Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Aside from no. 3, which I think ok as a story hook, I pretty much agree on everything you said.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
I guess people don’t comprehend the fact that those added features like dishing advantage will highly impact advantage based classes that are not currently in the game, like barbarians & If xanathars get released at some point samurai. Also, there are crowd control spells like Fear will also be highly affected as the advantage effect will not be as good.

The majority of the folks here that are supporting Larians decisions in regard that flavor homebrew rules simply can’t see the future ahead and actually capture the picture that a minor change in the rules will lead to a snowball effect that in the end gonna alter the whole DnD mechanics.


Dude most of the people which are against some of the feedback regarding rule changes breaking the game can't tell left from right. They are completely clueless about what they're saying, for example:

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Lower AC is necessary. In turn-based rpg misses aren't funny for most people.
It's frustrating when you miss every attack for several turns in a row, but if you lowered AC you have to increase HP or fight will be to easy.
You can't just add new enemies because no one wants to wait 10 minutes for next turn.
Changes in rules are necessary if Larian wants to sell a game for people unfamiliar with d&d.
You can't make game for few thousand people if you create AAA.



All they want is to play a clicker game where you make a 4 fighter party and click on the enemy. Every attack must hit and have a 50% crit chance. Also, every attack must have an ultra flashy animation like some bullshit MMORPG where a simple auto attack from a level 1 character shatters the ground and sends waves of force etc. They don't realize that these changes break several fundamentals of the gameplay. Oh, there's a sleep spell? uh. My irl INT score is too low so I never take spell casters anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Team-work? Class synergies? Buffs and debuffs? Wat dat? ME SMASH!
There are problems with the game which need to be addressed at their core. The way people argue about this just makes it seem like they want a never-ending loop of workarounds that attempt to fix part of a problem to create 10 others...

We all like Larian here, at least to some extent. Otherwise we wouldn't have bothered to pay full price for a severely unfinished EA game, play the buggy mess, create an account in their forums and take time out of our days to come and try to better the game. Still, it remains the fact that Larian has taken several liberties with the game which made many people upset, and rightly so. If they want to use the Baldur's Gate name, they should respect its origins and player base. Instead, they copy pasted DOS2 and threw the DnD 5e ruleset in there using a crooked canon as their precision instrument of choice. The rules are so mangled to the point that they break core functionalities of the game. Spells become pointless, enemies become bullet sponges. Surfaces everywhere... Bogus advantages of all kinds, fucked up disengage/jump bundles that make the game into a kangaroo simulator. Combat is boring as shit... They can't just make a DOS2 clone, change some stuff and say "fuck it, this'll do.".

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Totally with you, OP, on all your points.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by coredumped
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
I guess people don’t comprehend the fact that those added features like dishing advantage will highly impact advantage based classes that are not currently in the game, like barbarians & If xanathars get released at some point samurai. Also, there are crowd control spells like Fear will also be highly affected as the advantage effect will not be as good.

The majority of the folks here that are supporting Larians decisions in regard that flavor homebrew rules simply can’t see the future ahead and actually capture the picture that a minor change in the rules will lead to a snowball effect that in the end gonna alter the whole DnD mechanics.


Dude most of the people which are against some of the feedback regarding rule changes breaking the game can't tell left from right. They are completely clueless about what they're saying, for example:

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Lower AC is necessary. In turn-based rpg misses aren't funny for most people.
It's frustrating when you miss every attack for several turns in a row, but if you lowered AC you have to increase HP or fight will be to easy.
You can't just add new enemies because no one wants to wait 10 minutes for next turn.
Changes in rules are necessary if Larian wants to sell a game for people unfamiliar with d&d.
You can't make game for few thousand people if you create AAA.



All they want is to play a clicker game where you make a 4 fighter party and click on the enemy. Every attack must hit and have a 50% crit chance. Also, every attack must have an ultra flashy animation like some bullshit MMORPG where a simple auto attack from a level 1 character shatters the ground and sends waves of force etc. They don't realize that these changes break several fundamentals of the gameplay. Oh, there's a sleep spell? uh. My irl INT score is too low so I never take spell casters anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Team-work? Class synergies? Buffs and debuffs? Wat dat? ME SMASH!
There are problems with the game which need to be addressed at their core. The way people argue about this just makes it seem like they want a never-ending loop of workarounds that attempt to fix part of a problem to create 10 others...

We all like Larian here, at least to some extent. Otherwise we wouldn't have bothered to pay full price for a severely unfinished EA game, play the buggy mess, create an account in their forums and take time out of our days to come and try to better the game. Still, it remains the fact that Larian has taken several liberties with the game which made many people upset, and rightly so. If they want to use the Baldur's Gate name, they should respect its origins and player base. Instead, they copy pasted DOS2 and threw the DnD 5e ruleset in there using a crooked canon as their precision instrument of choice. The rules are so mangled to the point that they break core functionalities of the game. Spells become pointless, enemies become bullet sponges. Surfaces everywhere... Bogus advantages of all kinds, fucked up disengage/jump bundles that make the game into a kangaroo simulator. Combat is boring as shit... They can't just make a DOS2 clone, change some stuff and say "fuck it, this'll do.".


