Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Millisar
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.


I like a lot of what you said. I know that every DnD RPG has modified the rules a bit to best fit the graphical story, but this has taken it really far. I have a hard time getting into the story myself. I hope they make some changes, because right now I don't really think I"m gonna keep my interest.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dominemesis
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.


D&D 5th ed has one class that can literally switch advantage on and off as it sees fit (barbarian via reckless attack), that's how difficult getting advantage in D&D is. Sure it's supposed to be ballanced because then enemies get advantage hitting the barbarian as well but then you just need to be a bear totem barbarian and you get resistance to all damage but psychic. At the same time there are low level spells capable of giving enemies disadvantage and they only cost a sppell slot.

The truth is a good part of 5th edition is about gaining advantage on attacks and that's not so difficult to achieve.

From the very beginning D&D has been about the party, every class doing one thing better than the others and therefore all of them being importrant for play. D&D and RPGs in genral are team games, but some people want spellcasters to be able to suceed alone. Nowadays (ok, it's a trend established since 3rd ed) these same people incessantly lobby for the notion that spellcasters have the right to rule every aspect of the game ("because... MAGIC!") making all other classes redundant and therefore destroying the concept of party roles and destroying party dynamics.

What I'm seeing in this thread (but I see similar stuff in other forums about other systems) is basically just people lobbying for better spellcasters when they work perfectly fine already.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Tulkash01


D&D 5th ed has one class that can literally switch advantage on and off as it sees fit (barbarian via reckless attack), that's how difficult getting advantage in D&D is. Sure it's supposed to be ballanced because then enemies get advantage hitting the barbarian as well but then you just need to be a bear totem barbarian and you get resistance to all damage but psychic. At the same time there are low level spells capable of giving enemies disadvantage and they only cost a sppell slot.

The truth is a good part of 5th edition is about gaining advantage on attacks and that's not so difficult to achieve.


Every way to gain advantage has either a resource cost (a spell slot), or a drawback (Reckless attack gives enemies advantage on their attack rolls). Walking behind an enemy does not cost a resource or have a drawback. Neither does being up high.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Tulkash01


D&D 5th ed has one class that can literally switch advantage on and off as it sees fit (barbarian via reckless attack), that's how difficult getting advantage in D&D is. Sure it's supposed to be ballanced because then enemies get advantage hitting the barbarian as well but then you just need to be a bear totem barbarian and you get resistance to all damage but psychic. At the same time there are low level spells capable of giving enemies disadvantage and they only cost a sppell slot.

The truth is a good part of 5th edition is about gaining advantage on attacks and that's not so difficult to achieve.


Every way to gain advantage has either a resource cost (a spell slot), or a drawback (Reckless attack gives enemies advantage on their attack rolls). Walking behind an enemy does not cost a resource or have a drawback. Neither does being up high.


Not always true: for example in my current playthrough I had to choose between gaining advantage on attack with Astarion (and his sneak attack damage provides a big reason for doing so) and being exposed to subsequent attacks. I choose to attack anyway and Astarion got downed in no time. Positioning yourself behind an opponent is not always risk free, and with better AI setting up traps this could be a very real problem for those who favor high risk/high reward approaches.

Edit: same is true for climbing up high. Sometimes the AI follows you and then throws you down causing falling damage and destroying your positioning advantage (this happened to me with the Kuo-Toa encounter for example).

Last edited by Tulkash01; 06/11/20 08:49 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
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.

Haha. Nice strawman attempt there buddy.

You assign ulterior motivations to a guy who on MULTIPLE occasions have criticised MULTIPLE balance issues with Larian's unfaithful D&D port. In fact, alongside easy advantage I have specifically criticised the super permissive rest mechanic and Wizards "unlimited Magical Secrets" (which is a relative nerf to Bards) as the worst offenders more times than I care to recall. Bad for immersion as well as causing an avalanche of class and subclass (and likely feat and spell) imbalances.

