Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback After 25 Hours, The Problem with BG3 is 5e

To this day, my biggest complaint with BG is that the 1st-level Cleric spell Command wasn't implemented properly. It isn't supposed to allow a save.

If your idea of "the same experience" has nothing to do with how you roleplayed your character, I question why you're playing CRPGs at all.

Is it that you have no control over your character, or that you have no control over the consequences of your characters actions?

The former would be a problem, but the latter is good design. The player shouldn't be able to choose the results, only his or her characters' actions. How the NPCs respond to those actions absolutely should be beyond the player's control.

I couldn't agree more, and I applaud Larian for not doing this.

The best example I can think of how this goes wrong in BioWare's newer games is in Dragon Age Inquisition. The "intent" icons on the dialogue wheel clearly indicate what narrative consequence the option will trigger, and I don't think the player should ever know that. Turning those off creates other problems (because of the voiced protagonist, but that's a whole different issue), but forces the player to play just his or her character rather than directly steering the narrative.

Thank you OP for voicing your thoughts. I played about 10 hours and decided that the current combat systems weren't for me. You have definitely expressed why the dnd mechanics don't work really well.

I don't mind having a new system, or changes, as long as they work well and create a fun experience. The current dnd influences with the 1 action, 1 optional action, and rest points make for a bland experience.

Although, I prefer the new movement system, as that's easier to use, and more forgiving of miss clicks. Having shadows show how the movement will happen is nice.

I believe that most people coming to this game had expectations that this was just another baldur's gate game with a new story. Of course that's not the case, as Larian is a completely different developer, and this is their spin on the franchise. I see so many posts saying BG3 is basically DOS3, and that shows they haven't played DOS games before. The worst posts are the ones asking for surface effects to be removed, because dnd doesn't have them, and no other rational reasoning for their request. I don't think that removing more functionality and mechanics would be best.

Personally, I love the DOS complexity, diversity, and freedom of choice. BG3's dnd changes strip that away, and deliver a worse experience. OP gives a good reason: because dnd is a table top game, and that setting works, but not in the context of a turn based rpg video game.

From what I have seen, there are more dnd voices than non-dnd. That's why I refunded my purchase, as Larian is known to listen and make changes. If the majority wants a more dnd game, strickly, then they will most likely do that. But OP's post has given me some hope.

I will be following the games progress, and if the game's changes look good, I will repurchase at full release. It's true I have been itching for a new turn based rpg with a skill and class system like DOS, and I shouldn't demand that if I'm the lone voice in a sea of DnD fans.

It is interesting to see the argument from the other side. For me, the game is worse off because of the heavy DoS influence. The hybrid system, a blend between DoS style and D&D, is probably the real culprit. People on both sides (not everyone of course) are unhappy with it. I think they need to go harder in either direction.

again, where does it come from, that everyone is so sure, that the problem is the 5e system? where?
in the current state, they considerably deviated from the core 5e balancing mechanisms on many different levels. the current state has nothing to do with 5e balancing principles, yet people are blaming the 5e system.
it is just laughable... i don't know if this qualifies as a strawman argument or not...

the 5e system can be changed and build upon. but changing core balancing principles are a recipe for desaster.

one post, that was pretty drowning between other posts is an example for a really great rule change:

that would be nice addition, that makes the video game experience a lot better and it doesn't change core 5e balancing principles.

I've seen half a dozen well reasoned arguements against this and I'm only a casual forum goer. It has to do with balance and allowing the classes to feel like they are separate things. If everyone can just toss bottles of fire around willy nilly what's the point of playing a caster? or if cantrips can do more damage than any other starting attacks why be anything other than a caster? and why bother to rest and get your spells back if you can just spam cantrips and items and kill everything. I have played through D:OS 1 and 2 a few times and I love them, but if you want to make a D&D game in the 5e ruleset there are rules that need to be followed to make it feel like D&D. I understand that some things won't transfer over to a video game well, and I am sure there will be all kinds of surfaces at higher levels (because there are spells at those levels that are actually supposed to create surfaces), but it needs to feel special. You need to have saved an item for a long time to use it in this perfect circumstance, or have just the right spell and spell slot to deal with that situation.

