Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 28 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 27 28
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I’m optimistic that the systems will evolve more into what we’re hoping for from a 5E game. They’ve clearly transferred a lot over from DOS and it’s taking time to modify those systems to suit the new ruleset. Let’s just hope they put their resources into the right areas. There’s no way they can’t be aware of the majority of the feedback which seems to be in favour of sticking closer to the rules where possible. With the first demos Swen seemed to be proud of the things that they improvised. I’m cool with some homebrew stuff (due to the tadpoles or items etc). Just get the core rules right first.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Also spells by the way. Many of them don't work like they should in 5th, like mirror image. smirk

Joined: Jan 2021
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Baraz
Originally Posted by grysqrl
5e rules don't actually have flanking at all, but some form of house rules for flanking is pretty common. The most common I've seen is that flanking attackers get advantage, which sometimes feels a little too strong. I play in some games where flanking attackers get +1 or +2 on their attack rolls, which feels a lot more reasonable. Advantage is a pretty big deal to give away that easily (not that it's always easy).
Same in my games (as a player). It is a popular homebrew (+2 for Flanking) especially after some D&D Youtubers made it more popular (which is where my DMs saw it).

Reason : both players and DMs felt flanking was too easy to get Advantage on NPCs that easily end-up outnumbered. In 3.5, running around someone could provoke an AoO, so there was a risk in some cases.

Coming from 4e, that this is not baked into 5e kind of baffles me. Running circles around an enemy would get you swatted in 4e, and Flanking gives +2. I guess it’s because of the disengagement cost.

I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Starsmith
I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.

Hmmm your disengage suggestion would be very similar to 3.5e/Pathfinder's 5-foot step and is certainly more realistic/immersive than Jumping. You could choose between:
a.) moving away at full speed and provoke
b.) backing away slowly and not get AoO'd but then you end up relatively close to the enemy. Mechanically, I suppose this version of disengage would halve or quarter your speed (min 5 feet).

However, it's not actually much less powerful than the current jump+disengage...it still gives party members the ability to ~freely (at cost of bonus action) move away from melee enemies. If you're trying to say that this slow disengagement doesn't cost a bonus action, then it's even more broken than what we currently have with Jump+Disengage.

Joined: Jan 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Starsmith
Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.
Personally I find that the 'cheesiest' aspect of the current disengagement system is that you can jump right through other characters and enemies, with the way projectiles check for trajectory I doubt it's even a technical limitation. My suggestion for this would be turning 'jump' into a 'dive' of sorts when you are within melee range of an enemy with AoO, allowing you to spend your bonus action to basically fall or roll in a direction to avoid the AoO but not being able to get straight through enemies by doing so. Maybe certain classes like rogue can still be allowed to perform a jump in combat since it fits their MO. Maybe you could have a roll at the end of the 'dive' to see how well it went and how far you get to move after.

Another thing I find ridiculous is how far the push goes. It's more of a launch than a shove, sending characters that are nowhere near a ledge flying over the edge like shot from a cannon. Whilst I do find it fun to knock characters off cliffs like they're home runs, it is honestly ridiculous how far away you can pull it off from. I do hope they make the ledge falls a bit more reliant on ledge proximity rather than just having to be at an elevated location.

Joined: Jan 2021
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Starsmith
I would be perfectly all right if BG3 ended up closer to the 4e rules for disengagement and flanking. Would disengagement costing movement but forcing a character to take a movement penalty be a good compromise? Larian seems to feel that disengagement costing a full action is too harsh for a video game, but *some* cost is obviously correct.

Hmmm your disengage suggestion would be very similar to 3.5e/Pathfinder's 5-foot step and is certainly more realistic/immersive than Jumping. You could choose between:
a.) moving away at full speed and provoke
b.) backing away slowly and not get AoO'd but then you end up relatively close to the enemy. Mechanically, I suppose this version of disengage would halve or quarter your speed (min 5 feet).

However, it's not actually much less powerful than the current jump+disengage...it still gives party members the ability to ~freely (at cost of bonus action) move away from melee enemies. If you're trying to say that this slow disengagement doesn't cost a bonus action, then it's even more broken than what we currently have with Jump+Disengage.