What worries me is the fact that many of them sided with Larian without any sort of rational thinking. I understand the passionate way of thinking of those guys because in the end Larian reintroduced this genre back to the top, even though I’m not fan of DOS2. Yet, Larian lacks in something CD have in abundance - concept aggressiveness and detachment of previous successes. CD is not worried about what Witcher’s fans might think or how they’ll be disappointed in having this medieval to cybernetic changes.
Compared to CD, Larian didn’t have to create a new whole environment - the rule set and the lore was always there waiting to be explored. The resources are constantly being wasted due to the fear they have of innovating over a great sales success.

Quite frankly, the biggest difference I’ve noticed between BG1/2 to BG3 is the audience target. It seems that the game wasn’t made for those who enjoy quality over quantity. sometimes I feel that I’m in a point and click game where I’m locked in a room and I must figure out how to leave and there’s only one path out there. From the time I’ve spent playing the game I’m almost 100% sure that battle system gives me way less freedom compared to any other tactical game and that’s a major flaw in the concept where the company sold a game that you can be whomever you want yet in battles you gonna fight their way.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Benny89
Ok, so first of all: I am HUGE fan of DOS2. I beat that game like 3 times and I had blast playing it. It was my fav RPG in last years with Witcher 3. So this is not because I don't like DOS2 system/world/mechanics.


This is because I wanted to play DnD. I am playing Table RPGs for 15 years now and for last 3 years I DM and play DnD 5e. I was really excited to play BG3 and really happy that it's Larian that will make it. But I was hoped to play almost 100% 5e system. Maybe 95% as some things can't be that easy put into cRPG.

But currently game is too much like DOS2. And I really don't like it. I feel "cheated" (strong world but hear me out first) that I was supposed to play DnD, not DOS2 1.5. I know it's EA, and I understand game can still be changed/adjusted so I take my chance here to post feedback and hope that Devs will hear me out.

So:

1. Ground elemental effects SHOULD absolutely be not part of DnD game. 5e is specific system that was designed in a way where lasting effects on ground (like Entangle, Mist, Could Kill, Storm Sphere, Spike Growth etc.) require a magical caster and concentration. Because they can be very powerful tools when you combo them with some other spellcasters, melee, grapplers etc. In BG3 this makes tons of spells dull. It's better to just place fire effect on ground from Cantrip and hold enemy with another party member there, than use higher level spell. Not only ground effect IGNORE AC (which is BIG deal in DnD system) but also deals DoT damage (which is also big in 5e system and effects like that require concentration, are in higher slots, like Heat Metal and are mostly single target). Simillar are other elemental effects on ground. They disbalance gameplay, they are easy to exploit and they are against core rules/mechanics of 5e. I would much rather have them removed and make spells do what they do in books so when AOE ground effect happens - it's more signifact and also makes spells feel unique - than having elemental ground spam again. This is not DOS2. It's DND. DnD doesn't need ground element effects, it has spells for that (like Fire Wall, Wall of Ice, Wall of Force, Sickening Radiance and many more).

2. Lowering AC and increasing HP of monsters is not good idea. They have that AC for a reason in 5e. This is to make sure that magic spells that ignore AC (Fireball, Lightning) or can damage high AC enemies (Heat Metal) or control enemies with high AC (Hold Person) are needed and are important in case where melee classes struggle. This is team-based system. AC is for a reason, so Fireball hitting group of enemies with AC 16 on level 5 will be very impactfull. Lowering that AC to 12-13 allows melee to just cut through them with eas (they can kill 1-2 enemies per turn) which makes spells like Fireball very very weak. Not to mention that increasing HP also makes spells like Fireball/Lightning etc. weaker as DEX save already cuts damage in half.

5e went through play-tests and that amount of AC and HP of enemies when compare to melee classes and spells are there to balance it out. This change is ABSOLUTELY not needed. You already have balanced system and play-tested in years. There is not place here for experiments that destroys that balance.
Also argument "less frustrating with misses" is stupid. Misses are part of d20 system. That is the system. You hit or miss. This is not DOS2 where you hit all the time and you balanced game around enemies HP/Shield/Armor bars vs DPS of players- this is not that system!
Also misses should be part of lower levels. Low levels should feel hard and frustrating because that is part of DnD system. Also - you can offset that with giving players options to get more magical items, like weapons +1/2/3, Belts of Strength etc.

Please remember that 5e is designed to be PERFECTLY viable for melee classes (when it comes to AC/HP vs hit chance/damage) without ANY MAGIC ITEMS AT ALL. Giving players a lot of magic items in 1-10 levels in 5e will already make them much better than system recommends to any adjustment to AC/HPs of enemies frtom 5e books is not needed at all. It will only cause never ending cycle or chantes/nerfs/balance patches while you have already handed to you on table a perfectly balanced system (well, of course there are less balanced things, that that is unavoidable in RPGs).