And I have specifically criticised in particular Wizards as the one who benefits most of all. Through buff to their attack cantrips directly and indirectly (environmental trigger, damages when misses) and through overpowered magical items as well: The Sapphire Spark (near double Magic Missile damage), Staff of Arcane Blessing (+5 average spell attack roll, +1-4 dex save), and Warped Headband of Intellect (allows metagaming using Int as a dump stat for Wizards/Arcane Tricksters/Eldritch Knights). Inversely, martial classes+Clerics have gotten their better non-magical medium and heavy armor spirited away - mysteriously more rare than ultra powerful magical items (another break in immersion). Moreover, I have ribbed many "spellcasters" who complain about Fire Bolt cantrip somehow being nerfed (which is not only wrong, but a very selective and disingenuous focus). Wizard is universally seen as the strongest class in D&D, yet Larian has seen fit to buff them in so many ways. I understand Swen Vincke, the boss and lead designer of Larian, is a fanboy of Wizards and only in this context does the buffs begin to remotely make any sense.

Case in point, think before you go off on a tangent. The way you were obviously triggered by the very hint of favoring casters makes me think you're not only misguided, but in fact a hypocritical martial class tribalist who mistakenly believed he was talking to his opposite number. Sorry to disappoint! Balance is a complex issue and if you attack anyone failing to mention all the intricacies (which you yourself failed to do) at every point, then you will be a very busy puppy indeed!

Last edited by Seraphael; 06/11/20 09:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
"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.

Bien dicho yo igual amo este juego como esta visto muchas ideas de 5e seria demasiado molesto para los que no estamos acostumbrado al ese estilo o juego algo si me encantaria implementen todas las razas y clases pero no se si aplicar todas las reglas 5e ya alguna son molestas como la concentración como mata el rol de muchas clases.
Recuerden que no iba tratarse de un juego 5e sino una adaptación de las reglas creo exigen demasiado a Larian Studios , mas saben que ustedes reclaman a Larian pero Como lleva Nombre de Baldur Gate no son los únicos con los derechos también podrían darle sus opiniones veran les responden están agradecidos con su manera querer implementar el manual de 5e pero si seria posible aplicar todas las reglas lo habíamos hecho hace tiempo
BG3 NO ES DOS3
DOS3 no tiene cinematicas , No tiene sistema de opciones que afecten drásticamente tu historia.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Not always true: for example in my current playthrough I had to choose between gaining advantage on attack with Astarion (and his sneak attack damage provides a big reason for doing so) and being exposed to subsequent attacks. I choose to attack anyway and Astarion got downed in no time. Positioning yourself behind an opponent is not always risk free, and with better AI setting up traps this could be a very real problem for those who favor high risk/high reward approaches.

Edit: same is true for climbing up high. Sometimes the AI follows you and then throws you down causing falling damage and destroying your positioning advantage (this happened to me with the Kuo-Toa encounter for example).


I don't see the relevance of your anecdotes. If you had an ally beside the enemy, Astarion would be just as exposed and still get the Sneak Attack, but it would be by the rules. By the rules a Fighter cannot get advantage fighting an enemy 1 on 1 and going behind them, but they can in BG 3.

No one ever said that enemies could not attack you on high ground.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Not always true: for example in my current playthrough I had to choose between gaining advantage on attack with Astarion (and his sneak attack damage provides a big reason for doing so) and being exposed to subsequent attacks. I choose to attack anyway and Astarion got downed in no time. Positioning yourself behind an opponent is not always risk free, and with better AI setting up traps this could be a very real problem for those who favor high risk/high reward approaches.

Edit: same is true for climbing up high. Sometimes the AI follows you and then throws you down causing falling damage and destroying your positioning advantage (this happened to me with the Kuo-Toa encounter for example).


I don't see the relevance of your anecdotes. If you had an ally beside the enemy, Astarion would be just as exposed and still get the Sneak Attack, but it would be by the rules. By the rules a Fighter cannot get advantage fighting an enemy 1 on 1 and going behind them, but they can in BG 3.

No one ever said that enemies could not attack you on high ground.


By 5th edition rules a fighter can shove an opponent (athletics check) cause it to get prone and everyone suddenly has advantage against it. In BG3 shove is good for causing falling damage but since the opponent immediately rcovers and gets on its feet it's not an effective tool to gain advantage. On the other hand moving behind an opponent gives you advantage in BG3 while it does not in 5th ed. Btw 5th edition rules are not so clear about high ground. The DM may very well rule it does give advantage, or not depending on his interpretation of the situation.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael


Haha. Nice strawman attempt there buddy.