My intent with the suggestion is to increase the cost from what it currently is, but not so far as to prevent characters from attacking, since I assume Larian chose to change the cost for video game adaptation reasons. So, yeah, bonus+movement penalty for disengaging, something that would get your character out of threat/AoO range but not much farther.

It might also keep enemies and PCs from circling around constantly and jumping about for backstabs; adjacency reducing your movement speed would mean it would be possible sometimes to get around for a backstab, but it would take more effort to do it.

In 4e, it’s a 5 foot shift, movement only (action economy was different there, no one got extra minor actions as class features, and if you shifted, that was *it*, no more moving on your turn), but it’s needed there because *any* movement adjacent in 4e that isn’t that 5 foot shift is going to get you smacked in retaliation, and *any* ranged attack adjacent will also provoke an AoO. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore! Maybe it’s just me preferring my preferred edition smile

I can see why, playing BG3, that being able to move away that easily is an issue; threatening range just doesn’t feel particularly *threatening* when it is so easy to get out of it, nothing has any ‘sticky’ to it, but I can also appreciate why Larian might have chosen to make it so safely leaving threatened “squares” no longer removes the ability to attack.

Last edited by Starsmith; 20/01/21 10:00 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I just don't agree with this whole "video game implementation", that things need to go faster and that you need to be able to do more in a round. I honestly think tons of players would want a faithful adaptation and that a faithful adaptation still offers lots of stuff to do! Larian did add a lot of "new attacks" with weapon types, and I am all for them adding stuff as homebrew, just as long as they don't muck about with the core ruleset too much.

Joined: Jan 2021
G
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
I certainly do NOT agree with OP request here.

I'm not a veteran DnD player, and what I primarily look for in game is to be interesting. And I find many DnD rules unnecessarily annoying, mostly in combat.

Some of them significantly reduce possibility of tactical decisions and synergies that for example existed in DoS, Wasteland and similar games - chief among those is "one action per turn" and low choice of useful actions ( even in later stages when some classes get multiple attacks per turn, its just simple attacks ). Even games like Wasteland 3, with less options than DoS and also mostly simple gun attacks, offer more tactical options than pure DnD.

Other DnD rules are unnecessary recidivism of tabletop games, like dice attack rolls with frequent miss chances - DnD rules in general result in more frequent and more annoying misses than other games, and BG3 is no exception here. From some reason BG3 is even more annoying with those misses than some other DnD-like games I played, like Pillars of Ethernity II: Deadfire (tactical mode). And those misses are NOT necessary to keep full DnD effects, as I explained in suggestion I made ( and where it was overwhelmingly opposed by DnD veterans ) .

Clearly on this forum DnD veterans are more vocal. But equally clearly, there are more non-DnD gamers out there and reading comment sections on sites posting BG3 reviews show clear separation between what most DnD player want and what normal gamers want.

I think best option for Larian and BG3 would be to identify key issues where DnD and non-DnD crowd disagree and, where possible without too much resources, to implement both options - maybe with 'true DnD' , 'default' and 'low DnD' modes, similar to how Dreadfire has normal and turn-based modes. But it may be resource intensive, as for example Dreadfire only offered turn-based mode long after game was finished. So I doubt this will happen for BG3 before launch.

Last edited by gmnenad; 22/01/21 03:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I stand somewhere in between. Of course the game should abstain from the original P&P rules where it makes sense due to principal differences between P&P and a computer game. For instance, removing randomized HP gain rolls on levelups (or attribute rolls in char creation - although that would bring some nostalgic memories to a BG1/2 veteran like me) makes perfect sense (and generally anything with the potential to reduce the appeal of save game scumming, like the dialogue checks - but that is obviously not going to happen). Using the statistical expected value instead of a dice roll principally shouldn't alter the balance much (if at all). But there are also many cases where anyone knowing the actual 5e rules wonders "but... why?"

Last edited by DiDiDi; 22/01/21 04:32 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah many of the changes really do make me think "but... why?" simply because it doesn't make things more fun, more varied, more tactical just ... more broken? And sometimes it just doesn't make sense at all. And very many things that should be super simple to implement are not implemented (for example expertise for the rogue class.. how hard can that be to implement?).

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by gmnenad
I certainly do NOT agree with OP request here.

I'm not a veteran DnD player, and what I primarily look for in game is to be interesting. And I find many DnD rules unnecessarily annoying, mostly in combat.