3. Beginning is little too much for 1st level characters and party members you meet - it's very unrealistic for such low level character to survive all that high-level maiheim around. I think character needs level 3 boost so it feel less anti-climatic. Remember that DnD is from "zero to hero". You don't start as hero with 8 HP smile. I would tone down the beginning.

4. Alignments are big part of 5e system. They should have impact and be more important. It's not DOS with it's fluid personality system. Please remember that.

5. You have to make a decision - do you want to go down in history as devs that finally after many years made "another successful DnD cRPG" or devs who were afraid that that won't be enough and you need to also cather to your DOS2 fans and makes sure game looks simillar so they will buy product too. Please realize that some of us DnD fans were waiting very long to play another DnD cRPG. And we want to play that - DnD. It will also prove that DnD is great system for making cRPGs. But it will not happen if you will try to sneak in your favourite mechanics from DOS2.

Divinity system already had it chance and success. And I am happy for it. I will definitely play another Divinity Original Sin game, where I will expect and enjoy all DOS-specific mechanics. You will have chance to play with it as devs again, really. You will make another DOS game.

But please, make this one a DnD game. DnD deserves to be put into cRPG. It doesn't need to be mixed with another system. If there is any system that was tested enough in history of RPGs - that is DnD. And you already have huge DnD fan base. It will be enough, trust me.

Thanks for hearing me out. Love you Larian!


Some players that don't really care about D&D and just want to experience a new gen Baldur's Gate game agree with that.

Not because BG1/2 is closer to D&D than BG3 (idk), but because BG3 is too close to DoS atm and the general experience doesn't feel like FR/D&D at all with such surfaces and advantages, arcady rest and fast travel, inconsistent bestiary, locations, OP creatures and so on...

Anyway I totally agree.

I'm sure that the experience would suit better to BG according to me if Larian start to following the rules a little bit more and use the FR and D&D as the base material instead of tools in which they pick what they like and find fun.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 21/10/20 01:19 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Too many melee misses are not fun. You maybe a spell caster fan but a lot of people ae not. Plus, 5e is not perfectly balanced. Magic is easily op. No melee can come close to casters without the help of magic items.

However, too many successful attacks are not fun too. I would rather have enemies with a little bit dodge than being a meatshield.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
I honestly don't know how people can find barrel fishing entertaining because that's just how stealth cheese feels like with how the A.I. reacts to the hide mechanic atm. Same goes for Backstabbing Grasshoppers ( What Disengage? ) and trivializing the whole D&D Spell, Skill and Class System with surface effects abuse/spam and throwables.

Well, a lot of people don't go out of their way to "stealth cheese" or drag explosive barrels anywhere, frankly.



Highly unlikely since 99% played D:OS 2. All the people i know abuse it to death.

I have always loved this argument: "all the people I know". How many is that? 4? 400? Maybe it's (meme incoming) over 9000? Maybe it's only 1? Oh, and citations needed for "99% played DOS2". Just a link to the survey you ran, or that someone else ran will be fine.

Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Highly unlikely since 99% played D:OS 2. All the people i know abuse it to death.

Never played any of those.
I will break and abuse the crap out of anything in early access/beta in the hopes it will be fixed.
If this barrel stuff remains in full release I would not use it because I like to pretend npcs have at least some intelligence and would definitely become suspicious of all the furniture moving.
There are definitely a lot of things that need to be changed before release.


We can pretend all we want but the A.I. is still going to be retarded in the end because "Design Choices". Just like i can't ask the goblins to not spam throwables or arrows all the time even if i cripple myself. Most ppl don't understand the real issue here.

Let's Race to The High Ground: The Game.

So the issue is that the AI doesn't just stand there and let you wail on them? Interesting. Most of the game's I've played, this would be a welcome addition. I'm sure there are a lot of people that wanted to play Cuphead, or Dark Souls that would just love that. If it's "but there's more than one way to skin a cat", yes? You see, despite the "all the people I know" that's supposed to convey some kind of omniscient knowledge of the game, and how it's being played, I haven't spent a lot of time wondering how I can best set up a bunch of barrels to blow things up, or create slippery surfaces. It's amazing how many encounters I've played in so far that didn't even have any barrels to do that with, and yet, I've still managed to get through them, or not, as the case may be. Both have happened, and will continue to happen, it's the nature of the beast.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
N
Joined: Oct 2020
just wait until the low ac supporters discover save or suck spells and want them to hit all the time.