If this was D:OS3 I would say nothing against it, because that's what I expect from Larian and they do it well. However this is D&D and if you are going to make it feel even remotely like D&D these kinds of things are not going to fit in with every encounter.

On a side note I also agree that Bioware and some other CRPG's have ruined some of us on the idea that if you pick the right answers you should get the right outcome, and going back to the fact that this is supposed to be D&D I think Larian are on the right track here with making things not always work out (and if you really want things to work out remember to save often and just reload until you get the number you want if it is that important to you).

That's that pesky renegade/paragon dichotomy BioWare has started to use in Mass Effect, which somehow ended up in all their subsequent games thereafter... one of the worst crutches for conversations in RPGs ever. However, that never was how CRPG dialogue worked before that point. Still doesn't mean you can't have an idea - or control - of how conversations will turn out either.

Many people find that Pathfinder:kingmaker to be the closest thing to table top D&D like gameplay in a video game, and love it for that.
I find the game very slow, mathematical, drowned with stats, difficult and definetly not fun. Perfectionist and simulation/numbers freaks llove these kind of games.
I really hope BG3 does not become that. Anything closer to DOS2 is great in my book. Larian almost has it...the game needs that extra spicy fun bit that pulls away from the all mighty D&D set in stone commandments.
Anything just slightly differing from 5e rules and you will have all these perfectionist just complaining to no end.

Pathfinder is basically D&D3.5, though, which was such a big departure from AD&D in terms of complexity that it bordered on rules clutter. D&D5e, in many ways, was a major step back from that, to a simpler, more streamlined experience.

A game from the most famous and celebrated D&D franchise, and also heavily advertised as a 5E product. But yeah, you are right, lets get away from this boring D&D stuff ...


I find it ironic that you are basically telling fans of BG and 5e to go play another game when the name of the game is BG3.

Except that Pathfinder was basically designed to be a massive clutter of rules and math, D&D 5e is much more streamlined. That's not to say that it doesn't contain some rules and math, but certainly not to that level, and considering the math is already done for you by the computer in BG3 and the rules aren't something you'll be looking up constantly but something that the game should explain to you when you hover over the icon for whatever it is you plan to do, then even if it was just pure 5E with nothing else it would be more streamlined than Pathfinder.

I'm a huge D&D 5E fan, and I also loved DOS2, but they put too much Divinity into this game and not enough 5E, especially for a game called "Baldur's Gate 3" and marketed as sticking to the 5E ruleset, because it really doesn't. My biggest complaints are mainly just that they messed with the cantrips and made them OP, they messed with some of the enemies (such as the Gnolls, who I have a post ranting a bit about) and made them OP, and that you can take a nice safe long rest anywhere at anytime so long as you're not in combat (which is pretty OP). Basically, I'm just annoyed that everything Larian changed has been made OP. The 5E rules are nice and balanced for the most part, and for whatever reason Larian decided to mess that balance up, and it's come out as a whole lot of OP things that make the game more clunky and frustrating than fluid and fun.

I wish Larian would hurry up and announce D:OS 3 so these people could move on and allow a game called Baldur's Gate 3 to be a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2.

This.

Like the issue is that there are too many Divinity rules and crap that is ruining the balance of 5e. 5e should be the main thing, and 5e rules should rule the game, not Divinity. If you want a DOS game go play OS2/1, instead of going like "Oh i know they keep saying this is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of 5e but nah, lets go back to DOS rules". No, Larian needs to stick to 5e rules and do them correctly, this is BG3, and a 5e DnD game.

+1 !!
Really well constructed thoughts and I couldn't agree more.
I really hope Larian see this!!

While I hate the fact that we - just like that - have another dichotomy in a gaming community - as if we didn't already have enough of those these days. ... ich have to agree. That's where we pretty much are right now...

As someone who has played Divinity: Original Sin 2, I can say it plays almost exactly like DOS2 apart from the Movement>Action>Bonus Action instead of AP, and the Armor system being different.

