Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#728677 06/11/20 01:32 AM
Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic. You're aiming to do this to the detriment of D&D 5e. Remember it's a D&D 5e game and was marketed as such, so the dissatisfaction from many tabletop players is comprehensible. See: It would be better if the game used D: OS rules in its entirety, so no one would come looking for D&D 5e.

Firstly, one thing must be clear: D&D 5e can be fun and dynamic without breaking the rules (even as a videogame). What it seems is that you judged D&D 5e boring and started adding random things (many from D: OS) that in the end seemed unfitting and only subtracted from the game. 5e gives room to creativity, and does it within the rules. We are used to think carefully about action economy, but in BG3 it was taken out. We are used to read the spells/features to explore them to the limit of the rules, but in BG3 they were changed and behave differently than the official ones (thus removing our references). We are used to thing what can be exploited in the environment, but in BG3 we don't need to think about it, because all the game BEGS to be thrown/exploded/triggered at the enemies.

It's disappointing, to be honest. With our references taken, it's hard to play BG3 after playing D&D 5e, and the inverse is true. Feels like I'm playing another version of D&D, and many things I learned (monster power; specific spell behavior; builds that work on certain conditions) don't work here because many things were changed. I tried to ignore it at first, but there are so many things changed that you can't run from it. I left the game aside for this reason, even though I found it interesting aside of the mechanics. Please Larian, rethink your take on the rules and make them more faithful to 5e.

Here's a list of "anti-5e" things I remembered with some comparisons and comments:

Annoying:
[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.
[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).
[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).
[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).
[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.

Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).
[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.
[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.
[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.
[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.
[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.
[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.
[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.
[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).
[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.
[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.
[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.
[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.
[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...
[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.
[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).
[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...
[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?
[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.
[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.
*Mind you: I know DMs are free to create their monsters in D&D 5e (and I do it), but 5e gives many sheets and tips as reference for you to change them and still make sense: if you change too much it would lose the likeness to 5e monsters. Change everything and things stop making sense.
[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating.

Before the accusators come, I'm no spokesman of anyone. But from what I've seen, these changes made many other 5e players upset. I myself won't lose hope that this game can be fixed before launch. I know Larian is competent. They only need to want it half as much as some of us do.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
The game is an ADAPTATION of the rules, not a direct transfer.
Well, Larian doesn't have to follow the rules. All D&D games modified the rules to a greater or lesser extent (in most cases the modifications were large).

I agree with some points, but most of them won't work well in the game. Changes must be approved by the WotC.
1) Hunters needed a change, now even in D&D they are far from perfect, and in the game they would not work.
2) The animations are meant to be readable (Swen mentioned why they look the way they do).
3) There will always be many more magic items in the game. The game has to reward the players somehow.
4) Weapon bonus abilities are a nice addition that does not significantly affect the balance, and at the same time is an additional thing to do for the character.
5) You have help actions, but it works differently. The D&D version would be terribly awkward in a computer game.
6) The potion as an action would be useless. This is a frequently changing rule for a reason.
7) Mage and familiars hand changes make them useful in the game.
8) A popup multiple times per turn is not the best way to design a fight in the game (in solast it's infernally annoying but that's just my opinion).
9) The ready action will not work in the game. I wonder how you would like to implement it.
There are some points I really don't want to even mention (it's too late for me).
Good game> rules.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 06/11/20 02:07 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121

9) The ready action will not work in the game. I wonder how you would like to implement it.


Here's how I'd do Ready.

You click the button, and a submenu pops up above it, exactly like the one currently used for the Hex spell. In this box are your basic melee and ranged weapon attacks, and any attack cantrips you have. You click one of these. As soon as a target comes into range of the attack you selected, your readied attack goes off. You can simply say that special moves and higher level spells are too complicated to hold readied. This is not 100% of the functionality of the tabletop rules, but I think it's close enough, and certainly much better than NO Ready action at all.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
"What you're doing with the rules in Baldur's Gate 3 is not the best way to make the game fun and dynamic."

And why are you the supreme court of what the rest of us find fun and dynamic? And why did you think your opinion was so important that it deserved a new thread as opposed to joining the numerous existing discussions on this subject?


I love this game as is. I think it could definitely be improved and I think that Firesnakearies' list of changes is awesome, but I don't presume to think that everyone will love them or the game will fail if they are not implemented.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
+1

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Levels on monsters instead of CR is such a minor F'ing issue. It's not "huge" it's irrelevant. Mostly because CR is irrelevant. You could just as easily use levels on monsters in DnD too, it's just syntax.
The only "issue" is that you see that it say's "level" under the monsters tag, instead of "CR".