"i tried to cast hold person but it always misses! lower the ac of that to!" =D

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
1. Somewhat agree. Does it need balance? Yes. Are "ground" effects bad idea in general? No.
One of the main features that Larian brought to RPG with huge success are environment interactions. It's also one of the things that gave new life to RPG games as it was good step forward and theirs sales compared to other classic RPG titles are showing it. Also making things 1:1 with tabletops/paper games for video games isn't good idea and rarely will work at all, so I do understand Larian decision. Some spells and skills with good RNG would be just instant kills, close to it or just too off for video game.
Overall it's good idea as it makes game more modern (physics and other new solutions) and gives new ways to use some spells witch otherwise would be boring, too situational to use or just too much RNG based. I would say it just needs better balance as like you mentioned some effects are just too strong/strange at the moment. One way to balance it might be setting not book AOE/Ground spells to have no "splash" DMG and just chance to ignite/froze, etc things. For example Fire Bolt would just have chance to ignite objects/enemies on direct hit with guaranteed ignition on flammable things like alcohols/webs (so barrels with alcohols would just burn for long time making it extra light source or something to throw/kick at enemies, etc) and explosion only happening with things that makes sense like black powder or some alchemic potions and so on. What I'm saying is that effect/combination for "No book AOE/Grounds spells/skills" should be small bonus dmg (like up to 25%, like electrifying water dealing extra 1/3 dmg + effect chance and so on) or outcome for you instead of it being the main way to deal with enemies. Also you can set it like 1st turn/step in fire haves lower chance to set "On Fire" status than every turn/step you stay in it after that. So in general I would say it's mostly matter of balance.

2. Most important thing to say for me, it's a bit too early to complain about that too much when there are still missing classes, subclasses, spells and skills. It's something to think about after future patches with content so probably about 6 months or so from now as it's mostly related to balancing the numbers. However, once again making it 1:1 with 5E rules most likely will only hurt the game. Having turns in which both your party and enemies miss everything constantly will just take out fun factor from it. This is why most other titles force active pause, so constant missing can be hidden in 1-6s turns. They probably can make like Classic mode with 1:1 rules, but it would be played by some small margin of players in the end.

3. Too be honest I don't see any good reason for it. It's good start, something bit different to others titles. It's not like our character and origins characters have any impact on these events, they are just trying to survive this mess and it's good. It also matches theirs starting attitude towards player as it isn't standard party of adventures established in traditional way. They all are just random people who want to survive, so sticking together and using others seems like good idea. Only thing I would change is adding Force Turn Mode tutorial where you need to sneak around/by some powerful enemies to survive and just reach next part of the ship and failing it would mean instant death from some bad ass enemy/monster.

4. This one is tricky. Most games end up with using it as a way to just add some potential extra line to pick up in the dialogue. Too be honest I will prefer if Larian won't use it and instead will focus on making our decisions having bigger impact on the world and our character being recognize by those deeds. As for companions I don't like idea of them being stick with one Alignment for the entire game. I think our actions should lead to them potentially chaining theirs thinking (not 180 degree of course) if they stick with us, companions leaving if they won't agree on mayor things and of course some potential betrayals. I think good example here could be Shadowheart who seems like Neutral/ Chaotic Neutral opportunist character, so our actions could lead her to darker path or something more heroic (will leave spoilers for my EA feedback)

5. I'm D&D fan and same goes for previous Baldur's Gate games (1 and 2). However, if I must be honest then without nostalgic aspect it doesn't look so good any more. Baldur's Gate 1 just didn't survive time trials and now is just a good game with average story. Baldur's Gate 2 ends up much better, but still it's a relic of the past. Someone can say they are masterpieces that shouldn't be touch, but I call it no sense. If something can't be changed or improved in just 70 years old field (Video Games), then why even bother to make something new. That's why it's time to kill your heroes and move on. I get from where you are coming, but still tabletop fans are small margin compared to video games fans. Where video games are now bigger market than music, television and movies.



Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Agree almost 100%, specially on 1, 2 and 5, you are spot on. Points 3 and 4 not so much.

Its feels much more like DOS 3 than BG3, and does not feel like BG3 in may aspects, the excess of surface effects is specially annoying for the reasons you pointed out, everything is constantly burning/frozen/steaming.

Higher/Lower elevation is also too much of a factor than it should and eating food during combat is just beyond silly.





Last edited by Chacineiro; 21/10/20 03:44 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
O
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
O
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by sinogy
Too many melee misses are not fun. You maybe a spell caster fan but a lot of people ae not. Plus, 5e is not perfectly balanced. Magic is easily op. No melee can come close to casters without the help of magic items.

However, too many successful attacks are not fun too. I would rather have enemies with a little bit dodge than being a meatshield.


Too many misses ARE unfun, which is why Larian's homebrew elevation rules are silly

Everyone who thinks you need Larian's insane elevation changes for elevation to matter tactically either A: hasn't played a TTRPG or turn based tactical shooter before, or B: should go play the first goblin fight in Solasta: Crown of the Magister, where the goblins can use their elevation to get out of line of sight, flank you, or bypass your cover, the game doesn't decide that you need to have a 30% chance to hit them because they're above you if they're standing in the open

How about this compromise: Ranged weapons have disadvantage outside of their short range when firing vertically? This would be trivial to calculate for Larian

Last edited by override367; 21/10/20 03:38 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Hi Benny,

That's an interesting perspective, however i've been playing DnD on and off for years now and have a different one.

Expecting a DnD 5e emulation in 3d is unreasonable. There are design decisions in 5e that were made because it was tabletop, translating this into an isometric RPG game will require changes and optimisation. So when playing this game it needs to be faithful to the world and *general* mechanics of 5e - which they've succeeded with. It is more closer to the source than past games, such as Neverwinter Nights, BG1&2, Planescape, etc. They've also added extra combat mechanics that make combat more fun - all of which needs to be balanced in time of course.

