Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 11 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA?


I would argue that is exactly what we've been doing and we point out the flaws in them. Also, Larian doesn't only implement new rules, to make them fit, they change and overwrite old ones.
Now, I'm not a member of the design team so I can only take a guess on the mind mapping evolution during design discussion. And I picture it going something like this:


-Alright team. We've been cleared to do this game. How do we move forward?

-well, we know what people have liked in our other games so we should build on that.

-ok, explain.

-well, in this fight with 5 goblins it would be cool to add an explosive barrel so that players feel smart hitting that taking out all five goblins in one strike.

-I understand you, but now the fight becomes too easy don't you think.

-well, we could add more enemies.

-ok. but now the barrel only takes out 5, what about the other 5?

-Well, there could be other tactical options like surfaces the players can interact with. like oil and grease and water that gets affected by spells.

-oh oh, I have an idea. with all the fire and oil around, wouldn't it be cool if that could help the melee players as well?

-ok. we include a dip mechanic but we are still talking low levels and spells that affect environment is higher up.

-well that can be changed by small changes made to the cantrips

-yeah, but another problem is that we seem to miss a lot, how do we change that?

-easy, we lower the AC.

-doesn't that makes the fight too easy again?

-well, lets raise the hp

-ok, that settled, how do we handle defense. This isn't real time so players won't be able to move away from enemies in an instant.

-Well, I read somewhere there is this disengage option. Wouldn't that work? And also, they can just jump/move away from the npc's during their turn.

-good idea, the problem is that disengage makes you lose the attack during that turn unless you're a rogue. so now we have everyone playing cat and mouse.

-can't we combine jump with disengage so that players still will get to attack each turn?

yeah, alright team I think we have something here!

-well, sir, doesn't this affect spell mechanics and class identity?

-Oh shut up Karen, can you for once stop with your negativity. We're making something cool here!


Now, I ofc am making exaggerations but what I'm getting at is that one change, leads to another change, that leads to two new changes, that quickly spirals out throughout a whole system. When all that extra work making changes to an already working combat system, could have been avoided if the first change wasn't made. A change made just to make one of Larian's darlings fit in.

I'm not saying d&d is perfect. that's why there have been several editions of it. and there is room for improvement without affecting the whole system. What Larian did with Rangers is a perfect example of that. You can bake chocolate chip cookies for people with gluten intolerance. But can you bake them changing the chocolate chips to gummi bears?

Last edited by PrivateRaccoon; 30/10/20 12:06 PM. Reason: readability
Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA?


I would argue that is exactly what we've been doing and we point out the flaws in them. Also, Larian doesn't only implement new rules, to make them fit, they change and overwrite old ones.
Now, I'm not a member of the design team so I can only take a guess on the mind mapping evolution during design discussion. And I picture it going something like this:


-Alright team. We've been cleared to do this game. How do we move forward?

-well, we know what people have liked in our other games so we should build on that.

-ok, explain.

-well, in this fight with 5 goblins it would be cool to add an explosive barrel so that players feel smart hitting that taking out all five goblins in one strike.

-I understand you, but now the fight becomes too easy don't you think.

-well, we could add more enemies.

-ok. but now the barrel only takes out 5, what about the other 5?

-Well, there could be other tactical options like surfaces the players can interact with. like oil and grease and water that gets affected by spells.

-oh oh, I have an idea. with all the fire and oil around, wouldn't it be cool if that could help the melee players as well?

-ok. we include a dip mechanic but we are still talking low levels and spells that affect environment is higher up.

-well that can be changed by small changes made to the cantrips

-yeah, but another problem is that we seem to miss a lot, how do we change that?

-easy, we lower the AC.

-doesn't that makes the fight too easy again?

-well, lets raise the hp

-ok, that settled, how do we handle defense. This isn't real time so players won't be able to move away from enemies in an instant.

-Well, I read somewhere there is this disengage option. Wouldn't that work? And also, they can just jump/move away from the npc's during their turn.

-good idea, the problem is that disengage makes you lose the attack during that turn unless you're a rogue. so now we have everyone playing cat and mouse.

-can't we combine jump with disengage so that players still will get to attack each turn?

yeah, alright team I think we have something here!

-well, sir, doesn't this affect spell mechanics and class identity?

-Oh shut up Karen, can you for once stop with your negativity. We're making something cool here!


Now, I ofc am making exaggerations but what I'm getting at is that one change, leads to another change, that leads to two new changes, that quickly spirals out throughout a whole system. When all that extra work making changes to an already working combat system, could have been avoided if the first change wasn't made. A change made just to make one of Larian's darlings fit in.

