If every attack will be has % like sacred flame, most players will be frustrated after few hours and will probably delete the game.
Most players never played d&d, game has to be friendly for them. You can find a lots of thread where people complains about rng, even with lowered AC.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 23/10/20 01:35 AM.
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

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