Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't see any problems with getting the advantage by attacking from behind. It makes logical sense, but it should only be possible if there is an ally near the enemy.
Normally you are not able to defend yourself from two different directions at the same time.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
but it should only be possible if there is an ally near the enemy. Normally you are not able to defend yourself from two different directions at the same time.


That's something that totally make sense and that many would probably agree with.

It would also increase the value of melee characters if they also change the exploit jump/disengage... i.e, disengage should become an action instead of a bonus action IF you're engaged in melee.

That way you'll have to choose : staying engaged in melee and trying to kill your opponent - but with a risk of being backstabbed, accept an AOO to disengage OR use your action to disengage.

On the other hand, your melee characters would have a goal to rush into the melee and wouldn't have to run after every ennemies. That would increase tactical possibilites and synergies with your allies. That could also become usefull to block a door because it wouldn't be that easy to disengage.

Originally Posted by CMF
The limited extrapolation of the scenarios and examples provided to demonstrate stubborn behavior rooted in flaws in logic being taken at face value and not understood in the context it is provided is somewhat frustrating and I give up, ty. I am now going back to leap frogging and playing battle toads with my green skinned dwarf rogue back stabbing to my heart's content.


Sorry that you don't understand what we're talking about wink

Last edited by Maximuuus; 29/10/20 10:02 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Staying true to the 5e rules will kill this game. The game is too ambitious for something like this to work.
They can't afford to ignore DoS fans and casuals. Ignoring these players will lead to a sales disaster.
Unlike Solasta, I doubt BG3 will be able to do enough on D&D fans alone.


Currently they are catering more to D:OS fans and casuals than to D&D 5e fans and yes, I see that as a problem. Sure, I can use mods to bring it closer to D&D 5e and that's what I'm doing currently but I shouldn't have to since it is marketed as a D&D 5e game, not as D:OS 3. Sticking more closely to 5e rules won't kill the game, but it will fix a lot of issues.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes like lowering ac and increasing HP are due to turn-based combat.


No, they are due to "it's not fun to miss" complaints. They should be reverted at least for "classic" or "core rule" difficulty and only exist in lower difficulty settings once they are implemented, since 5e players know that missing quite often is part of low level gameplay and are mostly fine with it.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I just don't understand people who want more and more annoying mechanics even though such things don't work well in games (or aren't liked).


Because different people have different tastes.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
From another point of view ...people appear to be distilling down the whole this is not 5e & is a false marketing ploy from a few rules - sneak/jump, some modified spelll damages etc..what about all the D&D stuff the game is doing very well. I’ve not played 5e I stopped playing years ago at 3rd edition - but I still know a D&D game when I play one & this one is shaping up very well.



Last edited by Tarorn; 29/10/20 09:41 AM.
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by Tarorn
what about all the D&D stuff the game is doing very well


And what would that be?

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Ok, so because 25 fedora hat wearing geeks that are tabletop d&d fans are complaining - now developers suddenly needs to change their direction?

Guess what, divinity combat was more fun than Boring gate 1&2. Pillars of Eternity was more fun. None of them are d&d games.

Game mechanics are game mechanics, main thing is to be balanced, challenging and fun.

Also, tip of the hat to you:

[Linked Image]

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Flafnir

You don't have to use any of this. No opponent will destroy an oil barrel or throw it at you.


I had multiple enemies in my PTs go out of their ways to interact with barrels to create surface/explosions, whatever it's by using special arrows/bombs to hit them or their weapons (and kill themselves in the process for the last one usually).

Throw has only been done by the large enemies and the barrels have to be in their path-range for them to pick them up. Put an oil barrel near the 3 Ogres in the Village and they will pick it up and throw it at you once you start combat.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by IAmPageicus
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.

IMHO if you want people to take your comments seriously, don't repeatedly mention "Divinity 3" in the OP. It's been done to death and at best results in an echo chamber.



IMHO if you see people mentioning "Divinity 3" a lot there might be a reason for it. So what you should actually do is look at what is causing this as it seems to be a problem for a lot of people instead of trying to hide the problem. This game does feel like a Divinity 3. DOS3 with a mangled poorly implemented 5e with a whole lot of creative freedom for *goofy fun* that completely breaks the game. That's what the game is at the moment. Calling it Baldur's Gate 3 is just false advertisement at this point.

Originally Posted by HustleCat

Did Larian lie? not really, even in OP's links, they never said it'd be 1 to 1 conversion. In fact they said that'd be impossible. They'd get it close as they could. Expect more changes for better or worse as the EA goes on


Yes, they did. "We ported it as faithfully as we could." What? They had technical issues that didn't allow them to code Fire Bolt without leaving a surface? Was there some kind of technical limitation to the language they use to program the game that doesn't allow goblins to have higher AC and lower HP? Did the computer say NO to the poor developer when he wanted to separate disengage from jump? Those poor developers. They did try to make it as close AS THEY COULD but their hands were just tied...


Originally Posted by CMF

By calling the game DOS:3 as a form of insult you are being malicious and disingenuous in feedback.