I'm not saying d&d is perfect. that's why there have been several editions of it. and there is room for improvement without affecting the whole system. What Larian did with Rangers is a perfect example of that. You can bake chocolate chip cookies for people with gluten intolerance. But can you bake them changing the chocolate chips to gummi bears?


Of course the scenario you paint there is an oversimplification but the path they took was certainly along those lines. It's a bunch of workarounds being added in to fix core mistakes they made because THEY think it's what the players want.
I would however also say that this is the result of EXTREME lazyness on their part. This game should have been done on a different engine. I could say that making that decision could be too radical for Larian as they could just make use of the resources they already have, but I think the current state of the game proves exactly the opposite. The engine is not adequate for what they said they were going to do. Their core changes to make something "more fun" broke the combat systems completely. So they added workarounds to deal with them, but then they need workarounds for the workarounds. It's such an idiotic and moronic approach that I honestly can't imagine that they even remotely thought this through. At this point they might as well just say that this isn't a D&D based game, change the name of the skills and market it as something else. It would still be trash, but at least it would be honest trash.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by coredumped

Of course the scenario you paint there is an oversimplification but the path they took was certainly along those lines. It's a bunch of workarounds being added in to fix core mistakes they made because THEY think it's what the players want.
I would however also say that this is the result of EXTREME lazyness on their part. This game should have been done on a different engine. I could say that making that decision could be too radical for Larian as they could just make use of the resources they already have, but I think the current state of the game proves exactly the opposite. The engine is not adequate for what they said they were going to do. Their core changes to make something "more fun" broke the combat systems completely. So they added workarounds to deal with them, but then they need workarounds for the workarounds. It's such an idiotic and moronic approach that I honestly can't imagine that they even remotely thought this through. At this point they might as well just say that this isn't a D&D based game, change the name of the skills and market it as something else. It would still be trash, but at least it would be honest trash.


Well. I wouldn't be so harsh, even though I definitively had my little outburst of feelings a couple of weeks ago and wrote an analogy towards Larian that isn't really fair.

I think they have a base concept here that works. But for me to like it, it needs several improvements and to revert some changes made, particularly regarding surfaces, height advantage, action economy, cantrips and the rest mechanic being tied into the narrative with a lot of the story and companion interaction happening at camp. The last part worked well in DAO where you naturally returned to camp after each mission/area but doesn't work as well in a seamless experience.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Yup. I don’t blame the engine for the outcome of this problem. I’m more leaning into the fact that they could’ve used the very same engine in a different way. Their engine is capable of removing the hp bloat and advantage in backstab / high ground. Their decision not to do it is where the problem lies.

I’ll probably write a tread to explain the issues why increasing the hit chance & increasing the hp at the same time blows some cores of DnD5e
I’ll try to explore the math behind it and explain why it doesn’t work in the overall balance of the game

Currently the only major flaw of the game is related to action economy and think it should be well addressed because it impact the whole game.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by coredumped
This game should have been done on a different engine. I could say that making that decision could be too radical for Larian as they could just make use of the resources they already have, but I think the current state of the game proves exactly the opposite. The engine is not adequate for what they said they were going to do. Their core changes to make something "more fun" broke the combat systems completely. So they added workarounds to deal with them, but then they need workarounds for the workarounds. It's such an idiotic and moronic approach that I honestly can't imagine that they even remotely thought this through.


I don't think the engine is the problem (unless you want RTwP instead of turn-based).

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that a lot of Larian's design seems to be based on "that's what people liked in D:OS/D:OS 2, so that's what they want in BG 3 as well". Which is fine for the crowd that wants a D:OS in a D&D setting, but it alienates anyone who is looking for a D&D experience.
I'm playing currently with the D&D rebalance mod enabled to get the game at least somewhat closer to what I want and refrain from using the D:OS elements. Not a perfect solution and not one I should have to rely on, but I don't see any other way currently as long as they don't change the system to more closely resemble 5e.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Now I'm no programmer, but I don't really see how hard it is to just take the players handbook and start implementing the ruleset as is?


It's hard the CHANGE an existing game engine design, because the AI has to be programmed to use whatever rule set you use. Right now the AI is programmed to use height advantage, deal with a plethora of surface effects, and every other "homebrew" change from 5e in the game. Any change to how it's working now, means reprogramming those AI routines. Basically, rebuilding the computer DM.

This is why it's hard to make a difficulty settings menu where you could choose strict 5e rules or the current Larian mode. It's much easier to program different difficulty settings by just altering HP, AC, and a few other variables like reducing the spread between dice rolls for Advantage-Disadvantage. That doesn't require reprogramming the AI for a different rule set.

