Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't think they really dumbed down the D&D stuff especially, they just inexplicably changed stuff that didn't need changing...

like (and this a minor one) a firebolt in pnp? Simple 1d10 fire damage that improves at certainly levels getting an extra dice, in BG3? it does 1d6 fire damage, but also bonus fire damage that isn't explained, oh and it makes a surface which automatically causes burning with no save. That isn't simpler, its more complicated and actually detrimental as the amount of damage the spell now does is too high and far too dangerous for a cantrip.

There are many similar changes, rarely do they feel like they were simplifiying, if anything they're often overcomplicating or overcompensating for a previous overcomplication (at least from my perspective!)


Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
I would very much like BG3 to be the face of DnD, only at the current implementation it's just not DnD rules.

It's a hodgepodge pot of homebrew that breaks most DnD mechanics to the point that people who played BG3 and then go to a DnD session are probably gonna be very disappointed; either at DnD, or BG3.

Boy do I wish Larian would just stick to DnD 5th ed rules. It also makes me question if people at Larian actually know the rules, and why they look like they do?

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
BG3 is an excellent representation of D&D too many people are not seeing the care & attention to the look & feel of the game. As has been said many many times some d&d 5e rules don’t work as well in video game form - if the game isn’t fun it don’t sell...
Solaster looks ok & appears to have a few more combat rules but it’s not exactly earth shatteringly different - we are only in the begging of early access & you can sense how great this game will become. The larian team play D&D themselves they obviously have some decisions to make in terms of which rules they consider essential & best implemented in the game - others not so much.

Last edited by Tarorn; 26/10/20 08:38 AM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
thats insofar a strange question because one DnD doestn have a community, thankfully, and secondly because it already is full of newcommers.
5e is full of new people who never played any other edition.
The same was true with third edition. hence why so many third edition fans act as if thats what dnd "is", despite them still just beeing late to the party and assume what they know is the be all end all.

Generaly i dont bother, it only affected my table once when someone tried to use a classic "bad 5e wording" abuse and i just didnt let him do it. (in case anyone doesnt know, many podcast watching 5e players are used to stuff like using tiny hut to create an impenetrable barrier that you can freely shoot out of)
And thats where that particular impact ended.

I personally dont mind. DnD becoming more mainstream is only realy good for me, keeps my players group more healthy, but i play an older edition so any change to the ruleset doesnt bother me.


What bothers me of course is the Cultural representation.
I still havent found out wether the seven man cuck squad tweet was a fake or not, but that shit certainly drives me away from openly advocating the product.


EDIT:
>BG3 should stick to 5e rules
you people need to broaden your horizont a bit and play older editions and get used to the mindset.
Everyone homebrews. Flat out. Thats that.
Any people that claim that theres no homebrew at their table only ever played with one tableand forgot that not all of the things they do is RAW.
Every DM consciously or unconcsiously tampers with the rules till they fit whatever style of game they are going for.

Tell me how many 5e DMs let their players track weight. The only DMs that regulary do this are OSR DMs, because in TSR era games carry weight, tracking ressources and time are crucial gameplay elements, while the more narrative focused newer editions usually dont bother. But RAW its there iirc.

Larian does what every DM ever did. They adapt the rules to the Campaign theyre running. Theres a reason it didnt used to be "Dungeon Master" but "Referee", and there used to be "Rulings".

A lot of you people could benefit from a bit of history reading of the game you hold up in such high esteem. Because the things you complain about are the actual basis on which the game is built upon.

EDIT 2:
>you arent a real game unless...
Well YOU arent a real RPG game unless you played Wizardry Bane of the Cosmic forge, Crusader of the Dark Savant and imported your safefiles into Wizardry 8 and THEN finished the game after boning the Rapax queen
WellYOU arent a real Tabletop Gamer unless you successfully survived Tomb of Horrors, DMed in the vein of Gary Gygax.
...
This is ridiculous.

Last edited by Sordak; 26/10/20 04:36 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't necessarily think people are totally opposed to house rules. But the house rules need to be good. A lot of the "house rules" Larian has, really, really aren't. They make gameplay wonky and force even more house rules elsewhere to try and keep the building that was originally fairly balanced from toppling over.

It's such a minor but super simple example, but firebolt is utterly broken. Its continuous unavoidable damage just isn't fun, or clever, it's irritating and makes for a negative play experience. Another example of a dumb rule change is rogues second bonus action.

then you have awkward mechanics that came from divinity like selecting a power, getting a weird animation then having to randomly click the screen to actually activate the power (dash is a good example, as is second wind). It's clunky.

Comparative to most other RPGs out there, BG3 looks and sounds excellent, and there are moments of good and fun gameplay. But they are moments buried among a bunch of weird and awkward mechanics and design decisions.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by blindhamster
I don't necessarily think people are totally opposed to house rules. But the house rules need to be good. A lot of the "house rules" Larian has, really, really aren't. They make gameplay wonky and force even more house rules elsewhere to try and keep the building that was originally fairly balanced from toppling over.

