Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 50 of 61 1 2 48 49 50 51 52 60 61
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Tzelanit


I provided a fairly specific example of how the overall experience feels better when you're not just stuck chowing down scarce consumables and relying on healing spells from a specific class to progress.

No, you didn't. You just stated that's the case as if was a matter of fact, which is questionable at best.
I don't particularly agree. In fact, I probably don't agree at all.

Quote
Giving the player an option to remove pointless downtime that was once considered to be "roleplaying" but was really just how we justified the limitations of the technology at the time is a "new and modern" take that's an improvement.

This line of thinking that anything that can be summarized as "immediate convenience" should always be perceived as an overall improvement of the experience is something I'm strongly against.


Last edited by Tuco; 06/11/20 05:52 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I just feels like the people who designed the combat didn't fully understand or appreciate D&D combat. Well, and we know this for a fact because Larian told us they didn't like D&D combat.

Sadly, I agree with this.

Joined: Oct 2016
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Oct 2016
You know, I've been a big critic of Larian since we've seen all the mechanics come out with the problems mentioned here, not designed for D&D.

But to be fair, Swen did once say he thought that in D&D you "missed" too much as if it was kinda boring. Well, I'm glad they didn't change the attack system right. Although they might have taken dodge out for this very reason.

It really surprises me why developers don't design D&D games to follow the rules as it should be. When it's a videogame limitation thing I don't mind - but when u give every class a bonus disengage, take away dodge, create dips and surfaces, it's like they are trying to leave their imprint in D&D.

The only person I know who is not from Wizards and can do that is Matt Mercer. But he's earned that right.

Larian designs cool games, but they don't know shit about D&D. Leave the game as it is, at its core. Simple.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
Originally Posted by Mogan
Originally Posted by Tzelanit
I guess I'd need to hear an example of what a D&D game is, because a 5e ruleset on the backdrop of The Forgotten Realms feels like a D&D game to me.
I'm playing through DOS2 for the 7th time and alternate back and forth between the games, and the core feel and tone are very, very different.


If you play BG1 and 2, or the Icewind Dale series, or Kingmaker (since Pathfinder is just off brand D&D), just about every element of the gameplay in those games is tied to the ruleset they're adapting. Class features are the go to (and almost only) tool players have to deal with combat which makes the D&D classes the stars of the show. In BG3, my class features haven't played as big a role in my progressing through the early access build as the elements brought over from DoS. My fighter eats food to heal more often than he uses his second wind, because it's just more effective and plentiful. Astarion is casting spells from scrolls about as often as he's setting up a sneak attack because I've got a zillion scrolls and they don't need stealth or an ally nearby. And if I can carry an explosive barrel or two around with me I am, because setting one of those up and then firebolting it does way more damage than anything Gale can do by himself at level 4. The end result is that the classes don't actually feel very important and none of the class features seem especially useful, so the parts of the game that are unique to 5e D&D really take a back seat the parts that remind me of DoS2.

I don't want every spell scroll, barrel, or bit of food removed from the game, I just want the game designed so that the classes and which ones are in the party feel more important to the gameplay.


BG3 is set in the world of D&D and is based on the 5e ruleset. Expecting a faithful 1:1 interpretation 20 years after any of those games were relevant is a bit silly. There are a lot of quality of life changes that I'm thankful for. Not feeling constantly deprived or starved of resources streamlines the flow of the game. Later down the line, it won't be as viable to eat an apple as opposed to using Second Wind. Shooting an explosive barrel likely won't be viable in every situation at mid to endgame. This is still early access and although the retail release likely won't be dramatically different, I think it's silly to shove two decades of advances and sensibility in RPGs under the rug just because you're not struggling as hard as you think you should be to preserve an odd sense of integrity.

And if you want the experience of feeling like a Cleric is your only option for healing and the whim of your dice rolls is your only option for damage, you could certainly just play the game in that fashion. It's a weird thing to complain about optional accessibility and then choose to reap the benefits of it. The beauty of this game is, you can choose to play how you'd like, and asking for things to be removed because they don't suit you to preserve your nostalgia and claim that "this isn't Baldur's Gate" when you could simply just not do those things is ridiculous.


"BG3 is set in the world of D&D and is based on the 5e ruleset. Expecting a faithful 1:1 interpretation 20 years after any of those games were relevant is a bit silly."

Not even speaking about the fact they were based on a different D&D ruleset and weren't a faithful representation either.