BTW, I'm not making an argument that the current design is better than a more faithful 5e adaptation, just pointing out that it's not simple to switch between systems.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Now I'm no programmer, but I don't really see how hard it is to just take the players handbook and start implementing the ruleset as is?


It's hard the CHANGE an existing game engine design, because the AI has to be programmed to use whatever rule set you use. Right now the AI is programmed to use height advantage, deal with a plethora of surface effects, and every other "homebrew" change from 5e in the game. Any change to how it's working now, means reprogramming those AI routines. Basically, rebuilding the computer DM.

This is why it's hard to make a difficulty settings menu where you could choose strict 5e rules or the current Larian mode. It's much easier to program different difficulty settings by just altering HP, AC, and a few other variables like reducing the spread between dice rolls for Advantage-Disadvantage. That doesn't require reprogramming the AI for a different rule set.

BTW, I'm not making an argument that the current design is better than a more faithful 5e adaptation, just pointing out that it's not simple to switch between systems.

Unless they're hard coding the ai into their engine (who does that?), it should be relatively easy to script it to react differently, especially regarding the height behavior.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Oct 2020
One thing in the beginning a single player game does not have to be perfectly balanced.
As we have already explained it, let's move on.
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

Because of this, we have changes in actions.
Changing the shove or disengage is intended to give the player more things to do on their turn.
Let's skip the discussion of whether it's a good or bad change, but it does what it was supposed to do.
I guess they could go fix it a bit by adding a disengage (even as a bonus action)

Next we have the surfaces. Personally, I think it's a nice addition to the game, although it needs some changes.
First, the fire must be weakened. Entering the fire should deal damage only once per turn (roll reducing damage by half can be added),
or it should only set the target on fire, but in this case the damage should appear only from the next turn.
I don't think other surfaces are a problem.

Cantrip with surfaces shouldn't be a problem. A fire bolt with reduced fire surface effect shouldn't be a problem,
but I think ray of frost shouldn't create ice at the target unless it is standing in liquid.

I don't see a problem with the barrels, I don't remember a fight where it would be a problem (maybe in the zhentarim hideout, but it made sense in terms of the story).
The game does not require you to use them at any time, they rarely are positioned in such a way as to be able to blow up enemies without placing them first.
And the fact that you can do it is not a problem. If you want to spoil the game then do it,
having a lot of freedom in how you want to play is great, at least as long as the game doesn't force you.

Now we come to the advantage system. Here I have to admit it is broken.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to fix. I believe that the backstab advantage should remain, but it needs some change. It should only work when one of the allies is standing next to the target.
This would add an extra tactical option and encourage proper positioning,
but it will only work if they add a disengage as a bonus action, which would make positioning difficult (As you are unable to pass through npc).
The distance advantage should be removed and you can add +/- 4 AC instead.
The change would also have one additional plus, increasing the incentive to fight in close combat.

Coming back to the fact that players don't like to miss.
Larian certainly hadn't made up this information. Otherwise, they would not waste time trying to balance the system.
I'm sure they have access to data from previous games on this subject (and they probably collect this information from BG3).

Last edited by Rhobar121; 30/10/20 06:32 PM.
Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
One thing in the beginning a single player game does not have to be perfectly balanced.
As we have already explained it, let's move on.
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.


What? No way. D&D 5E rules at low levels offer a lot of variety: see Solasta for example. Most actual d&d play never gets beyond level 5 in the real world haha.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
One thing in the beginning a single player game does not have to be perfectly balanced.
As we have already explained it, let's move on.
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

Because of this, we have changes in actions.
Changing the shove or disengage is intended to give the player more things to do on their turn.
Let's skip the discussion of whether it's a good or bad change, but it does what it was supposed to do.
I guess they could go fix it a bit by adding a disengage (even as a bonus action)

Next we have the surfaces. Personally, I think it's a nice addition to the game, although it needs some changes.
First, the fire must be weakened. Entering the fire should deal damage only once per turn (roll reducing damage by half can be added),
or it should only set the target on fire, but in this case the damage should appear only from the next turn.
I don't think other surfaces are a problem.

Cantrip with surfaces shouldn't be a problem. A fire bolt with reduced fire surface effect shouldn't be a problem,
but I think ray of frost shouldn't create ice at the target unless it is standing in liquid.

I don't see a problem with the barrels, I don't remember a fight where it would be a problem (maybe in the zhentarim hideout, but it made sense in terms of the story).
The game does not require you to use them at any time, they rarely are positioned in such a way as to be able to blow up enemies without placing them first.
And the fact that you can do it is not a problem. If you want to spoil the game then do it,
having a lot of freedom in how you want to play is great, at least as long as the game doesn't force you.