Some of them significantly reduce possibility of tactical decisions and synergies that for example existed in DoS, Wasteland and similar games - chief among those is "one action per turn" and low choice of useful actions ( even in later stages when some classes get multiple attacks per turn, its just simple attacks ). Even games like Wasteland 3, with less options than DoS and also mostly simple gun attacks, offer more tactical options than pure DnD.

Other DnD rules are unnecessary recidivism of tabletop games, like dice attack rolls with frequent miss chances - DnD rules in general result in more frequent and more annoying misses than other games, and BG3 is no exception here. From some reason BG3 is even more annoying with those misses than some other DnD-like games I played, like Pillars of Ethernity II: Deadfire (tactical mode). And those misses are NOT necessary to keep full DnD effects, as I explained in suggestion I made ( and where it was overwhelmingly opposed by DnD veterans ) .

Clearly on this forum DnD veterans are more vocal. But equally clearly, there are more non-DnD gamers out there and reading comment sections on sites posting BG3 reviews show clear separation between what most DnD player want and what normal gamers want.

I think best option for Larian and BG3 would be to identify key issues where DnD and non-DnD crowd disagree and, where possible without too much resources, to implement both options - maybe with 'true DnD' , 'default' and 'low DnD' modes, similar to how Dreadfire has normal and turn-based modes. But it may be resource intensive, as for example Dreadfire only offered turn-based mode long after game was finished. So I doubt this will happen for BG3 before launch.


I truly get you! I sincerely do. It's just... Larian promised that this would be a gaming experience that would be "as true to dnd 5th edition as it could get", and they most certainly don't deliver on that so far, while games like Solasta really, really do. Sadly, Solasta is a far crappier game in so many other ways, and I *LOVE* Larian. In my case, it was just simply a wet dream that my favourite studio would make a sequel to my favourite game series IN my favourite RPG ruleset system! So... to *ME* it is highly disappointing that they are quite a bit off, and sometimes their changes don't even make sense from a "typical gamer" perspective either, imo.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
I really dont get all those complaints about misses, do people really get THAT frustrated when things dont go the way they want nowadays? Seriously...

Just take your time to learn the game, strategize, etc. Also,you can always play on easy or story mode when it becomes a thing, whats the point of making a strategy game where everything always hit and everyone is an inflated HP balloon? Why even bother positioning and thinking in that scenario?

Last edited by Chacineiro; 22/01/21 07:19 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by gmnenad
I certainly do NOT agree with OP request here.

I'm not a veteran DnD player, and what I primarily look for in game is to be interesting. And I find many DnD rules unnecessarily annoying, mostly in combat.

Some of them significantly reduce possibility of tactical decisions and synergies that for example existed in DoS, Wasteland and similar games - chief among those is "one action per turn" and low choice of useful actions ( even in later stages when some classes get multiple attacks per turn, its just simple attacks ). Even games like Wasteland 3, with less options than DoS and also mostly simple gun attacks, offer more tactical options than pure DnD.

Other DnD rules are unnecessary recidivism of tabletop games, like dice attack rolls with frequent miss chances - DnD rules in general result in more frequent and more annoying misses than other games, and BG3 is no exception here. From some reason BG3 is even more annoying with those misses than some other DnD-like games I played, like Pillars of Ethernity II: Deadfire (tactical mode). And those misses are NOT necessary to keep full DnD effects, as I explained in suggestion I made ( and where it was overwhelmingly opposed by DnD veterans ) .

Clearly on this forum DnD veterans are more vocal. But equally clearly, there are more non-DnD gamers out there and reading comment sections on sites posting BG3 reviews show clear separation between what most DnD player want and what normal gamers want.

I think best option for Larian and BG3 would be to identify key issues where DnD and non-DnD crowd disagree and, where possible without too much resources, to implement both options - maybe with 'true DnD' , 'default' and 'low DnD' modes, similar to how Dreadfire has normal and turn-based modes. But it may be resource intensive, as for example Dreadfire only offered turn-based mode long after game was finished. So I doubt this will happen for BG3 before launch.

Do you really know D&D5e ?

I'm absolutely not a D&D vet, I never played that game but I know the rules pretty much and you can believe me : the game would be far more fun,strategic and deep if the rules were better implemented.