" Not feeling constantly deprived or starved of resources streamlines the flow of the game. Later down the line, it won't be as viable to eat an apple as opposed to using Second Wind. Shooting an explosive barrel likely won't be viable in every situation at mid to endgame. "

It makes it easier, and that's pretty much it. The barrel thing will only get worse if we look at their previous games but granted, it's an ignorable cheese strat.

"This is still early access and although the retail release likely won't be dramatically different, I think it's silly to shove two decades of advances and sensibility in RPGs under the rug just because you're not struggling as hard as you think you should be to preserve an odd sense of integrity."

Making games easier isn't exactly advancement. It's making them more accessible for a wider public. Fast travel is huge QoL of newer games. The food -> Granted, you would heal anyways and get your resources back anyways so it can be seen as a faster way to get things done and QoL only. But worth pointing out here at this point (I'm extrapolating) auto-resolve for fighs is the next stage. Every single detail when it comes to game combat design matters. If managing resources impacts how combat looks then trivializing it's not something to be put aside as QoL. The food is a very bad example though cause you don't need food in BG3, 2, 1 or any other. You can just spam sleep.


"And if you want the experience of feeling like a Cleric is your only option for healing and the whim of your dice rolls is your only option for damage, you could certainly just play the game in that fashion. It's a weird thing to complain about optional accessibility and then choose to reap the benefits of it. The beauty of this game is, you can choose to play how you'd like, and asking for things to be removed because they don't suit you to preserve your nostalgia and claim that "this isn't Baldur's Gate" when you could simply just not do those things is ridiculous."

I strongly agree with a part of it. " Play it the way you want " is definitely something that shows in every aspect of Larian's game design. And it's perfect. But it becomes an issue when it comes to higher difficulties. ^^ I might be mistaken but statements like " remove food, remove barrels, remove 90% of what Larian put in the game" doesn't necessarily have to come from purists or people who have no idea what they want. They want difficulty. The game itself is supposed to offer you a challenge. If you have to come up with your problems yourself you're fighting with...well...yourself. ^^


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
I like the Divinity engine. But I agree the starting point should be core 5e D&D rules before moving forward. Currently everyone is arguing the merits of the homebrew stuff vs the 5e rule set that hasn't even been implemented. How can you argue something is better/worse if it hasn't been tried? Make barrels heavy so you cannot pick them up. If the 5e rules suck in game then change it but at least try.

Wrong premise. It's not really about which is better. I really enjoyed DOS2 and even praised it as a spiritual successor of BG (not mechanically). This game was promoted as a D&D game, where as it's really a D&D skin on DOS. Larian has been deliberately deceptive about their intentions for the game, taking on the mantle of a legendary title and claiming they would do a FAITHFUL PORT while also abusing the Dungeon Master's role as the ultimate referee as to what goes, as an excuse for their radical change.

QUOTE: "We started by taking the ruleset that's in the Player's Handbook. We ported it as faithfully as we could, then there were some number of things that we saw that doesn't work that well, and so we started looking for solutions to do that. The hardest part—and this is the most interesting part also about it, because there's a lot of stuff from the rules that actually ports quite well, so—but the most interesting part is the role of the Dungeon Master...

Whatever is not in the book he'll say "Well, I'll do this," and the Dungeon Master says "Sure!" And then he'll think about what type of check he's going to make you do, and then that's going to be what you're going to roll with, and the entire party will work with that. In a video game, you don't have that, so in a video game you have to make systems that allow you to do this. And so, coming up with those systems has been a lot of fun, and making them link to the ruleset as it is has been the interesting bit about that."


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...-turn-based-rpgs-and-dreams-coming-true/

The changes Larian has done will require a host of changes to correct imbalances caused to the point this is D&D in name only. This is a faithful port of DOS with a D&D-skin. Meme-combat is the name of the game. Sweeping changes that generate ever more need for changes by ruining balance is so many ways.

Let's just ramble a little to illustrate what is going on behind the scenes: Super easy advantage on attack rolls and flaming weapons are amazingly strong buffs to the martial classes in particular. Except Barbarians who are broken (Reckless Attack gives them and their opponents advantage). "Barrelmancy" is overpowered and is a relative nerf to Wizards, Warlocks and Sorcerers as now even a fighter has readily available mini-fireballs. To balance this imbalance, Larian has made resting super permissive. A strong buff to casters...as well as being blatantly immersion-breaking. Except Warlocks who are designed to not need long rest as much and are relatively nerfed and will need buffs in comparison with Wizards and Sorcerers in particular. Even worse when compared with Warlocks, Wizards/Sorcerers attack cantrips have been buffed both out of the box, buffed by easy advantage, buffed by magic items (+5 average spell attack), and as environmental effect detonators, which leaves the Warlocks and Clerics high and dry. On top of that Wizards (the love-child of the Larian boss) have been buffed by stronger magic items as well as being able to learn any spell from any class - furthering the class balance gap. This is again a large relative nerf to Bards who get a much more limited version of this as one of their strongest class features (Magical Secrets). This is the butterfly effect except Larian instead started with Gale-level winds (pardon the pun).

