Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Part of the problem is my expectations.

So I've been thinking about Baldur Gate 3 and starting to realize that Larian has a tough road to travel, due in a good part to my expectations.

Since this is D&D that I've been playing since chainmail, I have come to the game expecting it to behave in certain ways.

Since they are marketing it as D&D, that's what I want.

I want a game that is as true to the tabletop experience as possible.

Not everyone wants exactly what I want but Larian added these expectations of many people when they decided to make Baldur’s Gate 3.

If you use a franchise you should expect the fans of that franchise to be upset if you vary too much from the franchise.

Yes, all mediums are different and you have to adapt to what you are using to tell your version of a franchise but there is adapting and then there is making so many changes that you wonder why they are bothering to use the franchise at all and not just doing their own thing.

I think you could erase the content of the post and "Part of" from the title and you would have said all that needed to be said.

And the other part of the problem is that Larian doesn't want to make a Baldur's Gate game.

They want to tell a story in the Faerun universe, which is awesome, but they want to just use the mechanics of DoS. And I would be 110% in support of that....if they wanted to call it something else. Because yes, calling it BG 3 means they are taking advantage of one of the longest lasting and most active cRPG communities to ever exist. All the work of the Enhanced Editions, mods, ports, forums, etc that kept a game alive and continuing to receive numerous top ratings and popularity.

They need to decide what kind of game they want to make and announce it to the world. Either they're making DoS 3 and just using the setting of Faerun, or they're making a game in the same spirit as the Baldur's Gate series. I'd be happy with either, but right now they're trying to split the difference and failing at both.

If you want a tt experience I charge $50 a session

I can understand where you're coming from, but to be fair to Larian, they're not exactly marketing this as a pure D&D experience. Here's what the "About" text says on the Steam store page for BG3:



Notice the way they separated "next-generation RPG" from "the World of Dungeons and Dragons," a heavy hint that "next-generation" won't be exactly the 5e tabletop experience, and they're only using the Forgotten Realms as a setting, not a literal translation. I'll bet it took the Larian marketing department a few days to come up with that exact text.

I'm with the OP here. By calling it a D&D game and having D&D classes, skills, mechanics, setting, etc., they're setting people up for disappointment if they don't have a D&D experience*. I think there's the potential for a bit of an uncanny valley situation here, where if there are enough D&D signifiers that make us expect D&D and then the experience is off in substantial ways, the result is upsetting.

If Larian is married to features that clash with the D&D part of the game (and I'm sure that we're too early in EA to say that for certain), it's possible that it would be better for them to drop a lot of the D&D signifiers and make the game that they want without creating false expectations.

*There are a lot of different things that could be a D&D experience - people play in different ways and for different reasons. Some people want to be powerful and win. Some people want to do cool things. Some people want to tell a story. Some people want to go explore a world. Most people want to do a combination of those things. So, to really deliver a D&D experience for the majority of people, it has to be able to do all of those things well. Personally, I find the combat/tactical aspects fairly uninteresting and samey - I'm fine with a bit of that, but I'm much more interested in the exploration and story aspects of the game.

They are doing their own thing - thats the whole point - Larian Studio's vision supported by WOTC - this game is not trying to be a BG3 in the literal sense of game mechanics of the 20 year old titles - its drawing on the world + D&D.
There is nothing wrong with having your level of expectation its just that you may have to temper them for a new vision from Larian. Keep giving feedback & hopefully (myself included) they will pull back towards more D&D aligned rules in some instances - i.e cantrips, surfaces etc.

I for one am throughly loving the game & any modifications made due to feedback by & large should only improve the experience - hopefully for you too.

I'm glad you're enjoying it. I'm finding it to be a deeply unsatisfying slog.

If they're going to use a popular mechanical system, people are going to come in with expectations about how that system works. If they are going to deviate in places, then they really need to:
1) have a good reason for that deviation;
2) implement that deviation in a way that feels fair and satisfying; and
3) clearly communicate that the deviation is happening and explain it so that people who would assume it works a different way can understand what is going on.