You assign ulterior motivations to a guy who on MULTIPLE occasions have criticised MULTIPLE balance issues with Larian's unfaithful D&D port. In fact, alongside easy advantage I have specifically criticised the super permissive rest mechanic and Wizards "unlimited Magical Secrets" (which is a relative nerf to Bards) as the worst offenders more times than I care to recall. Bad for immersion as well as causing an avalanche of class and subclass (and likely feat and spell) imbalances.

And I have specifically criticised in particular Wizards as the one who benefits most of all. Through buff to their attack cantrips directly and indirectly (environmental trigger, damages when misses) and through overpowered magical items as well: The Sapphire Spark (near double Magic Missile damage), Staff of Arcane Blessing (+5 average spell attack roll, +1-4 dex save), and Warped Headband of Intellect (allows metagaming using Int as a dump stat for Wizards/Arcane Tricksters/Eldritch Knights). Inversely, martial classes+Clerics have gotten their better non-magical medium and heavy armor spirited away - mysteriously more rare than ultra powerful magical items (another break in immersion). Moreover, I have ribbed many "spellcasters" who complain about Fire Bolt cantrip somehow being nerfed (which is not only wrong, but a very selective and disingenuous focus). Wizard is universally seen as the strongest class in D&D, yet Larian has seen fit to buff them in so many ways. I understand Swen Vincke, the boss and lead designer of Larian, is a fanboy of Wizards and only in this context does the buffs begin to remotely make any sense.

Case in point, think before you go off on a tangent. The way you were obviously triggered by the very hint of favoring casters makes me think you're not only misguided, but in fact a hypocritical martial class tribalist who mistakenly believed he was talking to his opposite number. Sorry to disappoint! Balance is a complex issue and if you attack anyone failing to mention all the intricacies (which you yourself failed to do) at every point, then you will be a very busy puppy indeed!


I criticized you on what you wrote on this thread, especially because you claimed that martial classes have been buffed to "insane levels" by Larian's implementation of 5th edition rules and I don't think that's true at all. Martial classes have basically the same chance to hit other classes have unless they can get advantage. In 5th edition a wizard casting a spell or a cantrip using his casting ability modifier and his proficency bonus has the same to hit bonus a fighter has while using his main offensive ability and his proficency bonus. I.e. a lvl 4 wizard with 18 intelligence has a +6 to hit when casting a spell/cantrip that requires targetting the same as a 4th level fighter with 18th strength. This is basically the same in BG3 EA. The only advantage martials have over casters in this regard is the rule for "backstabbing" but that requires going toe to toe with the enemy unlike casting spells from a distance.

As for your accusation, I've never asked to nerf casters in BG3, unless you consider the request of changing the way the long rest system works to be an attack on casters (it's a broader issue). My point is that the game is ballanced ON PARTY level. Each class is good at something and bad at something else. Currently BG3 favors casters and there's people asking for buffs to casters and nerfs to mechanics that favor martial classes.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Technically true, but there are a lot of other components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move."
This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
What what I have seen in the game, I feel the facing system should be removed.

I have seen kobolds move a few feet to hit a character from the back, then move back to the front where they were before :P

Likewise, it is super easy to walk around a few feet to hit the back on enemies.
It is a bad logic system.

Flanking, ie. two allies on two sides, would be the good system. Those with Sneak attack could use it when flanking for example. Flanking is easy to implement considering the game already is able to consider a back, so if character X is on back and character Y is on front = flanking.

Last edited by Baraz; 07/11/20 04:43 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
I’m a paladin in the quest to complain about Larian balance issues but being just a 100% purist won’t solve the game problems. Pointing the differences is a good thing but I expect a deeper evaluation in how they gonna affect the overall balance. Out of the homebrew the ones I dislike the most are the advantage system and surfaces effect that was added which undermines casters. Shove & disengage are also bad as they’ve break the balance of classes. That’s all I dislike about the BG3 rules. The rest I’m okay and I’ll manage to survive.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Like flanking, it's an optional rule for a reason. Solasta has proven that we can have everything 5E has translated into a computer game. I want this but with full 5E Faerun with Larian's graphics budget. Giving us full 5E shouldn't be hard if a band of nobodies were able to pull it off with the SRD rules.

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Edit time limit passed, so I'm doing it as quote. Fixed the formatting and added the high ground and facing rule issues:

Quote
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:
  • High ground and low ground affects hit rate. I wonder if it was added to compensate the removal of cover rules.
  • 5e's optional facing rule is mandatory in BG3. There's currently no way to disable it.
  • 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 mundanes!) gives you a special ability. Ex: spears have a thrust attack that passes throught enemies. 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.

