Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
"THANK YOU
Greetings Adventurer,
Thank you for joining us in Early Access. Thank you for your feedback! It'll be read by the team.

We appreciate you taking the time to leave feedback to help create a better game for everyone to enjoy.

If by chance you've left a bug report, please either use the Help button on the Launcher, or use this link directly:
https://larian.com/support/baldur-s-gate-3#modal
Thank you for your support during Early Access and we look forward to hearing more of your feedback."




That is note they send their player base after they recieve a feedback report.

Suggesting our feedback is more than just bug reports. You can imagine a lot of us have been excited about this game and want to help Larian along the way... but for all the new boots:



NOW lets take a look on how this game was advertised to us for the past YEAR!




based on the D&D 5e ruleset. Team-based initiative, advantage & disadvantage, and roll modifiers join combat cameras, expanded environmental interactions, and a new fluidity in combat that rewards strategy and foresight.




https://www.thegamer.com/baldurs-ga...rry-over-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/



"We started by taking the ruleset that's in the Player's Handbook," Larian Studios CEO Swen Vincke told Ars Technica. "We ported it as faithfully as we could."

[/i]

https://www.newsweek.com/baldurs-gate-3-gameplay-dungeons-dragons-5th-edition-dd-1445076





CRPG and Dungeons & Dragons fans, rejoice! The game you have probably spent many days and nights longing for is coming. Baldur’s Gate 3 will be a faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules, set at the current moment in its story, according to Swen Vincke, founder and head of the game’s developer, Larian Studios.
[color:#FF0000]
[/size]




TLDR: THERE IS A REASON YOU SEE SO MANY 5e PLAYERS WHO DIDNT WANT DIVINITY 3. It is not an assumed expectation it is a reaction from their words and what was presented and promised. So instead of telling people to tone down their feedback and be happy with what was given. How about you let the consumer who was sold a product advertised this way to voice feedback (AS LARIAN REQUESTED.)

What more needs to be said? What more do I have to show the new recruits? You guys didnt wait... you just heard there was a new DIVINITY 3. The rest of us were told there was a new BALDURS GATE and it was using 5e ruleset with a 4.0 divinity engine.

So now that we are caught up... lets get this thing back on track to the original goal larian had before all the homebrew mechanics for GOOFY FUN.

Last edited by IAmPageicus; 28/10/20 09:16 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.

Last edited by Sludge Khalid; 28/10/20 10:07 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Well there are a few items I might even agree on, but Save Scum? That's hardly a DOS vs BG issue.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions for turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.


Agree

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I mean..... They are trying to portray the 5th ed ruleset to the best of their abilities if their own words are to be believed. Just about every deviation of the rules that they did would horribly unbalance 5th ed rules in the tabletop and in the game we see that as well.

Some rules beeing deviated from (reactions for example) is understandable but most of the homebrew rules just horribly inbalance the game. I would like them to tone that down and let us test the rules as written as closely as possible. Then if something doesent work they could homebrew it with our feedback rather then homebrew half of the rules and go from there.

Quote
World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Forced multiple actions for turn by breaking the rules

Agree with these and are things that can be easily finetuned. The action economy needs some serious work but with some minor tweaks can be really spot on. Crafting gives alot of items a use but even then mundane items should be a part of the world imo. Gives you the idea that the world is lived in, you know what I mean?

Quote
Backstab
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Not sure what you mean with backstab? If you mean that standing behind enemies gives advantage, thats true to 5th ed rules. Attacking someone who cant see you gives advantage. The babysitting customer line I dont get. Save scumming isent really a baldurs gate nor a divinity issue. Its a thing players do. How is that Larian's fault? Yes we begin the game after the tutorial at a beach. Is that an issue? The game beein unbalanced id agree with dont see how thats a divinity or baldurs gate thing? Quantitiy over quality I actually disagree with. The great number of empty containers aside I see no quantity vs quality problem in the game and I dont see it beeing either a baldurs gate or DOS issue....

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually attack ANOTHER ennemy already engaged by another ally and whose attention is focus on another immediate threat... which won't happen that much in a game that obviously hate melee characters.....)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 28/10/20 10:55 AM.
Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
The problem with backstab is that an ennemy in front of you, engaged with you suddenly "don't see you" as soon as you jump behind him.
Just jump as a bonus action at each turn and backstab your ennemies at each turns.

TB doesn't mean inconsistency because everything is frozen. As soon as you're engaged in any combats, you shouldn't be able to backstab anyone except if you succeed to hide (or eventually an ennemy already engaged by another ally)


I agree. And it would be easy to implement because if you jump, you can't hide, unless you are a rogue with thief subclass. Which means you wouldn't be able to go from being in front of an enemy and backstab them in the same turn.

Last edited by Nyanko; 28/10/20 10:52 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.



Here's the deal, it's not end of story yet. Things can still be changed.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ole Draco
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.



Here's the deal, it's not end of story yet. Things can still be changed.


Hey let me rage just for today as I’m seriously disappointed with community feedback smile it’s my first rage since the release so I’d appreciate your comprehension smile

I’m not saying the game is bad, for god sake. I was just expecting a masterpiece given the name of the brand & DnD5e and in my humble opinion it turns out to be an okay’ish game.