If there's one thing people need to stop being so obsessed over it's their damn Monster Manual. Honestly guys, most experienced DMs will at times homebrew monsters, to get them to fit their campaign. Hell I ran a whole dungeon with only homebrewed ghosts and skeletons, in order to get variety at the level the players were. Last night my group fought a Massive Mimic, which was a normal mimic bumped up in size and strength.
And "using your knowledge", sure, but that's metagaming, and the game gives you all the meta data on the monster by examining them.

I really don't have an issue with that. But I can agree with the "lower AC, more HP" in general is an issue as it benefits some classes over others.

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Well, Larian doesn't have to follow the rules. All D&D games modified the rules to a greater or lesser extent (in most cases the modifications were large).

I know. I swear I'm not forcing them to fo anything...
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
1) Hunters needed a change, now even in D&D they are far from perfect, and in the game they would not work.

It's not impossible. I bet Larian is capable enough.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
2) The animations are meant to be readable (Swen mentioned why they look the way they do).

Doesn't mean they need to be excandalous.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
3) There will always be many more magic items in the game. The game has to reward the players somehow.

I agree there should probably be more. But currently the quantity is beyond "many more".
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
4) Weapon bonus abilities are a nice addition that does not significantly affect the balance, and at the same time is an additional thing to do for the character.

This causes significant changes because in 5e you need to get a new trait, feat, or magic item to gain a new ability like this. The problem is that they come from any weapon, not special ones.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
5) You have help actions, but it works differently. The D&D version would be terribly awkward in a computer game.

I don't think it would be awkard, I think it would be cool. I can imagine the animation of a character distracting/provoking an enemy and an ally using this opportunity.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
6) The potion as an action would be useless. This is a frequently changing rule for a reason.

Trust me, it wouldn't. 1st-level cure wounds is very similar to a potion of healing and costs an Action.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
7) Mage and familiars hand changes make them useful in the game.

In my 5e games they are useful. They would me more useful if you could use 5e Help action in BG3, administer potions, etc.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
8) A popup multiple times per turn is not the best way to design a fight in the game (in solast it's infernally annoying but that's just my opinion).

That might be true for some people, but others would prefer to control better with a pop up menu. In this case I suggest an option to activate/deactivate the prompts.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
9) The ready action will not work in the game. I wonder how you would like to implement it.

Like Firesnakearies said. Or differently. It will work in the game.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Good game> rules.

That's correct. But to be a good game there's no need to change the rules. At least not in this case.

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
And why are you the supreme court of what the rest of us find fun and dynamic? And why did you think your opinion was so important that it deserved a new thread as opposed to joining the numerous existing discussions on this subject?

Sorry, "supreme court of what I can say", but I'm not speaking for you. Look for a spokesperson elsewhere. I wrote the first part of the last paragraph for hateful people.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).

Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
I haven't played the tabletop version of 5e and don't really have such reference. But Larian's changes bother me too. The gameplay focus is way too much on environment and consumable items like scrolls, arrows and food. And limitless resting.

I have never seen such a comical and unrealistic take on Faerun in a CRPG. And it bothers me. I can't take the characters or the story seriously when the gameplay is so comical and tongue in cheek.

And I think the exaggerated Shove distance is actually a big problem mechanically too because it makes shoving enemies, even bosses, to instant death so easy.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
You led off, the very first thing, with a complaint about the 5e Ranger? Which is notoriously bad, and highly reliant on the DM providing appropriate terrain and foes? That was an unfortunate choice, because I'm sure you have a great many points I agree with you on, but leading off like that gives an impression as a strict, inflexible rules purist who finds any change unacceptable, even though this is an adaptation and flexibility is required.

Skimming through this more... you think potions should be a full action. Bonus action potions is a common house rule because the damage you take from giving up your action to drink a potion will hurt you more than the potion heals. It ends up being a waste of a turn. Complaining about this is ridiculous, and you have lost credibility.

I agree with a lot of your opinions on the rules, but you are insistent on rules purism to a fault. This is not the tabletop, and it cannot play identically to the tabletop.

Last edited by Stabbey; 06/11/20 04:23 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Aug 2014
I like the potions as a bonus action house rule. They can't do their job if you have to give up your attacks or spells. At low levels anyway where they heal for less than attacks do damage. I imagine them as very small quantities of liquid you can quickly sip down.

