Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Baraz
Generally agree, BUT ...

a) In 5e, terrain conditions like elevated ground can give Advantage, but it is a DM's call. So Larian is not really bending the rules here.

b) the percentage to hit is a nice feature / much easier to evaluate. At best, there could be an option to show the rolls over AC.


The game still uses di rolls to determine the hit. You can see this in game by clicking the tiny arrow on the bottom left. It shows your chance to hit in percentage, but you can see what the game actually rolled and verify it was indeed a di roll. I THINK it also shows enemy AC there, but I can't remember 100% if the AC is part of what it shows or not.

Last edited by Silent Cetra; 09/10/20 03:36 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 to more traditional DND rules!!!

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Silent Cetra
Originally Posted by Baraz
Generally agree, BUT ...

a) In 5e, terrain conditions like elevated ground can give Advantage, but it is a DM's call. So Larian is not really bending the rules here.

b) the percentage to hit is a nice feature / much easier to evaluate. At best, there could be an option to show the rolls over AC.


The game still uses di rolls to determine the hit. You can see this in game by clicking the tiny arrow on the bottom left. It shows your chance to hit in percentage, but you can see what the game actually rolled and verify it was indeed a di roll. I THINK it also shows enemy AC there, but I can't remember 100% if the AC is part of what it shows or not.


Attack rolls vs. AC basically is a % chance... still, I don't like seeing it like that, to be honst. It should be completely optional. D&D games usually don't deal in %, unlike say, the Fallout series. It's a game of optimizing your character, and meeting each new enemy without knowing your chances.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Teslamatic
I am a big fan of the Baldur's Gate games and the Divinity games. I also regularly play tabletop 5e.

It seem to me like Larian doesn't really understand the appeal of tabletop 5e and isn't giving it a chance.

It feels like they are trying to adapt Divinity rules with a 5e paint job rather than starting with 5e rules and working from there. It was mentioned early on that they didn't think people like to miss so they added a bunch of extra rules to improve hit rates or give advantage.

The problem with meddling with 5e rules that it unbalances things. Elevation bonuses benefit ranged characters, but punishes melee. Then more rules need to be added to counter the other rules and more and more. Jumping/Disengage as a bonus action spits on the rogue and monk who lose a class feature.

It isn't necessary. Playing on a tabletop it doesn't feel like you are always missing, there's bounded accuracy and monsters designed to be either low AC/high Hp or higher AC/low hp.

I also think that if instead of showing a percentage attack change and people goiing "HoW cOuLd i MiSs aT 99%?!" just show the roll. It gives more feedback than just hit/miss. Missing three times in a row could be rolls of 1, 2. 3 or 8, 9, 10. It just feels better when you miss by less.

I think that Larian has made everything much harder for themselves trying to balance things and could potentially alienate fans of the 5e ruleset by having things that would never appear in tabletop play.

An example that bugged me was an open wound disease that over a few turns progressed into a disease that gave vulnerability to all damage that required a second level spell to remove at level 3 play. Diseases are relatively rare in 5e, and usually progress over days, not seconds. it shouldn't be a thing that every trap does.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts.


I think you're very much right that this feels like an attempt to adapt D&D ruleset to the game engine, rather than adapt the game engine to the D&D ruleset. A minor, but crucial distinction and in my opinion the wrong way to do it.

I suspect that Larian has made a bit of a mistake in modifying the D&D ruleset before beginning Early Access, since now all of us that actually knows the D&D ruleset might feel that it would have been better to implement the rules as directly as possible instead of some of these odd adjustments. Combined with a lack of a available roadmap/design document it's really hard to tell which D&D features have been removed or modified, and which just haven't been implemented yet. And then the paranoia starts.... laugh

Edit: I won't comment of the parts of OP that misunderstands either of the systems as they seem to have already been corrected by others

Last edited by Khorvale; 09/10/20 03:57 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Teslamatic


I also think that if instead of showing a percentage attack change and people goiing "HoW cOuLd i MiSs aT 99%?!" just show the roll. It gives more feedback than just hit/miss. Missing three times in a row could be rolls of 1, 2. 3 or 8, 9, 10. It just feels better when you miss by less.

.


Just posted something similiar, I think instead of the percentage it should show either armor class or the save required and when you shoot it then shows you what you rolled.



Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I wouldn't mind if they moved things more back in the direction of the standard rules. It doesn't have to be an exact match.

I don't mind things like Firebolt lighting someone standing in oil on fire. I do mind Ray of Frost targeting a person, dealing damage, creating ice on bare ground beneath them, then they immediately go prone.