Yes, it’s early access but I’ve used my clairvoyance spells to foresee the final results and I didn’t like it smile

Wish you happiness and the greatest game of your life. I’ll have to wait more to get mine

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Lets give it 6 months before we except defeat. They changed two major things after the reveal that took a lot of time to fix. One was the entire initiative system. Before it was team based initiative. THEN all conversatons where past tense. FOR SOME GOD AWFUL REASON... so they re recorded Most of the finished Diolague... so that tells me Larian will listen. It took them two month to do it though!

Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.


Point was that it is a flaw not to have facing.

It is equally a flaw that there is no reaction to a character obviously trying to get behind you, or trying to jump away or over you. Should warrant an attack of opportunity. Disengage is also nonsensical, with and without the tabletop versions action economy, where disengage would be an action in most cases, and a bonus action in few cases. The optional rule in this case, is sensible, another rule of having multiple combatants facing one should add to hit chance in my opinion.



Last edited by TheOtter; 28/10/20 11:29 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheOtter
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.


Point was that it is a flaw not to have facing.

It is equally a flaw that there is no reaction to a character obviously trying to get behind you, or trying to jump away or over you. Should warrant an attack of opportunity. Disengage is also nonsensical, with and without the tabletop versions action economy, where disengage would be an action in most cases, and a bonus action in few cases. The optional rule in this case, is sensible, another rule of having multiple combatants facing one should add to hit chance in my opinion.



The thing is. The whole combat round is 6 second, no matter the number of participants. And everything is supposed to be imagined happening at the same time. Turns just bring order in the chaos that would transpire if every player started shouting what he wants to do at the same time.
Lets look at a duel example. In this case it makes no sense to keep facing the same way all the time, no matter your opponent actions.When you add other enemies that are engaged with you it could be reasonable. But for this case there is flanking rules.
I get that in a video game it is not easy to always rotate a character like it is a fidget spinner. Nor will it look sensible.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm all for them being more faithful to 5e, but I disagree with the "It's DOS3" arguments.

Mostly because I think those elemets people cry over, can be implemented with 5e rules as well, so as long as the game is made with the 5e rules at it's core then everything else will feel more at place.

Height: firstly, it works differently than in DOS2, and It's not really a huge issue if it gives bonuses. It's a take on the cover mechanics, so maybe just port the AC modifiers and not make it Advantage/disadvantag?
Surfaces: You guys know there's options to use that in DnD right? I just don't want Larian to make up new spells like the LarianFireBolt when the game already has Firebolt and Create Bonfire as two different cantrips. Tone down the surfaces, and make spells do what they do in 5e. It's that simple.

Make 5e FIRST, then let us Early Access players tell you where there's need for improvement.

Giving everyone Cunning Actions, to make the game more dynamic (?) instead of just making the game straight up first? And they took out things like dodge?

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Ground effects and dip are the worst offenders for me.

Last edited by VhexLambda; 28/10/20 12:30 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dastan McKay
Originally Posted by TheOtter
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.



Wrong there is no character facing in tabletop 5e. That is the point of perception... it is believe you are ware of your surroundings and your character is looking all around them for the fight. It makes no sense to be staring at a wall during combat. That is why tabletop have never used it outside of an optional rule.


Point was that it is a flaw not to have facing.

It is equally a flaw that there is no reaction to a character obviously trying to get behind you, or trying to jump away or over you. Should warrant an attack of opportunity. Disengage is also nonsensical, with and without the tabletop versions action economy, where disengage would be an action in most cases, and a bonus action in few cases. The optional rule in this case, is sensible, another rule of having multiple combatants facing one should add to hit chance in my opinion.



The thing is. The whole combat round is 6 second, no matter the number of participants. And everything is supposed to be imagined happening at the same time. Turns just bring order in the chaos that would transpire if every player started shouting what he wants to do at the same time.
Lets look at a duel example. In this case it makes no sense to keep facing the same way all the time, no matter your opponent actions.When you add other enemies that are engaged with you it could be reasonable. But for this case there is flanking rules.
I get that in a video game it is not easy to always rotate a character like it is a fidget spinner. Nor will it look sensible.


Hence why there is a whole lot of problems involved.

I am not opposed to facing-advantages, because it still make sense even in the context that you put it. Where I can agree, is that in the context, it makes no sense that there is total inaction when someone is trying to get behind you or even away from you.

It is also why I think you should be at an disadvantage if facing multiple enemies at the same time, the more enemies the larger the disadvantage.

Last edited by TheOtter; 28/10/20 12:49 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


People dislike it because D&D tabletop rules don't have any mechanics for just dipping your weapon into anything in the environment. The closest, I think, are poisons you can coat your weapon with. And in that case, the target gets a saving throw instead of automatically receiving more damage. And the poison vial is a consumable item you have to craft or purchase. But in the current version of Baldur's Gate 3, holding your steel sword above a candle makes it a Flaming Sword of Horrible Burns.

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Mythago
Originally Posted by denhonator
Can someone explain to me why people dislike dip bonus action? How is it supposed to work and why is the current implementation bad?


People dislike it because D&D tabletop rules don't have any mechanics for just dipping your weapon into anything in the environment. The closest, I think, are poisons you can coat your weapon with. And in that case, the target gets a saving throw instead of automatically receiving more damage. And the poison vial is a consumable item you have to craft or purchase. But in the current version of Baldur's Gate 3, holding your steel sword above a candle makes it a Flaming Sword of Horrible Burns.


It's interesting because the saving throw against poison is actually there for familiar bites.

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 10 11

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