If it "feels" like DoS3 - why is that? Is that the result of:

> AoE throwable items
> The story being so similar (prisoner from crashed ship, need to control strange powers, manipulation by higher powers)
> Similar graphics engine

I've gone through 3 playthroughs of act1 at this point, and from someone who plays more iRPGs on the reg than DnD, this game feels *super* 5e to the point that it's probably confusing players who have to google what advantage in combat means. Anyways to your points specifically:

Originally Posted by Benny89

Ground elemental effects SHOULD absolutely be not part of DnD game


Environmental effects may need a reduction in damage or/and duration, but removing them completely would be a mistake - environmental effects add extra complexity in combat without friction which makes combat more tactical

Originally Posted by Benny89

You already have balanced system and play-tested in years


Hate to break it to you Benny, but DnD 5e is not balanced. There's multi-class cheese, rogue meta, spells that can be abused, and ect... luckily there's a DM that will tell you "no" if you're going OTT. The thing is that RNG needs balance: too little and things are predictable, too much and things are fustrating. In DnD the DM is the director, you don't have this in video-game form so there needs to be a reduction to RNG from table top.

Originally Posted by Benny89

Please remember that 5e is designed to be PERFECTLY viable for melee classes (when it comes to AC/HP vs hit chance/damage) without ANY MAGIC ITEMS AT ALL


Compared to other iRPGs the magic item pickup is still limited, IIRC it's similar to the previous BG games. The warrior class is underwhelming at this point, this is because rogues have the same AC, are quicker, and there's no strength based ranged weapons. It's also likely to do with the hieght bonuses, and number of enemies per encounter (focus-fire has always been the go-to strat, something ranged classes excel at).

Originally Posted by Benny89

Beginning is little too much for 1st level characters and party members you meet - it's very unrealistic


Most DnD campaigns I've rolled dont start at lvl1. The intro of this story indicates that the adventurers are not randoms but people of exceptional ability, so I really dont see this problem. There are plenty of RPGs that start off with killing rats in the basement, and it's boring. You do have a point tho, there is a risk of unrealistic escalation - if you're fighting observers at level 4, what will you have to deal with at level 8?

Originally Posted by Benny89

Alignments are big part of 5e system.


Alignments are not a big part of 5e.. they removed most of this to add more rpg flexibility. IIRC Larian were thinking about adding in allignment, and Wizards told them "no".



Joined: Sep 2017
B
Benny89 Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Klawz
Hi Benny,

That's an interesting perspective, however i've been playing DnD on and off for years now and have a different one.

Expecting a DnD 5e emulation in 3d is unreasonable. There are design decisions in 5e that were made because it was tabletop, translating this into an isometric RPG game will require changes and optimisation. So when playing this game it needs to be faithful to the world and *general* mechanics of 5e - which they've succeeded with. It is more closer to the source than past games, such as Neverwinter Nights, BG1&2, Planescape, etc. They've also added extra combat mechanics that make combat more fun - all of which needs to be balanced in time of course.

If it "feels" like DoS3 - why is that? Is that the result of:

> AoE throwable items
> The story being so similar (prisoner from crashed ship, need to control strange powers, manipulation by higher powers)
> Similar graphics engine

I've gone through 3 playthroughs of act1 at this point, and from someone who plays more iRPGs on the reg than DnD, this game feels *super* 5e to the point that it's probably confusing players who have to google what advantage in combat means. Anyways to your points specifically:

Originally Posted by Benny89

Ground elemental effects SHOULD absolutely be not part of DnD game


Environmental effects may need a reduction in damage or/and duration, but removing them completely would be a mistake - environmental effects add extra complexity in combat without friction which makes combat more tactical

Originally Posted by Benny89

You already have balanced system and play-tested in years


Hate to break it to you Benny, but DnD 5e is not balanced. There's multi-class cheese, rogue meta, spells that can be abused, and ect... luckily there's a DM that will tell you "no" if you're going OTT. The thing is that RNG needs balance: too little and things are predictable, too much and things are fustrating. In DnD the DM is the director, you don't have this in video-game form so there needs to be a reduction to RNG from table top.

Originally Posted by Benny89

Please remember that 5e is designed to be PERFECTLY viable for melee classes (when it comes to AC/HP vs hit chance/damage) without ANY MAGIC ITEMS AT ALL


Compared to other iRPGs the magic item pickup is still limited, IIRC it's similar to the previous BG games. The warrior class is underwhelming at this point, this is because rogues have the same AC, are quicker, and there's no strength based ranged weapons. It's also likely to do with the hieght bonuses, and number of enemies per encounter (focus-fire has always been the go-to strat, something ranged classes excel at).

Originally Posted by Benny89

Beginning is little too much for 1st level characters and party members you meet - it's very unrealistic


Most DnD campaigns I've rolled dont start at lvl1. The intro of this story indicates that the adventurers are not randoms but people of exceptional ability, so I really dont see this problem. There are plenty of RPGs that start off with killing rats in the basement, and it's boring. You do have a point tho, there is a risk of unrealistic escalation - if you're fighting observers at level 4, what will you have to deal with at level 8?