It's such a minor but super simple example, but firebolt is utterly broken. Its continuous unavoidable damage just isn't fun, or clever, it's irritating and makes for a negative play experience. Another example of a dumb rule change is rogues second bonus action.

then you have awkward mechanics that came from divinity like selecting a power, getting a weird animation then having to randomly click the screen to actually activate the power (dash is a good example, as is second wind). It's clunky.

Comparative to most other RPGs out there, BG3 looks and sounds excellent, and there are moments of good and fun gameplay. But they are moments buried among a bunch of weird and awkward mechanics and design decisions.


Totally agree with that, the problem is not adding house rules, it's adding bad ones.
Another example is the shove action as a bonus action, shoving, aka oneshoting bosses, can be powerful but it should need a real investment like an action, in current state, you can act normally and try to instant kill everything "just in case"

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dapoolp
Originally Posted by blindhamster
I don't necessarily think people are totally opposed to house rules. But the house rules need to be good. A lot of the "house rules" Larian has, really, really aren't. They make gameplay wonky and force even more house rules elsewhere to try and keep the building that was originally fairly balanced from toppling over.

It's such a minor but super simple example, but firebolt is utterly broken. Its continuous unavoidable damage just isn't fun, or clever, it's irritating and makes for a negative play experience. Another example of a dumb rule change is rogues second bonus action.

then you have awkward mechanics that came from divinity like selecting a power, getting a weird animation then having to randomly click the screen to actually activate the power (dash is a good example, as is second wind). It's clunky.

Comparative to most other RPGs out there, BG3 looks and sounds excellent, and there are moments of good and fun gameplay. But they are moments buried among a bunch of weird and awkward mechanics and design decisions.


Totally agree with that, the problem is not adding house rules, it's adding bad ones.
Another example is the shove action as a bonus action, shoving, aka oneshoting bosses, can be powerful but it should need a real investment like an action, in current state, you can act normally and try to instant kill everything "just in case"

it also seems to just always work when realistically, it should be an opposed athletics roll and not work on certain size creatures (although it may not work on certain size creatures, ive not actually tested that)

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
5e was absoluteley never balanced.
Stuff like disengaging obviously were kept in because the previous two editions had it and it worked pretty well.
As for shove: Because you dont use it otherwise, its a trash option outside of a few dumb builds.

Thats the entire problem with 5e "balance". Its full of trap options. Both in character building aswell as in combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
except shove really wouldnt be a trap option in any game where the GM thinks about verticality, which Larian does. The result of it being bonus action AND auto success AND long distance AND lots of vertical design is it goes from being a "trap" to being broken. smh.


Joined: Jan 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2020
One thing is forsure BG3 clearly need a lot more or a lot less of DND because its current implementation doesn't translate to a video game at all... I think it needs less DND personally.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Clearly wizards of the coast intends it to be new face. But we'll have to wait and see


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Emulate
One thing is forsure BG3 clearly need a lot more or a lot less of DND because its current implementation doesn't translate to a video game at all... I think it needs less DND personally.

I actually agree here. If theyd just said they were using the forgotten realms setting and borrowing some ideas. I think it would have gone down better. But what they did was say it was a game using the d&d 5e rules and then changed a bunch of them, the only proviso before early access was that some things changed because they had to. So far, clearly most of the changes didnt "have to" be made. Because solasta doesnt make them and some people are already slowly modding them out. The people at solasta also have blog posts explaining why they diverged, which is far better tbh, even if I dont agree with their lighting changes, I can accept their reasoning for it.

Had they just said "here is a game in the forgotten realms" it would likely have gone down better. So yeah, I agree, they should either go properly d&d or they should just make it clear it isnt a d&d game really.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by blindhamster
Had they just said "here is a game in the forgotten realms" it would likely have gone down better. So yeah, I agree, they should either go properly d&d or they should just make it clear it isnt a d&d game really.

I don't know about that. It certainly would've been better from my pov as an FR setting fan first and foremost. But I think BG3's draw for quite a number of people is in fact that it is a D&D 5e game that hews close to the D&D 5e PnP experience.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by OneManArmy

How does the dungeon and dragon community feel about the neophytes who came from other RPG games but had no business with DnD before?
The reaction of those for whom BG3 also became the first game on DnD is also interesting.


I am one of these people, although I did play casual DnD sessions (mostly Tomb of Annihilation) in real life a few times. Sadly I do not think there is enough story revealed in EA yet to judge if I really need all the lore background seasoned DnD players have, especially with all the gods and the Dead Three in particular.

It might help me better understand the "the PC is the new Cyric coming to destroy the Dead Three" theory though.


Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by blindhamster
Had they just said "here is a game in the forgotten realms" it would likely have gone down better. So yeah, I agree, they should either go properly d&d or they should just make it clear it isnt a d&d game really.

I don't know about that. It certainly would've been better from my pov as an FR setting fan first and foremost. But I think BG3's draw for quite a number of people is in fact that it is a D&D 5e game that hews close to the D&D 5e PnP experience.


Its draw was that was what was expected. Honestly; it doesnt feel like what we got. The friends I showed that also play 5e seemed to feel the same, anecdotal as that may be.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Some DnD lore skinned over DoS does not make it the 'face of DnD'. If you want true DnD mechanics try Solasta EA.

Last edited by simsurf; 26/10/20 08:41 PM.
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

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