No, it's actually quite accurate and useful feedback. Granted that people saying "Go play Solasta instead" isn't very productive in this forum but I do get where they're coming from.

Someone gave a very reasonable analogy here already using onions and tomatos. I for one loved Divinity OS 2. I would love for a Divinity OS 3 to come out some time in the future. But if I'm told that a Baldur's Gate 3 is coming, that it will be a faithful adaptation of the tabletop’s fifth edition rules ported as faithfully as possible... Well then Larian must also understand that my expectations are in that regard.
People here are saying to give it time and not give up on the game yet. I appreciate this mindset and hope but honestly it really feels like the game has been steered way too deep in the wrong direction at this point to be able to save.
To the others that keep saying "state your reasons and give accurate feedback for what's wrong etc." well, there are countless threads already full of feedback from the players in that regard. I have also given that feedback before in the right place, doesn't mean everyone is gonna keep copy pasting theirs every time they reply to a post.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/


Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/






I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not really an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. One of the consequence of their choices is that playing melee character actually really suck.

(Nearly) All their stuff are really really cool and should definitely be a part of BG3 but in the end, they actually don't give lots of systems to players, the entire game itself turn arround/is the systems....

Last edited by Maximuuus; 29/10/20 01:49 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Australia
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Australia
Originally Posted by Warlord999
Ok, so because 25 fedora hat wearing geeks that are tabletop d&d fans are complaining - now developers suddenly needs to change their direction?

Guess what, divinity combat was more fun than Boring gate 1&2. Pillars of Eternity was more fun. None of them are d&d games.

Game mechanics are game mechanics, main thing is to be balanced, challenging and fun.

Also, tip of the hat to you:

[Linked Image]

Its not suddenly changing its actually following what the marketing said before we purchased.. There was sudden changes away from D&D 5e rules imo.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/




I disagree if you change all the rules to something not D&D the customers will still review it as shit.. Sorry to say.

Last edited by DanteYoda; 29/10/20 02:32 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/





Well, here we go again. I’d like to add some math in the loop before diving deep into this discussion about “players don’t like to miss”

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...p;utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Please check the link to know how the changes impacted the number of turns to kill something.

Now, getting back to the discussion:

HP bloat seems harmless at first sight, isn’t it? Seems that the game is focusing more in finishing a goblin in that two turns and that’s marvelous. Now let’s build a rational:

Bless spell DnD5e : +d4 attack rolls > MAJOR increase in the chances of hitting an high ac low hp goblin > increase the chance of killing it in the first round even further = bless spell value : gold.

Bless spell Larian: +d4 attack rolls > MINOR increase in the chances of hitting an low ac high hp goblin > still needs more than one round to finish the goblin = bless spel : why I didn’t attack from highground using my crossbow instead? Additionally surfaces breaking your conc with no save.

Bless is a concentration spell, which means that you’d always want to get the best output of your spell in the first rounds. Concentration being broken is inevitable frown

I’m using bless but all utilities spells have been nerfed with this BG3 rule atrocity.

What about blasting spells? The fireball that dex saves for half will have the same accuracy as there’s no nerf in attributes. Meaning that your dear spell slot worth less. But again, who cares as you still have Larian’s bedrolls.

The damage output of the basic weapons remains the same.
If Larian want to keep that line, they’ll have to revamp every damage output in the game.

Goodbye action economy

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.


If the goal is that players miss less often, I guess it would have been easier to add a +4 bonus to every attack roll than adjusting everything because they changed HP... They could also have add +x to attack roll if you're higher instead of using so many advantage everywhere in the game.

As Khalid said, it's not only a spell or two... It's the entire experience that has been modified in many ways. Another issue is burning hand and all "contact" damage spells... I guess nearly no one use those spells because they are really weak... even cantrips are more powerfull.
This is not because of their systems but because of their choices to implement them.

I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun (subjective), tactical, balanced in many ways and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them.


Last edited by Maximuuus; 29/10/20 03:09 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.


If the goal is that players miss less often, I guess it would have been easier to add a +4 bonus to every attack roll than adjusting everything because they changed HP... They could also have add +x to attack roll if you're higher instead of using so many advantage everywhere in the game.

As Khalid said, it's not only a spell or two... It's the entire experience that has been modified in many ways. Another issue is burning hand and all "contact" damage spells... I guess nearly no one use those spells because they are really weak... this is not because of their "systems", but because of the way they implement them.

I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun, tactical, balance and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they'll implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them...



If this would be so easy.
If they leave the AC reduced and restore the original HP, many of the fights in act 1 will become terribly easy and boring at the same time.
In RTwP, you can easily fix this by adding extra mobs that you can't do in a turn-based game.
Turn-based games are poorly suited to fighting a mass of weak enemies.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 29/10/20 03:16 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
I simply don’t get your point Rhobar. Where’s the part where the game gets easy? You’re missing more. The length of a battle will remains nearly the same. The counter part of getting back to the raw rules is that your spell slot will become a valuable asset again. If it’s easy, add +1 goblin. You balance the battle CR by adding or removing pieces of the chessboard, not by changing them because you think that it’s more fun to see the hp values popping out for every single attack.