Originally Posted by Benny89

Alignments are big part of 5e system.


Alignments are not a big part of 5e.. they removed most of this to add more rpg flexibility. IIRC Larian were thinking about adding in allignment, and Wizards told them "no".




I will go with it fast

1. There is no point in increasing complexity of combat system. 5e is complex enough with hundreds of spells, tons of subclasses and it's features etc. There is no point in tweaking it more.

2. 5e is the most balanced DnD system version ever. Complare to 3.5 it's like night and day. Of course there are some things that are unbalanced (Sorcadins, Hexblades, Simulacrum, dips for caster classes etc.) but NO RPG SYSTEM EVER will be perfectly balanced. It's been proved in tens of years of table/video game RPGS that it's impossible. The best we can get is as balanced as possible. Which I believe 5e is. Adding additional stuff ON TOP of that will only make overall game less balanced, because every additional mechanical factor you add - increase possibilities of exploiting it in a way that devs/authors did not think about. That was the reason why 3.5 was such a balance mess - there were tons of new spells, races, prestige classes etc. added in every book and so many books were added that nobody could keep up with new OP builds, combos etc. 5e takes slower time with new books for the reason to preserve balance as much as possible. Perfect one in RPG is just no achievable.

3. Rogues are as good as Fighters becaue again Larian messes with 5e rules. In 5e book Rogue is not a Fighter. He does not have simillar AC (the highest AC rogue can have is 17 with 20 DEX, while Fighter in Plate Armor, Defense Style and Shield can have 21 AC. Also Fighters have higher HP pool, two attacks at level 4 and 3 at level 11 and Action Surge, while Rogue is always stuck with 1 attack/turn, but with Sneak Attack on top of that. They also get Expertises, while Figherrs get things like Battlemaster Manouvers, Eldricht Knight magic boosts or Samurai Fighting Spirit.

The only reason that Fighter may feel not good for you compare to Rogue is because Larian messed with 5e balance. Rogues are balanced around 1 attach/turn with Sneak Attack. Fighters are balanced around up to 4/attacks per turn + Action Surge that can give them another 4 attacks on level 20. Add to that Precision Strike from Battlemaster, Great Weapon Master Feat, Polearm Master Feat + Sentinel Feat and you have combat monster. Rogues can't compare when it comes to DPS with Fighters in 5e. Arcane Trickster is only one who can get really good DPS thanks to Familliar Help Action + Haste later.

4. Most DnD campaigns do start at level 1. Take a look at most published campaigns by Wizards. Most start at level 1.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by coredumped
We all like Larian here, at least to some extent. Otherwise we wouldn't have bothered to pay full price for a severely unfinished EA game, play the buggy mess, create an account in their forums and take time out of our days to come and try to better the game. Still, it remains the fact that Larian has taken several liberties with the game which made many people upset, and rightly so...

This is a thing I wish more people understood. We're not here to whine on the internet. The whole point of an Alpha release is to air out these things so that Larian can get ahead of problems. If we didn't see a great game just under the surface of this one, then we'd have just stayed quiet, gotten a return from steam, and left.

A large portion of the flaws and broken mechanics in BG3 stem directly from the deviations away from the rules of 5e. When you have a system that is designed to act in a certain way, every change has knock on effects.

There is no option to use the perception or investigation skill actively, instead your "passive" perception is a roll. This causes several problems and exploits. First, because it's a roll, it tells you that there is something to notice, but without a way to investigate, you can't move carefully through a trap filled dungeon the way you would in normal D&D. But also, your familiars get a "passive" perception check, and since each summoned familiar is a new creature, and is treated like a disposable pet, it can be summoned infinitely for free. So any time your group fails a perception check, you can summon new familiars until one succeeds on the check. If passive perception instead worked the way it was supposed to, then this exploit wouldn't exist. Instead, any character that had a high enough passive would automatically notice the thing on the ground.

Without active perception, there is nothing that the AI can do once your party successfully gets into stealth. Because Passive perception doesn't exist, everyone automatically succeeds on stealth checks once they get out of line of sight. Stealth is supposed to be something you can attempt with cover or concealment, but there is no cover or concealment mechanically, only line of sight. This means that rogues get shafted again, since they need total concealment to make a stealth check. The changes to cover and concealment and the seeming replacement with advantage and disadvantage from elevation also play havoc with balance. Cover is supposed to give a bonus to AC, and it's supposed to let you hide. It's not supposed to give you a bonus to hit.

The AI will drop everything to get a height advantage so that it can more easily hit you. And there is no benefit to being partially behind something. These two things trivialize a lot of the tactics of a normal 5e fight. But surface effects just annihilate them. Having rare environmental advantages and disadvantages exist in a game adds some fun flavor to fights. Having nearly every fight devolve into a fight to see who can explode the other the most with random explosive barrels does not. But it's worse than that. That's an easy fix, have less barrels, give the goblins fewer flasks of acid. Cantrips however are another can of worms.