If you have 100HP and a Potion of Heal for +70 I could see that kind of power swing in combat requiring an action.




Last edited by 1varangian; 06/11/20 04:45 PM.
Joined: Jun 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2017
+1

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by 1varangian
If you have 100HP and a Potion of Heal for +70 I could see that kind of power swing in combat requiring an action.


I think the biggest ones are Superior, which heal for 8d4 + 8 = 16-40, and those are rare and expensive.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I'm not a P&P player but I have to say that I agree with you for many things... But I also have to say that this is a video game and some adaptations are fine.

This is the answers from someone that only care abouté this new BG game.


Annoying:
[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.

The P&P ranger doesn't suit video games according to me.
Natural explorer would be useless.
Favored ennemies would be usefull during a few very specific combats, which is not fair in the balance.
I'm not a P&P player so feel free to explain that one, I'm interrested but according to me what they did with the ranger is fine.
One suggestion I could have is to implement the beastmaster's companion another way. Actually it's like all other common summoned companion. This doesn't suit the relation a ranger have with it's "pet".
Maybe ranger's should have to choose ONE specific companions for the entire game. Of course this companions could be a little bit powerfuller, have special abilities or skills that are specific to the ranger's companions.


[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).

Not sure about D&D but I agree that jumps are really unreal.
I don't like how they implement jumps, but n'y especially because of the height Characters can reach.


[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).

Agree.
I think it's necessary a way or another in MP but I really hate those visual effects. I'd love something else.


[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).

I also strongly agree. I hate dipping because it's immersion breaking and because it's another WTF mechanics.
I think they could find ways for it to become part of real gameplay choices rather than another cheesy mechanic (i.e , dipping only oustide combat if you provide with "rare" component)


[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.

I wouldn't say that there are too many items but the items are totally WTF. "If the character wearing that gloves use heal, the target's weapons deal poison damage for 2 turns"... WTF ?
"If you're standing on fire, you fire damages are increased" WTF ?
" If you wear this ring, you can use a spell using your spells slots"... WTF is that artifact able to change what I learned ?

I think items could become way more usefull, way more on purpose and way more D&D/FR.


Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).

I like that.

[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.

I agree, even if it's not my single concern about "jump".

[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.

Agree, they should follow the rules according to me.


[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.

Not sure about this one. I don't really think that shove as a bonus action is something Bad.


[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.

Agree, it shouldn't be a bonus action according to me. As you said, it should only be for the rogue at level 2+.

[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.

The more action possibilities is better for the tactical aspect of the game. Not sure that "dodge" HAS to be in the game, but I agree there's a lack of tactical options while playing a melee character.

[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.

Cool but probably complicated in a video game.
Why not, but not that much important to me.


[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.

I agree and I guess (hope) this is something Larian is working on.

[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).

Prone should be an action or bonus action but in a tactical purpose for melee character. As they shove, they could push to prone their target.
Not sure "prone on purpose" would be usefull.


[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.

Yes, but it's not a dealbreaker to me.

[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.

Agree

[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.

Not really a problem to me.

[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.

That's a problem that leads sometimes to a boring inconscious/conscious/inconscious/conscious loop.

[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...

A very bad mechanics, but especially during combats.
Food should eventually give little advantages, but not work as healing potion.s.


[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.

I like it's a bonus action.

[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).

Abiities are not all working and there aren't well balanced, but I like them.

[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...

Mage hands definitely need some work.

[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?

I don't really like that grease is flammable but because it's going to turn into fire after 1 turn... I use grease so my ennemies can slip on that surface... Not because it's a combo that can deal more damages

[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.

I agree.

[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.

There are many problems according to me with the creatures and their balance... But I don't really care they have a level.

*Mind you: I know DMs are free to create their monsters in D&D 5e (and I do it), but 5e gives many sheets and tips as reference for you to change them and still make sense: if you change too much it would lose the likeness to 5e monsters. Change everything and things stop making sense.

Is that the same problem than the previous one ?
Not sure. As I said I agree that creatures abilities /HP/AC is not good for many reasons you don't talk about.


[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating

I agree. It's too many. I fear level 3+ spells for us... And our ennemies.
Not sure the battlefield will still have any cm2 without surface effects...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 06/11/20 05:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 to the OP, fully agree.