Guys, DnD is a class game. Every class must have balance. Right now they are balancing classes with damn cantrips. Oh, dear lord....

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Do I really have to explain why adding extra opponents to game where you have to wait for your turn is a bad idea?
At this point, the worst (not difficult) encounters are the fights in which you fight a lot of enemies (like a goblin camp). Adding additional enemies will only make matters worse.
The last thing I wanna do is wait 10 minutes for my turn (intentional hyperbole).

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Do I really have to explain why adding extra opponents to game where you have to wait for your turn is a bad idea?
At this point, the worst (not difficult) encounters are the fights in which you fight a lot of enemies (like a goblin camp). Adding additional enemies will only make matters worse.
The last thing I wanna do is wait 10 minutes for my turn (intentional hyperbole).


First +1 goblin not +1 horde

Second: still waiting to see your analysis regarding nerfed spells

Third: still waiting to see the reasons why you think more hp less ac makes the game harder


See you soon

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I'll just leave it here



"Baldur's Gate 3 will similarly give players lots of tools and then let them have at it. "We'll stay true to our roots," says Vincke,
"so we'll give players lots of systems, and lots of agency to use these systems and try to accomplish what you need to on your adventure.
That's not going to change; that's the core of what we're doing."
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.

"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."

This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. Black Isle faced a lot of limitations that Larian doesn't. The studio has invested heavily in this side of things, as well as in staff, who now number in the hundreds."

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/




Much of the claims in this quote are adamantly false. The possibility for failure is what makes things interesting, not "shit." There is a way to fix this however, implement difficulties just like the original games did. THIS would be faithful to the game. Let people CHOOSE to play by the core rules or the more forgiving homebrew rules.
[Linked Image]


Rogue or wizard? Why not both! Rogue/wizard/shadowdancer.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by Maximuuus



I think no one really argue about Larian's content. Their mechanics are great and I guess all those that bought BG3's EA were enthousiast.
The actual problem and why so many people complain is that because their mecanics aren't integrated in D&D but D&D is integrated in their mechanics...

Just to give 1 or 2 exemples :
They solve the "you miss a lot in the tabletop" decreasing the AC and increasing the ennemi's HP. On the paper, it work and it's still balanced. In game, it leads to many boring and even slower combats. "Powerfull low level" spells / skills can't OS a single goblin and many of them are become useless (sleep).
You're hit chance is better, but the combat's aren't faster , many D&D possibilites are now useless and the combats are less tactical than they should be.
The only positive thing about all this is that the player see 75% instead of 50%...

They also add verticality, which is awesome but the way they did it is bad because verticality is actually not an option.
It's the same about backstab and jump/disengage. A consequences is that playing melee character actually really suck.

All their stuff are really really cool but not that way. In the end, they don't give lots of system to players, the entire game become the systems....


Adjusting some spells isn't a big deal. Some spells have already been modified like a sleep.
Now it has consistently 33 hp(maybe), which is not far from the maximum possible throw. It can always be increased if necessary.

A lot of things need to be improved, but I have the impression that some people on this forum criticize every slightest deviation from the
rules without considering whether the game will actually be better without any changes.
I would prefer it not to be the only big dnd game in the next decade, so if they have to change something for the game to sell better, they better do it.


If the goal is that players miss less often, I guess it would have been easier to add a +4 bonus to every attack roll than adjusting everything because they changed HP... They could also have add +x to attack roll if you're higher instead of using so many advantage everywhere in the game.

As Khalid said, it's not only a spell or two... It's the entire experience that has been modified in many ways. Another issue is burning hand and all "contact" damage spells... I guess nearly no one use those spells because they are really weak... this is not because of their "systems", but because of the way they implement them.

I'm not a P&P player so I don't really care about the game being absolutely accurate... But "I know" (probably not everything) the rules and the more I think about it, the more I think the game would be far more fun, tactical, balance and so on if they started to create a D&D game in which they'll implement their systems instead of thinking about how they could implement D&D in them...



If this would be so easy.
If they leave the AC reduced and restore the original HP, many of the fights in act 1 will become terribly easy and boring at the same time.
In RTwP, you can easily fix this by adding extra mobs that you can't do in a turn-based game.
Turn-based games are poorly suited to fighting a mass of weak enemies.


I never suggested that they leave the AC reduced and restore the original HP.

Did you read the link Khalid gave you ?
Do you know that Larian's changes about AC and HP has nearly NO consequences on the difficulty of combats and the number of turn to kill ennemies ?
It just increase your %hit and nothing more... In the end the combats are the same exept that many spells and skills become totally useless.

Do you really think changing every monsters abilities AND many spells / skills / classes / ... to give us the FEELING that we are more efficient in combat is a good way of doing things ?

And as Vaell said just above... I don't think why you're talking about adding creatures to encounters. There are way more things that can be done to increase/reduce the difficulty.

Actually the game is often inconsistent and too hard for a normal game mode. This is also partly because of Larian's homemade rules. Think about newcomers.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 29/10/20 04:30 PM.
Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11

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