Supposedly the reason for the higher health on all of the monsters is to balance out the lower AC that they were given to make fights more "fun". I think that that's a justification that was given, but I think the real culprit behind the decision is Fire Bolt. On a miss, Firebolt can do something like 3d4 damage before the targeted creature gets to act. On a normal health goblin, this has a decent chance of killing it outright. Because of the ease of applying status effects anywhere at any time, with no downside, low health enemies would have no chance of surviving a party of firebolting Wizards who kite as they ignite. But if you cite "fun"you can justify a lot of back end changes to cover up an unbalanced mechanic. Never mind the damage that said change caused to things like sacred flame, who don't get the same buff to hit, and now has to chew through more health to boot.

Of course if the hypothetical Fire Bolt Brigade got tied up in melee, they'd still have some trouble, because they'd have to waste their action trying to disengage so that they don't light themselves on fire. Except that every class has taken some levels in rogue, and thus can disengage as a bonus action. But worse, disengage is tied to jump, so you don't even need to make a check to pass through or over an enemy square. This means that clever positioning to box someone in doesn't work. Which means that Tanks can't effectively protect the squishies. It means that there is no downside to playing pure ranged and ignoring melee entirely.

But even if you are playing a Melee character, you can still get advantage if you can backstab someone. Introducing Facing is certainly a choice. It means that anyone can get advantage without the help of a flanker. Which means that there is no benefit to formation fighting at all. It throws teamwork out the window, in favour of cheesing the fact that the game is turn based. One of the conceits of the initiative system is that the round happens more or less simultaneously, which means that some actions are assumed to be possible even when it's not your turn. It's where opportunity attacks come from. But the other thing that is assumed is that you can turn to face your opponent. This is why flanking is flanking, and not getting behind someone. Instead you can walk, or jump behind someone to get free advantage on every attack.

All in all the changes that have been made reduce a party's reliance on each other, reduce the tactical nuance of the game, and make non-attack based combat more powerful than anything that any character could do.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Concerning "Elemental effects have no business in a D&D game, jump to 25:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j1wd4Ay81A&ab_channel=OutsideXtra

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Benny89
Originally Posted by Klawz
Hi Benny,

That's an interesting perspective, however i've been playing DnD on and off for years now and have a different one.

Expecting a DnD 5e emulation in 3d is unreasonable. There are design decisions in 5e that were made because it was tabletop, translating this into an isometric RPG game will require changes and optimisation. So when playing this game it needs to be faithful to the world and *general* mechanics of 5e - which they've succeeded with. It is more closer to the source than past games, such as Neverwinter Nights, BG1&2, Planescape, etc. They've also added extra combat mechanics that make combat more fun - all of which needs to be balanced in time of course.

If it "feels" like DoS3 - why is that? Is that the result of:

> AoE throwable items
> The story being so similar (prisoner from crashed ship, need to control strange powers, manipulation by higher powers)
> Similar graphics engine

I've gone through 3 playthroughs of act1 at this point, and from someone who plays more iRPGs on the reg than DnD, this game feels *super* 5e to the point that it's probably confusing players who have to google what advantage in combat means. Anyways to your points specifically:

Originally Posted by Benny89

Ground elemental effects SHOULD absolutely be not part of DnD game


Environmental effects may need a reduction in damage or/and duration, but removing them completely would be a mistake - environmental effects add extra complexity in combat without friction which makes combat more tactical

Originally Posted by Benny89

You already have balanced system and play-tested in years


Hate to break it to you Benny, but DnD 5e is not balanced. There's multi-class cheese, rogue meta, spells that can be abused, and ect... luckily there's a DM that will tell you "no" if you're going OTT. The thing is that RNG needs balance: too little and things are predictable, too much and things are fustrating. In DnD the DM is the director, you don't have this in video-game form so there needs to be a reduction to RNG from table top.

Originally Posted by Benny89

Please remember that 5e is designed to be PERFECTLY viable for melee classes (when it comes to AC/HP vs hit chance/damage) without ANY MAGIC ITEMS AT ALL


Compared to other iRPGs the magic item pickup is still limited, IIRC it's similar to the previous BG games. The warrior class is underwhelming at this point, this is because rogues have the same AC, are quicker, and there's no strength based ranged weapons. It's also likely to do with the hieght bonuses, and number of enemies per encounter (focus-fire has always been the go-to strat, something ranged classes excel at).

Originally Posted by Benny89

Beginning is little too much for 1st level characters and party members you meet - it's very unrealistic


Most DnD campaigns I've rolled dont start at lvl1. The intro of this story indicates that the adventurers are not randoms but people of exceptional ability, so I really dont see this problem. There are plenty of RPGs that start off with killing rats in the basement, and it's boring. You do have a point tho, there is a risk of unrealistic escalation - if you're fighting observers at level 4, what will you have to deal with at level 8?

Originally Posted by Benny89

Alignments are big part of 5e system.


Alignments are not a big part of 5e.. they removed most of this to add more rpg flexibility. IIRC Larian were thinking about adding in allignment, and Wizards told them "no".