To address the contention in the thread, namely the Ranger. It has received a lot of love in supplements, and is quite powerful in some subclasses now. In general the subclass and subrace options being limited in BG3 makes for a limited showing of what can be done in 5E. However, the Horizon Walker and the Gloomstalker Ranger subclasses are quite powerful in 5E, and would represent well in BG3. Similarly with some other classes, like the Warlock, whose best subclass is overwhelmingly Hexblade. None of these are in BG3 yet (hopefully coming though). Larian would do very well to include content from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (its super relevant thematically even) and Xanathar's Guide to Everything, both of which added a great deal of content that help improve, balance, and expand the PHB offerings a great deal.

Last edited by Dominemesis; 06/11/20 07:25 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).


This is basically the argument people who want to buff spellcasters and drag down everyone else use. They conveniently forget that currently spellcasters can go nova every encounter (because in BG3 EA you can always take a long rest after any encounter), wizards have access to EVERY SPELL in the game, and the damage/utility of spells eclipses what single martial attacks can do (bugged abilities aside). These facts alone makes spellcasters much more powerful than martials. But this is exactly their point, to them "D&D feels like D&D" when casters dominate the game and can do everything other classes can, but better. That's what "being faithful to D&D" means for these people, but it's not so, it's just how they interpret things according to their convenience.

Case in point, go check youtube BG3 videos and see how many people are soloing the EA using wizards compared to other classes. Strangely enough, these "devalued spellcasters" can destroy the game without needing any help from the rest of the party.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Oct 2020
I[*]Ranger Class was completely remade. You have your arguments, but you didn't leave a choice to play with the official 5e Ranger, which is sad.

RE: They could provide a terrain and monster tag, that are used in the game for the the favoured enemy and terain. But this Ranger class is not a problem for me.

[*]Jumps are incredibly unreal. The height one can reach with it is unbelievable (makes me want to play as Grung).

RE: Agree, not everybody is a ninja from Wuxia.. I´t would be better, if the animation was something like a pull up then a jump up.

[*]All skills have a buff-like animation and a hell of a ceremony to cast. Ex: one accumulates the ki when DASH is selected and becomes a super sayan it's used (what a show!).
RE: I also hate the DASH, because I select it, then must acknowlodge it again... Hate it.


[*]Dipping makes no sense. You can make your metal weapon get on fire (without oil or magic). When you want to shoot flaming arrows, you dip your... your wooden bow on fire. The bow remains fine, and also your hands (but at least the arrows catch on fire when you load them...).

RE: Agree, It should be only for arrows. And poison coating the blade and arrow.

[*]Magic items (and ARTIFACTS) are absurdly abundant in BG3.
RE: There are not so many in my opinion.

Action Economy/game balance butchers:
[*]Every weapon (even mundane!) gives a special ability. Ex: a spear allows you to pass through your enemies with it's attack. These abilities doesn't exist in 5e, and should be rare (they are things to have on SOME magic items/artifacts).
RE: I actually like this one, I gives the weapon some personality.

[*]Jump is costing a Bonus Action. In 5e it's part of your movement and costs nothing extra.
RE: It could be a part of the movement, it makes more sense.

[*]Disengage is joined with Jump and costs a Bonus Action (this one is BIG). In 5e it costs an Action and have no relation to Jump.
RE: In what sense hase it a relation to jump? Like in that it is bonus action? Same as drinking potion? Or in that like you can Jump away from your enemies (which should trigger opportunity attack but doesn´t)?

[*]Shove is a Bonus Action in BG3, and the target flies back as if there's no air resistance. In 5e it's an attack, costing an Action. Also they only recoil 5 feet in 5e, but that's not incredibly important.
RE: I think its an animation problem, the flying effect isn´t realistic. But you can shove people pretty far in real life too. Don´t have problem with the mechanics of it being bonus action thou. It does´nt need much concentration in my opinion.

[*]Hide in BG3 is a Bonus Action. This destroys Rogues' shine because they are some of the few that can Hide as a Bonus Action in 5e with their Cunning Action. It normally costs an Action.
RE: Yeah, the rogue should have an advatage in this, he should be the only one, who can do it in combat. Others need to have a spell or simillar ability.


[*]You cannot take the Dodge action in BG3. In 5e it's one of the ways to remain in a strategic position blocking the enemies' path and dodging attacks while your party move/attack/cast spells.
RE: I think in Neverwinter Nights rogues and other with dodge feats had a bonus to dodge, AC or something which was applied against every attack and were harder to hit. They could use somethink similar here.