Last edited by Seraphael; 06/11/20 07:35 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
+1 to OP

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Mogan
Right now, BG3 feels like Larian is trying to make D&D 5th Edition rules work in an Original Sin game, and it does not feel like a game that was conceived and designed from the start as a CRPG using the 5e ruleset.
The UI, the party controls, the reliance on consumables and environmental effects are all Original Sin and aren't meshing with the 5e ruleset the way this game needs them to.

UI: Character screens need to put all the information that would be on a tabletop character sheet at players' fingertips. They also need breakdowns and tooltips explaining all the character's race and class features, where they come from, how the numbers are being generated and what they do. The combat log needs to be more prominent and provide more options for sorting the information displayed. Spells need their full descriptions and spellcasting needs its own hot bars that auto-sort available spells by level. The single, giant catchall hot bar is entirely inadequate for a class based game where some classes can end up with dozens of spells/abilities that change availability regularly.

Party Controls: Being able to select only one character at a time in a game that requires the player to control a party of four is ridiculous. CRPGs figured this **** out twenty years ago and almost every other CRPG since then has had an RTS style control scheme that is FAR less clunky and cumbersome to deal with than BG3's. We don't need companions to automatically follow the selected character and we don't need a portrait chain to pull characters on and off of. We need to be able to select multiple characters at once, drag select as many as needed, shift click select as many as needed, click directly on their character models to select them, and issue group orders to multiple characters at once. Basically, this game needs to control like a Baldur's Gate game and not make the basic act of moving the party around the world a pain in the ***.

Reliance on consumables and environmental effects: I get it, 5e combat is boring at low levels because the classes don't have much going on. And I actually like that BG3 does offer more potions, scrolls, and environmental interactions, like explosive barrels, than you're likely to find in a 5e tabletop module ... but the game can't lean on that stuff to the extent it eclipses the classes and their abilities. This is a D&D game, and supposed to be a bridge between gamers and the tabletop RPG, so it needs to focus enough on what the classes can do that those abilities are the player's primary set of tools. Right now we've got Divinity, where the most effective way to defeat our enemies is generally to find a way to blow up an explosive barrel near them. Or coat the ground in water/blood/acid. Or cast a zillion spells from scrolls. All those things are great in moderation and when they can combo with a class's abilities, but I'm finding it more effective to lean on barrels, ground effects, and scrolls to a much greater degree than most of my class specific abilities and spell slots.

The result of all this is that BG3 in its current form feels like I'm playing DoS with a 5e conversion mod on it, and not a game that was designed from the ground up as a 5e CRPG.


I agree with a lot of your points as well. I do not think they need to completely redesign the engine and infrastructure to fix most of this though. A lot of this is however because they are using the same engine as there DOS games.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mogan
Right now, BG3 feels like Larian is trying to make D&D 5th Edition rules work in an Original Sin game, and it does not feel like a game that was conceived and designed from the start as a CRPG using the 5e ruleset.
The UI, the party controls, the reliance on consumables and environmental effects are all Original Sin and aren't meshing with the 5e ruleset the way this game needs them to.

UI: Character screens need to put all the information that would be on a tabletop character sheet at players' fingertips. They also need breakdowns and tooltips explaining all the character's race and class features, where they come from, how the numbers are being generated and what they do. The combat log needs to be more prominent and provide more options for sorting the information displayed. Spells need their full descriptions and spellcasting needs its own hot bars that auto-sort available spells by level. The single, giant catchall hot bar is entirely inadequate for a class based game where some classes can end up with dozens of spells/abilities that change availability regularly.

Party Controls: Being able to select only one character at a time in a game that requires the player to control a party of four is ridiculous. CRPGs figured this **** out twenty years ago and almost every other CRPG since then has had an RTS style control scheme that is FAR less clunky and cumbersome to deal with than BG3's. We don't need companions to automatically follow the selected character and we don't need a portrait chain to pull characters on and off of. We need to be able to select multiple characters at once, drag select as many as needed, shift click select as many as needed, click directly on their character models to select them, and issue group orders to multiple characters at once. Basically, this game needs to control like a Baldur's Gate game and not make the basic act of moving the party around the world a pain in the ***.