I will go with it fast

1. There is no point in increasing complexity of combat system. 5e is complex enough with hundreds of spells, tons of subclasses and it's features etc. There is no point in tweaking it more.

2. 5e is the most balanced DnD system version ever. Complare to 3.5 it's like night and day. Of course there are some things that are unbalanced (Sorcadins, Hexblades, Simulacrum, dips for caster classes etc.) but NO RPG SYSTEM EVER will be perfectly balanced. It's been proved in tens of years of table/video game RPGS that it's impossible. The best we can get is as balanced as possible. Which I believe 5e is. Adding additional stuff ON TOP of that will only make overall game less balanced, because every additional mechanical factor you add - increase possibilities of exploiting it in a way that devs/authors did not think about. That was the reason why 3.5 was such a balance mess - there were tons of new spells, races, prestige classes etc. added in every book and so many books were added that nobody could keep up with new OP builds, combos etc. 5e takes slower time with new books for the reason to preserve balance as much as possible. Perfect one in RPG is just no achievable.

3. Rogues are as good as Fighters becaue again Larian messes with 5e rules. In 5e book Rogue is not a Fighter. He does not have simillar AC (the highest AC rogue can have is 17 with 20 DEX, while Fighter in Plate Armor, Defense Style and Shield can have 21 AC. Also Fighters have higher HP pool, two attacks at level 4 and 3 at level 11 and Action Surge, while Rogue is always stuck with 1 attack/turn, but with Sneak Attack on top of that. They also get Expertises, while Figherrs get things like Battlemaster Manouvers, Eldricht Knight magic boosts or Samurai Fighting Spirit.

The only reason that Fighter may feel not good for you compare to Rogue is because Larian messed with 5e balance. Rogues are balanced around 1 attach/turn with Sneak Attack. Fighters are balanced around up to 4/attacks per turn + Action Surge that can give them another 4 attacks on level 20. Add to that Precision Strike from Battlemaster, Great Weapon Master Feat, Polearm Master Feat + Sentinel Feat and you have combat monster. Rogues can't compare when it comes to DPS with Fighters in 5e. Arcane Trickster is only one who can get really good DPS thanks to Familliar Help Action + Haste later.

4. Most DnD campaigns do start at level 1. Take a look at most published campaigns by Wizards. Most start at level 1.


Another Larian fanboy obliterated by a d4 dice.

Joined: Jul 2014
U
stranger
Offline
stranger
U
Joined: Jul 2014
+1
Für BG3, my expectation is simply that it feels like D&D, so I'm a little disappointed with EA version. Exactly this expectation is currently not felt. Also for me the EA version feels more like a DOS2 successor which happens to play near Baldurs Gate.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
old hand
Online Content
old hand
1
Joined: Aug 2014
The original post perfectly mirrors my feelings as well.

DOS2 is a great game. BG1&2 are great games.

Don't try to force the DOS mechanics into a D&D game. Don't try to inject the more light hearted cartoony DOS feel into BG3. These two franchises are fundamentally different and should maintain their own identities.

Sometimes in an RPG it's more important to create a world that feels believable and real rather than having a million fun overpowered things to do every turn in combat. This is true with the Baldur's Gate games. D&D 5e is quite enough to offer a fun and satisfying tactical party based combat experience. Beyond that, focus entirely on atmosphere and story.


Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Concerning "Elemental effects have no business in a D&D game, jump to 25:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j1wd4Ay81A&ab_channel=OutsideXtra


Virtually no one claims that ground effects have "no business in D&D", most of us are quite aware that D&D has a lot of ground based spells like Spike Growth, Grease, Web, etc. as well as items such as Alchemist's Fire or oil/acid flasks. What D&D DOESN'T have are cantrips that deal damage AND create a surface effect in addition or even on a miss. Of course throwing an oil flask with your rogue and having your mage set it ablaze with Burning Hands or even a Firebolt should remain, no one is arguing that.
But a Firebolt that creates a fire ground effect by itself is a bit much, not to mention the general overuse of such effects.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kendaric
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Concerning "Elemental effects have no business in a D&D game, jump to 25:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j1wd4Ay81A&ab_channel=OutsideXtra


Virtually no one claims that ground effects have "no business in D&D", most of us are quite aware that D&D has a lot of ground based spells like Spike Growth, Grease, Web, etc. as well as items such as Alchemist's Fire or oil/acid flasks. What D&D DOESN'T have are cantrips that deal damage AND create a surface effect in addition or even on a miss. Of course throwing an oil flask with your rogue and having your mage set it ablaze with Burning Hands or even a Firebolt should remain, no one is arguing that.
But a Firebolt that creates a fire ground effect by itself is a bit much, not to mention the general overuse of such effects.


Exactly... using thrown items or spell effect combinations are very valid low level tactics, but they are usually just that. A low level party shouldn't be able to turn a whole courtyard or goblin camp into a hellish inferno, using a cantrip and a few jugs of oil, though, that's what high level spells are for. Why even have character progression otherwise?

Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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