It's early, so they still have time to make a lot of changes, but the comments on this forum (and the topic of this thread) indicate that they are failing at a lot of those points so far.

If they aren't going to do a good job at handling points that deviate, I think it would be much better for them to still tell the story of BG3, but drop the mechanical system entirely and use a system that isn't meant to evoke D&D.

I'm not a D&D player - I don't like the system at all for Pen'n'Paper - but listening to Larian's marketing I was expecting a game attempting to be 95% D&D. Just diverging from it where it really clashed with the change in medium.

Still even not knowing the exact rules beyond reading up on classes, some youtube class reviews and listening to Critical Role, I can imediatly tell which parts of BG3 are not based on D&D and that for a very sad reason: They obviously break the balance of the game - cantrips imbalance, surface damage, amount of grenades and special arrors, food, bonus action economy,...

This is why I would argue to stick closer to the rules. They are not improving on them (like the changes for the ranger class), but very often disturbing the balance of the gameplay (prime example rogues). Some might claim that D&D is too simplistic because their move+action+bonus system isn't deep, but neither do single chest pieces offer flexible or interesting movements - the sum of all chest pieces is far greater than the value of individual units and the same can be said of a full party's vs single characters' actions in a round. Again, I myself am not at all a fan of D&D and still I see that it offers enough depth for an interesting game.


On the other hand there is pretty much nothing in BG3 that at this stage couldn't be changed very easily to get back to a far more balanced D&D 5e version. Its not re-inventing mechanics, its just assigning proper action costs to current bonus actions, giving those cheaper ones back to rogues, reducing food and surface affects and a couple of tweaks to spells/skills. None of that - even if it requires re-balancing levels - is that much work that it couldn't be done within a few months for the whole game and its pretty much why we have only 6 classes and just level 4 with no release date around the corner. So I am not worried at all.

My suggestion for Larian would be go back to 5e to reduce the amount of balancing you need and only then start tweaking and diverting from it where problems arise. Starting from this 'middleground' between DOS and D&D 5e (which is BS, its far more 5e, but people love to jump the 'Its DOS-bandwagon' due to obvious problems) you are not doing yourself too many favors when it comes to amount of work ahead of you.

For the Ranger changes, there is a class feature variants Unearthed Arcana https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/class-feature-variants which may end up in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything coming out in November and would not be surprised if the BG3 Ranger changes reflex TCoE. WotC know that Rangers have issues.

I am not upset about the Ranger changes, don't think they are perfect and need more tweaking but not surprised LS is looking into them.

Video game medium has a lot to bring to D&D. You don't get lifelike, realistic avatar and environnment in D&D. You don't get the voices and sounds effects. You don't get the automated MJ IA and the same storytelling. You don't get as many dialogues from PNJ, probably. Yes, you lose a lot of thing, buts you get a lot of things in return. Try to see the benefits, and how to get the most out of these benefits to make its an incredible experiences. This way it might be easier to accept why its different.

D&D logic = Not everyone is going to be happy with a DM's style of DMing, or what they add to make it feel like their own, also what they add to flavor the story they are trying to tell, or setting they are creating for the story. As stated in core rulebooks.

The thing that any DM knows if they are worth the title, that if you change something. It must then be playtested, then you must get feedback from the players on whats working what isn't. All this is D&D you are still using the core of D&D classes, races, spells, die rules, etc. Yet you are adding to it to make it yours, and per the handbooks, and rules that's still legal, and fine.

Larian is tweaking, adjusting things like other DM's to make it more their own, per official WoTC documentation such as rule books thats what is expected. They don't put well you have to have 95% of the rules in this book for it to be D&D, or you have to abide by 30% of the rules for it to be D&D. They don't put percentages on it, they don't have absolutes to follow (Only sith deal in absolutes) they give some basic guidelines, and structures then let the DM decide what works and what doesn't.