Reliance on consumables and environmental effects: I get it, 5e combat is boring at low levels because the classes don't have much going on. And I actually like that BG3 does offer more potions, scrolls, and environmental interactions, like explosive barrels, than you're likely to find in a 5e tabletop module ... but the game can't lean on that stuff to the extent it eclipses the classes and their abilities. This is a D&D game, and supposed to be a bridge between gamers and the tabletop RPG, so it needs to focus enough on what the classes can do that those abilities are the player's primary set of tools. Right now we've got Divinity, where the most effective way to defeat our enemies is generally to find a way to blow up an explosive barrel near them. Or coat the ground in water/blood/acid. Or cast a zillion spells from scrolls. All those things are great in moderation and when they can combo with a class's abilities, but I'm finding it more effective to lean on barrels, ground effects, and scrolls to a much greater degree than most of my class specific abilities and spell slots.

The result of all this is that BG3 in its current form feels like I'm playing DoS with a 5e conversion mod on it, and not a game that was designed from the ground up as a 5e CRPG.


Its weird that I agree with your 3 supporting points and yet I disagree with your conclusion.

I have been playing CRPGs with the majority being DnD since Pool of Radiance on the C64 in 1989. I have played at least 20 DnD computer titles. I have played many tabletop campaigns. To say this is not DnD is absurd. I did not play DOS/DOS2. I don't know or care how similar the core is. The question is did they produce a DnD game? Clearly. Can it be improved? Clearly.

Using an existing engine and essentially modding it to fit your goal is a popular software development path. Expecting Larian to not use their DOS engine and build one from the ground up is unrealistic.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Tzelanit


I provided a fairly specific example of how the overall experience feels better when you're not just stuck chowing down scarce consumables and relying on healing spells from a specific class to progress.

No, you didn't. You just stated that's the case as if was a matter of fact, which is questionable at best.
I don't particularly agree. In fact, I probably don't agree at all.

Quote
Giving the player an option to remove pointless downtime that was once considered to be "roleplaying" but was really just how we justified the limitations of the technology at the time is a "new and modern" take that's an improvement.

This line of thinking that anything that can be summarized as "immediate convenience" should always be perceived as an overall improvement of the experience is something I'm strongly against.



It's not immediate convenience if it's an alternative in which you can choose to benefit from or not. Having those quality of life changes in a game as an option will be a boon to some and not to others.
If it's not to you, then it's as simple as just not taking advantage of them. Calling for a removal of those things or speaking fervently against them when they're entirely optional seems like a waste of energy.


I don't want to fall to bits 'cos of excess existential thought.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Every time you smugly parrot "If you don't like it simply don't use it", both the concept of resource management and its potential impact on game design seem to fly completely over your head.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Let's immediately skip the arguments that this is D&D so it has to play like D&D because then we'll never get anywhere. Each of us has a different definition of what D&D is.

Let's assume for a moment that they remove all combat rule changes. Will the game really get better then?
Will the game be balanced?
As for the latter, I can immediately say that it is not.
The very changes in how rest works have crushed the whole balance, enormously strengthening rest classes.
Even if you cut back somehow (unless you set a hard limit, but we all know Larian won't) you will still be able to rest several times more than you normally should.
The system itself is broken from scratch and you can't fix it without making the game annoying.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
People are very confused about what things are actually rules changes, and which things are already optional rules in 5e, or standard DM prerogative as granted in the 5e books.

Changing Fire Bolt is a rules change. Changing Hide, Shove, and Disengage to bonus actions is a rules change. Allowing Wizards to scribe Cleric spells is a rules change. And there are several rules changes in the game, and I think it's valid for people to criticize those if they want the game to adhere more closely to RAW 5e.

But many of the complaints are NOT rules changes. They fall within the realm of normal, intended DM prerogative. Facing is already an optional rule in the DMG (pg. 252), and it awards advantage to attackers from behind. (And before you complain about an optional rule, stop and remember that FEATS are also an optional rule in 5e, and nobody is complaining about those.) Granting advantage and disadvantage for any circumstances that the DM thinks are appropriate is already a power given to DMs. "Characters often gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, spells, or other features of their classes or backgrounds. In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. Consider granting advantage when circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge, or some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success." (pg. 239 DMG) Higher ground advantage isn't a rules change. It's the DM doing exactly what the DMG says they should.