Now, let me tell you why everyone is upset at surface effects, it's quite simple. See, they work in DOS2 because the armor system in that game protects you from damage when you get hit, so say you walk through a pool of fire and take 3 points of damage, but since you have 20 armor it doesn't even touch your HP. The problem with this is, that isn't how armor works in D&D 5E and BG3. Instead, we have the AC system, which determines how high you have to roll to hit the target. So if the target has an AC of 15, you must roll a 15 or higher to hit them. The problem this causes with surface effects is that the surface effect completely bypasses the AC system, it just damages you straight out without having any chance of missing, so when basically every elemental spell or cantrip in the game causes a surface effect, that means you don't even need to hit the enemy.

For my favorite example of this, the cantrip Firebolt. In D&D 5E RAW, it deals 1d10 fire damage, and can set objects that aren't being worn or carried on fire (so say you shoot it at a wooden chair, it will light it on fire). Now BG3 reduces this to 1d6 damage, and sets the enemy on fire. This would be fine if it was balanced, but it isn't. Firebolt will burn you even if you miss your attack, and it deals damage instantly and at the start of each turn while you're burning. Then, it creates a fire surface under you, which causes more damage when you move out of it or stay in it. There also is no action you can use to put out the fire and stop the burn damage, so you just have to suffer until it goes out.

Showing the math on this should really drive it home though. In D&D 5e, the max damage a firebolt can do (before modifiers and such) is 10 damage if you get a lucky roll. In BG3 at the moment, the max damage firebolt can do is 18. The firebolt itself can do a max of 6 damage when it hits, while the instant burn damage can do a max of 4, then at the start of the burning characters turn they can take another 4 max damage, then the fire surface can cause yet another 4 max damage. That damage is on par with a 1st level spell, and this is a cantrip you can use as many times as you want without limitations. And if you miss the attack, it still burns you, meaning it can still do a max of 12 damage, and that is from an attack that should have done 0 damage. Do you see the problems with so many ground surfaces now? I'm not saying get rid of them completely, but limit them a lot more for sure. Cantrips should not cause surfaces, higher tier spells like fireball should though.

Another reason that DOS2 mechanics don't work here is that in DOS2, if there were bunches of surfaces you needed to get rid of then a quick Rain spell would do the trick for most of them, and it only cost a cooldown timer. In BG3, that costs a spell slot. With so many surface effects and so few spell slots, it's a massive waste of resources, especially if there is a boss fight at the end of all those surface effects and traps. Congrats, you made it to the Red Dragon, but your cleric is all out of spell slots so I hope you don't need to be healed!

I wanna end this by saying I would absolutely love to get a DOS3, in fact I hope it's the next game Larian makes! I loved DOS2 and am itching for another. But this is not it, this is Baldur's Gate 3. It is titled after a very famous D&D video game series and literally a location in the D&D universes Forgotten Realms. It was marketed and sold to us as a game following the D&D 5e rules. But instead, it plays like DOS2, and rewrote a lot of the rules for the worse. I don't have only complaints about the game, I love that they made using a healing potion a bonus action for instance, it's a very common house rule people use because it keeps the combat fluid and efficient, without forcing people to choose between healing themselves and helping their team. I even believe that the firebolt change could be good if it didn't make a surface effect and if the burn damage only applied at the start of the burned persons turn. Also, add an action to put out burns.

What everything Pupito said. It gets worse because you don't have a bedroll to get full hp before each encounter, you also don't do spellslots in DOS to be full on resources each fight, in this game you do and unless you wanna do full rest after every fight, you don't go in with full resources. That with the shitty encounter design they have with a bunch of archers constantly being high up and throwing bombs and special arrows at you just keeps compounding the issue.

This.
Also D&D may be having a massive surge in popularity, but this game has a huge appeal outside that, from Bioware fans to Witcher fans, to cRPG players to D&D players. And this will be one of the biggest and first fantasy RPGs to launch on a new generation of consoles so there's that audience too!
The most important thing is a fun and balanced single-player game based on 5E, not necessarily sticking to it for better or worse, but adapting it where needed to make a more engaging experience for everyone.