[*]You cannot take the Ready action in BG3. This is sad because it's a very important part of the strategic combat D&D 5e.
RE: Maybe something like in XCOM series? Depending on a weapon you have in your hands... I really like the Feat Polearm master and I think the Shield Master and Sentinel have some similar reactions.

[*]The way the Reactions are handled in BG3 is very poor. To work properly there should be an option to get prompts asking if you want to use your reaction. You can't optimaize 5e combat without this.
RE: I think it could be implemented the way Riposte works here on/off option.

[*]In BG3 you can't willingly get prone (to get protection from obstacles and give disadvantage to ranged attackers).
RE: Don´t have problem with that. It would be some sort of reaction.

[*]You currently can't take Cover in BG3. It changes how some spells/traits work.
RE: I would like to see it implemented too.

[*]Getting prone robs you a turn in BG3. That's not what happens in 5e. It only takes half of your movement to get up.
RE: I think its half your movement too, but I could be wrong, maybe I have seen it in Solasta.

[*]You can't use the Help action in BG3. In 5e, you can use Help to give advantage to an ally's to perform a task (check) or to his next attack against an enemy.
RE: I would like to see an option where your companions help you in some conversation/checks and task too. Like it was in Pathfinder. It would feel like they are cooperating more. Happens with exploration checks thou.

[*]You can't administer a potion to an unsconscious creature in BG3.
RE: You can not do it in real life either, make sense, you would kill them.

[*]Food heals you in BG3. No comments...
RE: Well. In a game you fight more than in tabletop, so it´s either this or more short rest or more potions in game. I didn´t get the memo food heals you till at the end of my first run and the difficulty of the game went higher and the annoyance of long rest were brutal. But the food should not be used in combat (it´s not a drink) and maybe it could be changed for bandages and balsams (with more uses than potions), maybe the use of medicine or nature skill (which would make more sense to me and the skills would make more sense in game). The nature skill could use the herbs you find. Or they could implement alchemy to make your own basic potions.

[*]Potions cost a Bonus Action to be consumed in BG3. A potion costs an action in 5e.
RE: Make more sense this way.

[*]Familiars all have different abilities. In 5e their sheets are like those of the monsters and there are no such special abilities (blind, etc.).
RE: Also make more sense this way. What I hate more is that they can not carry some light items.

[*]Mage hand attacks and throws enemies/things in BG3. In 5e it can't carry more than 10 pounds and cannot attack...
RE: This one does´nt make sense in original rules. If you can carry a rock, you can make the rock fall on somebody. If you can carry a candle, you can burn somebody and so one. But the creative use of mage hand and barrels is little overpowered.


[*]In BG3, Grease spell is flammable. Grease spell in 5e is not flammable. It's magical, not chemical, so chemistry arguments aren't to be taken as laws. Also, aren't already consumables that create flammable grease?
RE: Well, the fire spells are also magical. No problem with that. laugh But I don´t use it so much, you can use the potions and barrels that are everywhere. Maybe less flamabless in game...

[*]Most elemental spells (even cantrips) create elemental terrains. This one is hard to diggest because it destroys game balance, changes expected spells' behaviors, and drastically alters the dynamic of 5e combats just so it looks a bit more like D: OS.
RE: I like this one. Fire is fire, so it burns and cast things on fire. Same with water and electricity. Good strategy between Shadowharts water spell and Gale´s lightning spells. And the cantrips do not so much elemental terrains. And if you use the fire spells on flammables it´s only right that fire prospers.

[*]This one is HUGE: the Challenge Rating system was disregarded, and monsters now have levels. In 5e, spells, traits hit points, etc., defined the CR of monsters. Now that they have been recreated and have levels, all experience 5e players had on tabletop is useless to deal with it. You see a monster here, know it's different from the ones you'll see in 5e. You see a monster on 5e and came here with some expectation, get ready to get frustrated. We have lost our reference to guess the power of the enemies. This causes derived issues such as goliath-strong goblins and a hag using spells without a coven.
RE: I don´t have problem with the level thing, but the ghithianki dragon should not be a level 4. Atleast level 10 or so early in the game. So you can see the difference. Is there someone strong? Good. His level should be 3+ level more then you (the dragon, the beholder, maybe even the hag). Level can replace the Challenge Rating system. And if you see a level 10 dragon early in the game, you know it would be incredibly difficult to kill him and in the later stages of the game you will know that you have chance against him now. Something like the cambions and mindflayers early in the game. You know you can not take the Cambion without the help of mindflayer. Later in game maybe.