I would not mind Fighters getting Shove as a bonus action. Shove being a bonus action for every single class is far too strong.
The similar thing with Jump/Disengage. It's too easy to avoid AoO.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Surfaces need to be more like 5e also. Let's look at spells like Wall of Thorns..

The way that this game would handle it, is you take damage 1. When the spell is cast. 2. When you start your turn there. 3. When you move out of it. Do you see the problem here? In 5e, you take damage from Wall of Thorns when 1. When it is cast. 2. When you end your turn in it. 3. When you enter it for the first time on your turn. You also get saves to see if you take half damage every time. Larian, please implement it like this. Right now, you take damage from firebolt 3 separate times and mostly cannot avoid it.

Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Västervik
Originally Posted by Stabbey
I wouldn't mind if they moved things more back in the direction of the standard rules. It doesn't have to be an exact match.

I don't mind things like Firebolt lighting someone standing in oil on fire. I do mind Ray of Frost targeting a person, dealing damage, creating ice on bare ground beneath them, then they immediately go prone.

I would not mind Fighters getting Shove as a bonus action. Shove being a bonus action for every single class is far too strong.
The similar thing with Jump/Disengage. It's too easy to avoid AoO.


Shove is an optional attack action, I think it should be implemented as it works in the rules. This already makes it more relevant formartial classes since they get extra attacks as they level up, while a rogue would haveto chose to forego their one and only attack to shove someone.

I love they shove is in the game, but it shouldnt be so freely acessible that it becomes a nobrainer to always shove every tuyrn you have an oportunity to do so. It just becomes silly like the jump thing. You get further if you jump so a lot of the time jumping is a free movement boost and makes the oportunity attack rules almost irrelevant.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fixxer
This game isn't DND, and doesn't have to follow the ruleset and it's their choice. Larian have creative freedom, and after playing DOS2 quite a lot i think they know what they are doing and have faith. Trust the method behind the madness, but understand no matter which way they go, not everyone will be happy and if you come to the game expecting a 1:1 DND clone you've already set yourself up for disappointment.



I mean last I checked Baldur's Gate is a setting in Wizards of the Coast's D&D 5e setting of Farune. It is marketed as a sequel to BG2 by about 500 years I think was what they said. Marketed to use the D&D 5e ruleset. Sure they have creative freedom, but that's not what we were promised. If they can do it in BG 1 & 2 and make them a clone of D&D 2nd edition then Larian can make a clone of 5e for BG3. I have faith in that.

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by fixxer
This game isn't DND, and doesn't have to follow the ruleset and it's their choice.


They literally use 5e ruleset as a selling point on the Steam page.

Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
I think it's ok for them to modify the rules a tad. After all D&D is not a system made for video games - you can't just slap these rules in as they are and expect them to work.

All games based on D&D rulesets have modified them one way or another with the blessing of the licensers, because some systems simply would be not workable for a video game without being a massive pain in the ass.

Then, as always, you have outright crappy stuff in D&D that begs to be changes, like Rangers for example and I am glad Larian got a green light on that.


As a whole, giving more bonus actions to characters around is good, because you can then create more interesting encounters with more enemies and action, so it's fine in my (player)book. Screeching that it's not D&D is silly - show me who follows those rules to a last word.

Last edited by Gaidax; 09/10/20 04:46 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by Silent Cetra
Originally Posted by Baraz
Generally agree, BUT ...

a) In 5e, terrain conditions like elevated ground can give Advantage, but it is a DM's call. So Larian is not really bending the rules here.

b) the percentage to hit is a nice feature / much easier to evaluate. At best, there could be an option to show the rolls over AC.


The game still uses di rolls to determine the hit. You can see this in game by clicking the tiny arrow on the bottom left. It shows your chance to hit in percentage, but you can see what the game actually rolled and verify it was indeed a di roll. I THINK it also shows enemy AC there, but I can't remember 100% if the AC is part of what it shows or not.


Attack rolls vs. AC basically is a % chance... still, I don't like seeing it like that, to be honst. It should be completely optional. D&D games usually don't deal in %, unlike say, the Fallout series. It's a game of optimizing your character, and meeting each new enemy without knowing your chances.

I totally know and agree. I only said that the percentage presentation is a "nice feature / much easier to evaluate" as in more player-friendly.
And I add there could be an option to show it differently (roll vs AC). Yes, the % is just a conversion of the D20 (5% per unit). Rather obvious. The rules are not changed there.

Last edited by Baraz; 09/10/20 04:48 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Skallewag
Shove is an optional attack action, I think it should be implemented as it works in the rules. This already makes it more relevant formartial classes since they get extra attacks as they level up, while a rogue would haveto chose to forego their one and only attack to shove someone.