It's us the players that are putting these %'s and absolutes into the game, these are based upon your own personal DM's and how they run their games, or even how you run your games. For those that watch Critical Roll, Roll4it and other youtube pnp gamers you'll note none of them follow the rules exactly, or perfectly. Some are far more homebrewed then others. Mercer's Gunslinger, and Blood hunter classes were homebrewed, and now are official. Yet it took Gunslinger how many years to be tweaked, adjusted, revamped to become useful, and not OP.

We have just completed week one of EA, yes it has been play tested by people at or who are being paid by Larian to do so. Yet they may be baised to Larians ideas, as we are baised by how we play, or are DM's run their campaigns.

Saying it's not 95% of D&D or 20% or 100% of D&D is not a a valid arguement, nor should you be expecting that. Because Larian is for all intent and purpose a new DM, instead of all these baised arguements about what is or is not D&D you should instead be arguing along these lines.

Shove is breaking the balance of the game, making it far more useful then your weapons. Instead of a bonus action it should be an action, and a contest of strength/dex, vs. str/dex. Doing it this way keeps you from using Shove to cause damage from a fall, knocking the creature prone, then following up with an attack.

Cantrips causing surfaces = Currently cantrips are ruining the balance of the game, because though they've been nerfed in burst damage they are doing more damage through the use of aoe damage per round, on top of burning damage. Aoe damage instantly catches things on fire from what I've seen, granting you 2 dice rolls of 1d4 instead of the single dice roll of 1d4 that seems to be intended. With these 2 1d4's worth of damage your doing 2-8 points of damage, instead of the extra 1d4 which you took off firebolt. The next round you can again do 2-8 damage from your initial dice roll.

Barrels/barrels/and more barrels = All the barrels are not making sense to me from a point of immersion, why are they there? I feel this is far to exploiteable, and ruining the immersion, also it is causing other skills/abilities/spells from my class, and companions class to become useless.

note in these examples I'm giving my thoughts, feelings, and reasons why. Because in D&D no rule is set in stone, no percentage is given, doing something one way is not right or wrong, unless it is breaking the game. Thats the only rule in D&D and even it is flexiable 'Everything should be balanced.' with that said, Larian can peer in say okay this isn't working, that need adjusting, this needs more research, we can tweak here, tweak there. All this takes time, more so then if your at a table.

Things about how true it is to being what your used to at your table, is not how it is at another table, or another table. Because rules in D&D are simply guidelines, it's stated in the handbooks, that if something isn't working for you toss it out, or change it.

I quoted both of these because I think that where they intersect is the answer.

Larian Studios' "BG3" is yet another D&D adventure by yet another "DM" (in this case gaming studio) and there will inherently be things that are "the same" as other D&D sessions/DM's and things that are different.

I'm enjoying the exploration and the differences from what I recall from D&D - and this was a while ago, but it was still "D&D"

-Wizards had one spell a day and that was it - cantrips didn't exist at all, and when they were first brought in, it was tiny things like "wrapping" a spell component in a hanky-sized conjuration - no possible combat usage.
-Druids topped out at whatever level, and quickly got overshadowed by the rest of the party
-There were a very limited number of options for class and race. No Teiflings, no Gith, no Drow.
-Pretty much no sub-classes (Barbarian was quite a bit later)

I'm also enjoying "GM" differences

-Borderlands had barely any interaction with the environment other than looting occasional things
-ESO has minimal "surface" options basically based on spell or weapon effects; meaning if you don't have the spell, you can't just toss a barrel or a grease bottle
-Bard's Quest and Wizardry (early versions; not sure about later ones) restricted targeting so that if you weren't "in the front line" during combat you were severely limited in options

I love some of Larian's "House Rules"

-Shove doesn't do damage per se, but you can push someone into fire or off of something - great in terms of tactics, and when you have nothing else to do, it's nice to be able to fill Something!
-Some of the party can be "in combat" while others are still hidden - the computer keeps much better track of that than most human DM's I've known.