[*]Environmental effects are everywhere, tons of barrels of oil that not only burn, but explode (got to be nitroglycerin). There are lots of things that explode, cause an AoE or leave a pool of something. BG3 is... pulsating.
RE: Yes, there could be less barrels and also less food in my opinion.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Seraphael
+1

I haven't been a D&D TT-player in 20 years, while I loved DOS2 apart from the much too heavy focus on loot/gear. I still agree with most of this criticism.

Larian said they would faithfully port D&D to BG3, but it feels like the inverse has happened. I would buy DOS3, but false advertising made me expect a different game than what it currently is.

I LOVE how Larian wants to incentivize tactical combat through high mobility and positioning. I HATE how Larian homebrew beaks balance to do it.

For instance consider how giving away advantage affects class and spell balance. Barbarian Reckless Rage who gives advantage on attacks while also giving enemies advantage to attacks against you, will require another homebrew (flat attack bonus) that will be very hard to balance on top of easy advantage. Martial classes are buffed to an insane level by this while Clerics who don't even get range spell attack cantrips are relatively nerfed.

I have suggested a less radical homebrew departure from D&D regarding ADVANTAGE that should incentivize tactical combat w/o breaking balance:
FLANKING: Flank +1 attack, back +2 attack
HIGHER GROUND/RANGED: +2 AC/DEX save (half cover rule simulating defensive ground) while also not getting disadvantage on prone enemies on lower ground (makes little sense).


This is basically the argument people who want to buff spellcasters and drag down everyone else use. They conveniently forget that currently spellcasters can go nova every encounter (because in BG3 EA you can always take a long rest after any encounter), wizards have access to EVERY SPELL in the game, and the damage/utility of spells eclipses what single martial attacks can do (bugged abilities aside). These facts alone makes spellcasters much more powerful than martials. But this is exactly their point, to them "D&D feels like D&D" when casters dominate the game and can do everything other classes can, but better. That's what "being faithful to D&D" means for these people, but it's not so, it's just how they interpret things according to their convenience.

Case in point, go check youtube BG3 videos and see how many people are soloing the EA using wizards compared to other classes. Strangely enough, these "devalued spellcasters" can destroy the game without needing any help from the rest of the party.


Neither scenario is good. Whether its affecting martial classes or spellcasters, both sets of changes are part of the bigger problem being discussed. Long rests are supposed to be 1/24 hours, and Wizards aren't supposed to be able to scribe every spell in the game. Advantage shouldn't be easily achieved or handed out. All of these are complaints in the same vein: Namely that Larian's changes are causing issue that could be avoided by staying more faithful to the 5E rules.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Warranted and much needed criticism, but this was a hit and miss list. For instance:

1. PHB Rangers has multiple issues. Dependency on specific environment and enemies to shine this is hard to translate to a cRPG. Generally weak (albeit not at low-levels). Larian did some semi-decent changes. Larian's changes are surprisingly lacklustre though and it worries me that I can see this easily (haven't played D&D for years) when Larian did not. Let's quickly break down obvious problems with the new FAVORED ENEMY homebrew (misleadingly named as it functions now). PATHWAY would be better.

* Bounty Hunter gives a skill and a bonus to DC of Ensnaring Strike. Pretty WEAK compared to Ranger Knight who gets a skill and proficiency in heavy armor. Decent for roleplaying.
* Keeper of the Veil and Mage Breaker are too similar. Same skill and near useless secondary ability. True Strike is recognized as a crap cantrip (this could do with a homebrew buff) and Protection from Evil and Good is concentration spell competing with Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace, Swift Quiver, etc. Both will get little use.
* Sanctified Stalker gives a skill and the WEAK Sacred Flame cantrip. The cantrip is relatively nerfed by easy advantage to spell/weapon attacks and likely a melee Ranger who would need the ranged cantrip would pick Ranger Knight. So this will get little to no use.

2. Jump is part of the tadpole powers but should be presented as such. The design idea is increased mobility and maneuvering to advantageous positions leads to more interesting and rewarding tactical combat. Larian could even go more crazy with this sort of homebrew and less bewildering amounts of items and environmental interactions.

Last edited by Seraphael; 06/11/20 08:19 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

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