Exactly like you... My biggest issue with this game is combats and I'm far from being a D&D/DoS purist...

Tactical decisions ? Tons of choices ? Synergies between characters ? Cover mechanics ? ... ?
All this exist in D&D but not in BG3.

There are many possibilities in D&D right at level 1-4 to increase your %to hit. The action economy of D&D is an important part of tactical decisions/strategy. So are the tons of features, spells, skills, reactions,... But we don't have anything like this in BG3... Combats are boring after the "discoveries hours".

Many players also complaint because we don't have enough things to do during our turns... because we miss too often... because combats are too slow....
I'm 100% for more D&D and less "DoS" but guess what ? I totally agree.

Larian give us a bad solution with those bonus actions but the solution is easy !
Just increase the party size ! More action/turn, more synergies, more decisions, more strategy, more damages, more buffs, less (meaningfull) misses...

In any case, whatever the party size the difficulty is a joke and guess what... That's because of everything that doesn't really belong to D&D or is badly implemented (backstab, highground, jump, disengage, potions, grenades, dipping, shove, food, poison,...)

Combats in BG3 are not D&D combats... It's just a mixture that doesn't work well.

Many players saying "it's not enough D&D" share your feelings about annoying combats... But your solution is a bad solution to me. Everything combats need to be far better exists in D&D.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 22/01/21 09:09 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Offline
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..
I haven't played 5e tabletop but oddly enough every item on this list is something that bothers me when I play BG3. Except the party size. BG3 would be a much better game if they followed the tabletop rules.

And yeah why are some of the magic items so weird? Heal someone and poison or pull happens. I don't want a puzzle game where I'm juggling magic equipment around in combat for weird situational pull effects. It slows down combat that is already slow.

And the shoves are completely over the top in BG3 with that much verticality.

Joined: Jan 2017
G
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
G
Joined: Jan 2017
The way they've handled 5e in this game (and especially how they have tried to incorporate elements of the DOS games) just doesn't feel good. It's a bit like if they took a car that was functioning perfectly adequately, removed the wheels from the right side and slapped on an airplane wing with propellers. If they'd left the car alone, it would have been fine. If they'd left the airplane alone, that would have been fine (but not D&D). But the two systems just don't work well together.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
I do miss but i dont miss that often (well not as badly as some appear to indicate) - i tend to think people do need to use buffs, positioning, try different attacks etc. - also this is only level 1-4 so you would anticipate a higher miss rate against certain creatures & armor types. Alot of complaining about missing i agree - you can have a bad day at the office too - Its just the roll of the dice.
Steamrolling a game is no fun - an appropriate level of difficulty & frustration with game mechanics until you suss it out are part of the joy/experience.

Last edited by Tarorn; 22/01/21 09:13 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
G
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
I really dont get all those complaints about misses, do people really get THAT frustrated when things dont go the way they want nowadays? Seriously...

Just take your time to learn the game, strategize, etc. Also,you can always play on easy or story mode when it becomes a thing, whats the point of making a strategy game where everything always hit and everyone is an inflated HP balloon? Why even bother positioning and thinking in that scenario?

From some reason I often get suggestions "you have other options to make game easier" when I talk about less misses.

I do NOT want game to be easier. It is already easy as it is - I was able to kill The Hag (Auntie) in one turn, before she managed to escape to her cellar behind fake fireplace, misses notwithstanding. And she was hardest NPC that I met so far ( lvl 5 with 130hp I think), not to mention her 4 or so Redcap minions with 40ish hp each ( took me 3 more turns for them, mainly due to waiting for them to enter hut ).

So no, I neither want nor need game to be easier. I want it to be less annoying ( regarding misses ) , and would gladly accept option to reduce misses even if it comes with harder difficulty.

Obviously I use advantages always and remove disadvantages like low light whenever they appear ( or killing Hag in one turn would not be possible), so I doubt I miss more that other people - it is just that I do not like frequent misses. There is ONE out of my 4 characters where I know why he misses often ( using GWM with two hander, with -5 penalty ), but even knowing does not make it less annoying. Not to mention misses of other 3 characters that do not have GWM.