Oh I get that. Like with any pen'n'paper or any game that you are playing with friends. You can play chess like Warhammer if that's what your table wants Still any change that you make will make it harder to convince the next table to join you. Its like changing words in your language for your own style - after a while you will have a hard time communicating with others and thus reaching them.

I wasn't going into detail why their changes are problematic as I have done it myself in other threads and you will find it also by many others. I didn't see the point to go through all the details again arguing them in detail and just summarized it as '95% D&D' because I was oversimplifying it. A lot of the issues could be solved by rolling the changes back and Larians has tons of threads on the individual issues already


Still like you said, changes from proven rules have to earn their place. And sadly so far few of the changes implemented by Larian have turned out to have convinced players that they are improvemnets.There are no complaints for them changing the ranger class. I have also no real issues with the weapon specific abilities, no matter if they are 5e or whatever. But again, if you change something that is already working, it better be an improvement - especially if you advertised me that you are selling me the original.

thats the crux of it all. doing things to make it your own, while keeping people interested, and keeping it balanced.

Wanting to people to see they are being baised in their views, so they actually give real feedback and not. Well it's not 9% 18% 599% D&D so it's not D&D when in fact it still is, just under different management. Without the real feedback nothings going to change, and by putting for instance 95% D&D as an arguement when official things invalidate your arguement to me is just stupid. Serves no point other then make people think your a fanboy, or die hard, narrow minded, ignorant, arrogant, etc. which simply degrades the point of Feedback, and Suggestion.

I am not against all changes. As an example, I think the Ranger tweaks are OK but need more work.

I am definitely in the "try using the 5e rules as written first and if they don't work, then break out the house rules." camp. Yes, 5e has issues and is not perfect but as is, it's been playtested alot.

Why spend money on a system ( It's not like Hasbro is letting LS use D&D for free ) and then not use it 100%

I would simply argue that this is already happening in the individual threads. People are offering explanations beyond 'its not 5e', so no point in pulling all those into a discussion about what the general expectation is

Maybe not everybody takes the time to go into detail, but I think its fair also to say 'If you change something, then its on you to sell it to me, especially when its broken and not to me to do the carry the burden of pointing out all the things why its broken'. So while I agree its not the best feedback, I still understand the frustration from people in those cases.

Agreed,and I understand their frustrations but being frustrated, and posting bare bones things, isn't helping anyone. It's like throwing up your arms and yelling 'I'm mad!!" then walking away. Okay your mad, noone knows why, and you yourself are just stewing because you got nothing off your chest. It's counterproductive. As is the arguements of this isn't 43% D&D.

I've noticed that if you poke someone they usually spew out what the problem is. which leads to more feedback, and discussion. then we move on to other things, that helps the game. Plusdid I meantion I like poking things, shiny buttons in the ship, yup hit them all. Several interesting things (or interesting to me) happen. Poke Us (well in this case talk), Poke Le (several times) stuff happens.

"vary too much from the franchise"

Guys they added flammable surfaces to DnD, and that's pretty much it.

Then don't call your game BG 3 and give tons of interviews where you talk about how much you and your staff love how the games brought D&D rules to the computer.

BG and BG 2 made compromises when bringing the rules to the computer, when those spells or mechanics were limited by the systems utilized, especially the switch to RTwP. I understand why Wish can't work in a computer game. I also understand changes that a computer could do, but make sense not to incorporate in the video game world, like why spending 10 minutes Ritually Casting is unreasonable even though a computer is perfectly capable of doing so.

Larian changes aren't that. They have completely thrown out the balance of 5e. And with it, shock and awe, the game is terribly unbalanced. That's also why one or two changes aren't going to suffice. The easier solution, is to stick as close as you can to the rules and mechanics that have been playtested now for over half a decade, making changes as needed to account for having a digital DM rather than a human. That Larian thinks they know better is pretty arrogant.