Now we come to the advantage system. Here I have to admit it is broken.
Still, it shouldn't be that hard to fix. I believe that the backstab advantage should remain, but it needs some change. It should only work when one of the allies is standing next to the target.
This would add an extra tactical option and encourage proper positioning,
but it will only work if they add a disengage as a bonus action, which would make positioning difficult (As you are unable to pass through npc).
The distance advantage should be removed and you can add +/- 4 AC instead.
The change would also have one additional plus, increasing the incentive to fight in close combat.

Coming back to the fact that players don't like to miss.
Larian certainly hadn't made up this information. Otherwise, they would not waste time trying to balance the system.
I'm sure they have access to data from previous games on this subject (and they probably collect this information from BG3).


First, asking me to change the subject because you like the way it is not very emphatic. Could you please be so kind and let us decide what is good and what is not?

Second, your arguments are not based in a manner that will help to ease the pain for the ones who understand the game mechanics (unlike yourself that clearly shows no evidence that have a minimal experience in DnD5e) and are unhappy with it.

Chill, bro. First explain how the impacts can be mitigated. The sole argument of gaming experience won’t get you nowhere. You need to know the other side of the coin to claim what is the best possible outcome, otherwise our discussion will be based in “I like it because I like it”

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.


Indeed. I don’t get this people that claims that have deeper knowledge regarding how the whole world feels with a certain attribute in game. I hate hitting all the time. Am I an outlier and should I move to another planet?

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.


Indeed. I don’t get this people that claims that have deeper knowledge regarding how the whole world feels with a certain attribute in game. I hate hitting all the time. Am I an outlier and should I move to another planet?


I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.

+ If the rules were a little bit more accurate to D&D, it could also be less penalizing.
Your melee character just miss and don't kill that goblin... No problem, I'll spend a level 1 spell slots using magic missile and I'll probably OS/finish him...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/10/20 07:22 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.


Very true; Pathfinder Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous does this. Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
Originally Posted by Maximuuus

I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.


Very true; Pathfinder Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous does this. Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE!!!!

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Originally Posted by Traycor
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Some changes from the DnD rules are needed, otherwise the fight at low levels would be quite limited.
Due to the fact that if a player becomes discouraged at the beginning of the game, he will most likely just return the game.

You level up pretty fast in the beginning, and many games limit your actions/abilities at the beginning so players can learn. If fact, I would say it's expected that the player is limited at the first. If someone is rage returning the game because they can't do much at level 1, then they haven't played many games.


Indeed. I don’t get this people that claims that have deeper knowledge regarding how the whole world feels with a certain attribute in game. I hate hitting all the time. Am I an outlier and should I move to another planet?


I agree that missing too much time is boring... But in D&D missing doesn't really mean you miss... It means you did no damage to your target. I think if the game was a little bit less "Static" (which is obviously not easy, but possible), it could be visualy less boring.



I agree with this a lot, I think that it at least looks like you're dodging in Baldur's Gate 3 while in Pathfinder Kingmaker it just says '' miss '' but the character doesn't visually show it.
I think that maybe if you're wearing heavy armor or a shield then instead of doing the dodge animation they could have their own animation and sound effects.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
This I Love...

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc


I would really like this happen --get rid of the HP bloat and replace it with compelling animations. Dodge is great but what about animations for "thunk" on armor, grazing to the side, swords crossing, ducking under or jumping over the slash of a weapon . . .

Last edited by KillerRabbit; 05/11/20 04:40 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by millenialboomer
Some attacks miss by a wide margin, sometimes the character outright dodges, and a lot of time it will just 'plink' off the armor; this all depends on how close it was to beating the AC of the target.
In real world you usually have a DM describing the attack in the same terms. Hell, even attacks that do damage are sometimes described as "the arrow hits you, but your armor and/or training (depending on character) allows you to channel the deadly force of the blow away from your vitals: that will probably leave a bruise though." .etc


I would really like this happen --get rid of the HP bloat and replace it with compelling animations. Dodge is great but what about animations for "thunk" on armor, grazing to the side, swords crossing, ducking under or jumping over the slash of a weapon . . .


+1, would be great. Right now you see the spell (or whatever) hit and then there's "miss" displayed. Quite unimmersive.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
All of the complaint and hate is funny to someone who came in knowing nothing about the Baldur's Gate series, nor D&D beyond watching popular streams. I was looking for an experience and can only shake my head at how much people complain about rules and mechanics.

Page 7 of 11 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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