The extra attack comes at 5th level. I believe one reason for all these free bonus actions is that Larian is concerned about Fighters feeling bland with not much to do at low levels.

Quote
I love they shove is in the game, but it shouldnt be so freely acessible that it becomes a nobrainer to always shove every tuyrn you have an oportunity to do so. It just becomes silly like the jump thing. You get further if you jump so a lot of the time jumping is a free movement boost and makes the oportunity attack rules almost irrelevant.


I agree.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
This is and always had been sold as "a computer game based on D&D 5e rules" not "a DND 5e computer game". I think it's an important distinction to make.

Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
I don't understand the changes either. BG3 is quite a close adaptation in many regards, but the changes they did make all feel like they were for the worse.

The bonus action disengage by jumping. First of all, it's a ridiculous concept. Doing silly things in melee should provoke AoO's, not escape them. Secondly, it nerfed tanks' ability to control the battlefield (which are really wide and scattered already in BG3, tanks are struggling to get to melee range with anything). It nerfed the Rogue, giving their perk to everyone. Why was this needed?

Jumping height and Shove distance have been buffed to Marvel superhero levels to the point where it's a bit immersion breaking. And OP since there are so many cliffs to push enemies off of and it's really easy to do.

Eating food has magical healing effects. Why was this needed? If there is a larger problem with the HP economy, make Short Rests heal enough, or let everyone heal some amount of HP after every encounter without a Short Rest. I wouldn't have an issue with a house ruling so that the game can flow better. But I do have an issue with characters eating pork chops in melee as a bonus action and healing 11HP from it. This is not a platform game, things need to make sense.



Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
+1 to go closer to 5e rules.
WotC actually did a very good job balancing the system until lvl 11
I don't understand why Larian feels the need to reinvent the wheel, if it's already there.
I don't mind changes, because of game engine and UI limitations, but making disengage, hide and use item a bonus action, together with not having expertise, makes rogues just a worse ranger, at the moment.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WarBaby2
Originally Posted by Silent Cetra
Originally Posted by Baraz
Generally agree, BUT ...

a) In 5e, terrain conditions like elevated ground can give Advantage, but it is a DM's call. So Larian is not really bending the rules here.

b) the percentage to hit is a nice feature / much easier to evaluate. At best, there could be an option to show the rolls over AC.


The game still uses di rolls to determine the hit. You can see this in game by clicking the tiny arrow on the bottom left. It shows your chance to hit in percentage, but you can see what the game actually rolled and verify it was indeed a di roll. I THINK it also shows enemy AC there, but I can't remember 100% if the AC is part of what it shows or not.


Attack rolls vs. AC basically is a % chance... still, I don't like seeing it like that, to be honst. It should be completely optional. D&D games usually don't deal in %, unlike say, the Fallout series. It's a game of optimizing your character, and meeting each new enemy without knowing your chances.


What I am saying is it DOES show the AC, it's just not in your face. There is a window you can pull up to see the actual dice rolls for your "to hit" and it will show what you rolled vs the enemy AC. So again, you can see it, the game shows it, as well as all damage rolls and such. You just have to expand the little window on the right side of the screen and hover over the attacks to see it.

Last edited by Silent Cetra; 09/10/20 05:39 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Germany
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Germany
+1000 For more DnD Style.
Seems like many things have to go back to the scratchboard when it comes to this point.
It's a great game so far, but doesn't feel like DnD by now.

It's not only the combat, it seems like they took some stuff from the book and try to push it into a predefined DoS pattern instead of going from scratch and then look what have to be added/changed for a CRPG.

Last edited by Thalamus Grondak; 09/10/20 08:44 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree completely with making it as close to 5e as possible. Remove the freebie bonus actions, make only the bigboy spells like fireball create surfaces (or those that specifically do it RAW), remove like 80% of the oil barrels, make reactions usable, and it will be an actual D&D 5e game. So far it feels like they took Divinity, which was great don't get me wrong, and decided to reuse half their stuff in a completely different context that doesn't really work. After going "wow, let's make jumping and pushing the core mechanic of the game".

Joined: Oct 2020
W
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
W
Joined: Oct 2020
Yes. Please be more faithful to 5e rules. Gives our classes their appropriate features. Another thing I feel is missing is tools and tool proficiencies. Herbalism to let you make health potions and antivenoms. Alchemy to give you resistance potions, potion of invisibility, etc. Poison kit says it in the name. Brewer's supplies, wood carver's tools, smith tools, tinker's tools, etc. With tinkerer's tools you could craft thieve's tools and trap disarming kits (which I think should be the same thing.) Give us more to do outside of combat than looking for the next person to talk to or fight.

Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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