Last edited by Millisar; 09/11/20 04:47 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
U
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
U
Joined: Oct 2020
I also agree to a lot of things said here.

I stopped reading D&D rules at 4th ed, so my knowledge about 5e is basic at best, but some things you did just kind of break the fun, not only because they are annoying but (even if its a fantasy setting) they are incredibly illogical. Some mentioned it, everything burns or explodes. small cantrips that hardly do any damage create fields of ice or fire. Every goblin has arrows of fire/acid/thunder and whatnot...not to talk about grease and alchemists fire or acid vials. That stuff should be rarer then that. And if i look at how much gold those arrows cost...

When i examine some npcs i can just be amazed at the stats... Stuff like this makes me quit the game for a while before i start anew. wink

I won't complain about how close you stay to 5e rules but if you use them, try to follow them as closely as possible. Otherwise just say "our own rules based on a modified 5e ruleset". But keep functionality over show. As with the romance stuff....there is a thin line between fun to play and annoying players. Not everything must be super-special.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Online Content
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Technically true, but there are a lot of other components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move."
This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction.

And this would already eliminate the actual problem with Larian's implementation where you can just leapfrog back and forth over an enemy to get advantage every single turn regardless of circumstances.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Facing is an optional rule on page 252 of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, and it does grant advantage to people attacking from behind. So, it's not just something Larian made up.

Technically true, but there are a lot of other components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move."
This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction.

And this would already eliminate the actual problem with Larian's implementation where you can just leapfrog back and forth over an enemy to get advantage every single turn regardless of circumstances.


Yup. But I wouldn’t argue with this people that play by the rules when they are convenient and when it’s not they claims that DnD5e is not balanced. Nevertheless, both facing rules & high ground positioning advantage are rules that completely takes out elements of the standard game and causes a chain reaction through the entire combat system. I’ve made a whole post regarding the impact of this in the spell slot economy and in the non released classes. But again, why to take in account someone that say it’s fine to bonus disengage to protect the casters & vehemently agree with the implementation of the optional rules presented in DMG. Living incoherence

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Can you link to the post about the spell slot economy? I would think that casters gain incredible advantage with the current house rule setup?

Joined: Nov 2020
B
stranger
Offline
stranger
B
Joined: Nov 2020
I agree with some points and disagree with others. I'm not overly concerned with balance. 5e isn't the most finely tuned thing in the world, which makes sense to me as a tabletop RPG. You can make overpowered or underpowered classes. I'm more worries about the fun and class identity. Giving everyone their time to shine.

I like the greater focus on things like use of terrain and positioning. I'd love to see cover implemented at some point. I think it's a good advantage you can lean into with it being a video game over tabletop. On the flip side, I don't like the huge use of surfaces. I'm a huge DOS fan, and I expected some overlap, but I don't like that even cantrips make surfaces. It's more annoying than enjoyable. Another carryover from DOS is the hug amount of spell scrolls. It's just too much to be carrying around.

I like potions as a bonus action. Potion as an action feels bad in 5e. I use this as a house rule in my 5e games anyway.

I like the special weapon abilities. It gives the weapons some more identity rather than the size of the damage die.

One major point I agree on is hide and disengage being bonus actions. It feels bad as a fighter when everyone I fight disengages and I get no opportunity attack, and it's too much of an advantage to ranged attackers. The biggest casualty here is the rogue. Cunning action is a huge core to one of my favorite 5e classes. It just makes them feel worse. One of their really niche and unique abilities is default to everyone in the game. Even shove bonus action is fine to me. Speaking of, using shove to help ranged attackers doesn't matter anymore since you can ALWAYS get away now. At least add the Sentinel feat in the game.

I also really do not like the way reactions are handled right now. I don't know what the best way is, but I know it feels off right now. I can see the argument that prompts would get really obnoxious. It just kind of destroys the abilities to have the pre-preemptive rather than reactive. Riposte feels bad when you waste it on the mob you didn't want to. Hellish rebuke feels off having to cast in advance. It makes me worry about the Bard coming up. Lore bard is amazing, but how would Cutting Words and bardic inspiration work in this system? It would truly get obnoxious asking to use cutting words every time someone in your party gets attacked. I think there is a need for some change in these systems to make them work in a video game, but it just feels really off right now.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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