Second thing people often bring out is along your "whats the point of making a strategy game where everything always hit?". First, I do not need "always hit", just "no frequent misses". And you need not look any further than Larian's own DoS games to see excellent game without excessive misses.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..
I haven't played 5e tabletop but oddly enough every item on this list is something that bothers me when I play BG3. Except the party size. BG3 would be a much better game if they followed the tabletop rules.

And yeah why are some of the magic items so weird? Heal someone and poison or pull happens. I don't want a puzzle game where I'm juggling magic equipment around in combat for weird situational pull effects. It slows down combat that is already slow.

And the shoves are completely over the top in BG3 with that much verticality.


Agree there, and I do think that list that you replied to is a great summary!! smile

Joined: Jan 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
I honestly think the combat would go a massively long way with just 3 key changes
- in-depth reaction system
- shoving focusing on prone rather than home run yeets
- advantage/disadvantage removed from height and backstab

Joined: Jan 2021
G
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

As someone who is not a DnD veteran, main issue I have with BG3 and DnD games in general ( only played Pillars of Eternity Dreadfire as other DnD game ) is that combat is much less interesting than in good non-DnD games like DoS ( or even Wasteland ). There is less opportunity for meaningful choices, tactical decisions, synergies between your own actions across turns or between actions of different characters ... in general, DnD combat turn is "one swing, and sometimes maybe one bonus something".

Therefore, looking at this list I unfortunately see some "true" DnD features that could potentially make combat even worse. Granted, I may have maybe to play with those to understand their full impact, but there are features from this list that look to me as bad for "increase combat options".



These are features from that list that looks to me as they would make combat *WORSE*:

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
*** in other words, even less choices per turn if even bonus actions need to be rarely used ?

- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
*** in other words, even less actions per turn if even jump would prevent me from doing some major action like damage?

- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
*** in other words, even less tactical choices if we can not dip ( now you need to decide between spending some time to go away to dip or setup initial attack close to dip )

- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
*** again, if they are actions it means using them removes use of another major action like damage, and reduces number of actions per turn

- you can't eat during combats in D&D
*** so one more thing you can not do during combat, therefore one less choice. Even if I never eat during BG3 combat, removing choices during combat is not good in my book.

- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
*** so they would have even less choices during combat, and much less possibilities to synergize with others?

- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
*** this would be HUGE negative if removed, as it is source of main tactical decisions, initial positioning and general flow of combat. Without it combat would be even more bland

- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
*** same as comment for highground - this is currently only interesting tactical per turn goal for melee fighters

- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
*** those WTF effects presumably increase options during combat, or potentials for tactical decisions or synergies.

- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
*** again, magical stuff could only increase options during combat, and DnD is already too limited in what you can do per turn





Of course, some of those look like they would help make combat more interesting, add more options or tactical/turn decisions.
So I think these would make combat *BETTER*:

- you can choose when to use your reaction
*** one more thing to choose is one more "tactical decision" thing to make combat more interesting, so this is good

- D&D have a cover mechanic
*** another tactical decision option, so this is good in regard to making combat more interesting

- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
*** any additional action option is good

- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
*** more party members is always good, increase chances for synergies and tactical combinations, make combat more interesting

- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3
*** if time of day influence combat, this would also be good, as another tactical consideration





These are just an opinions but they underline differences in DnD vs non-DnD gamers -there are obviously expectations for "true DnD 5e" from one side and expectations for "DoS3" from the other side ( ie for BG3 to be similar but better than DoS2). It seems like Larian is trying to make mix of "best features from both worlds", but obviously that would leave many people unsatisfied - not enough DnD for one side, not enough DoS for other. Another approach would be for Larian to make few BG3 'modes" , similar to how Pillars of Eternity made "realtime" mode and "tirn-based' mode - and difference in play and balancing in those are comparable to than differences in DnD vs normal game. For example:
- "true DnD" mode , with entire above list implemented as in base 5e
- "normal" mode with whatever mix Larian think is best (current situation)
- "low DnD" mode ( practically DoS3 mode).

But that would require adding all above features as OPTIONS that could be turned ON/OFF, and then bunching them in appropriate modes, while keeping game balanced regardless which mode is selected. I believe that "keeping game balanced" would be even harder in that case than actually adding those features as an options.

Last edited by gmnenad; 23/01/21 02:26 PM.
Page 10 of 28 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 27 28

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