Changes to monster stats? Not a rules change. Stat blocks are not rules. Every experienced DM I know changes monster stats, makes up new monsters, adds NPC levels to monsters, or adds abilities to monsters, frequently. For at least the last three editions of D&D, including 5e, signficant space in the DMG has been devoted to just this topic. "Part of the D&D experience is the simple joy of creating new monsters and customizing existing ones, if for no other reason than to surprise and delight your players with something they've never faced before." "A stat block in the Monster Manual might make a good starting point for your monster." (pg. 273 DMG) Monster stat blocks are a quick, ready-to-play convenience feature for DMs. They're good for when you're short on time, or lazy, or uncreative, or as a starting point for creating your own unique content. Even in official published adventures, it is very common to see modified versions of creatures, especially changes to a monster's AC or HP.

Also, monsters have a RANGE of hit points. The exact number listed is just the numerical average, again to save time. Complaining about goblins with 13 HP instead of 7 is ridiculous, as even the standard goblin has 2d6 HP base, and full rules exist for making custom NPCs with the race "goblin" and for adding class levels to an existing goblin. As a DM of 30+ years, I virtually always modify creatures in my games from their stock Monster Manual "starting point" stat block. So does Chris Perkins, so does Jerry Holkins, so does Matt Mercer, and on and on. It's not a rules change, it's DM prerogative.

Numerous other things fall into this category, I don't feel like going through the full list of "this is not D&D!" complaints right now. But probably at least half of those issues are not actual rules changes, they're just DM prerogative. Which means that you could dislike how Larian is as a DM, but you have much less ground to stand on when it comes to claiming that the game is some wild divergence from 5e rules. Yes, there are clear rules changes, but honestly not very many of them.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Let's immediately skip the arguments that this is D&D so it has to play like D&D because then we'll never get anywhere. Each of us has a different definition of what D&D is.

Let's assume for a moment that they remove all combat rule changes. Will the game really get better then?
Will the game be balanced?
As for the latter, I can immediately say that it is not.
The very changes in how rest works have crushed the whole balance, enormously strengthening rest classes.
Even if you cut back somehow (unless you set a hard limit, but we all know Larian won't) you will still be able to rest several times more than you normally should.
The system itself is broken from scratch and you can't fix it without making the game annoying.


It's not broken from scratch. I get what you're saying here, and you have a valid point. But the two things you're saying aren't connected after me.

In D&D resource management is a thing in BG3 not necessarily. You either need a hard limit to limit rest or deal with the consequences of a fully rested party. The game doesn't need to become " annoying" from a rest limitation ( if implemented in a smart way - we had a discussion about it in one of the "sleep threads" few days ago).

Let's admit you ignore it and just leave rest as it is ( it would be a shame, but it could work). You just have a game that needs to be ready for all spells you might have at given point in the game(encounters need to be balanced around it when it comes to type and number of enemies).

Now admitting you have it (it's arguably the case in BG3 EA for some encounters) your D&D mechanics ( like AC ) will balance the fight in the intended way.

While rest makes certain classes shine brighter than they should on long -term, on short - term they can still be on a similar power level.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
@Firesnakes, I responded to you on a different thread, but I'll repeat it here

While it is technically true that Facing rules are in the DMG, there are a other important components to that rule that Larian didn't implement.
Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move." This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction. Thus, Larian's implementation IS a rule change.

In addition, DMG Facing: "A creature can only target creatures in its front or side arc." Depending on how you equate "threatening" with "targeting", this might imply that you'd provoke an AoO from circling around a creature. Not implemented by Larian.

On all your other points I agree. Monsters can have ranges of HP, the only reason DMs don't typically do this is because it is a hassle to run encounters with differing-HP goblins.
The DM is allowed to change monsters or make up new ones.
These ^ follow the rules. I argue with Larian's implementation (decrease AC+increase HP+don't change Saves=nerfed ST/HP-affecting spells) but Larian is not going against the rules of 5e in these cases.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Let's immediately skip the arguments that this is D&D so it has to play like D&D because then we'll never get anywhere. Each of us has a different definition of what D&D is.

Let's assume for a moment that they remove all combat rule changes. Will the game really get better then?
Will the game be balanced?
As for the latter, I can immediately say that it is not.
The very changes in how rest works have crushed the whole balance, enormously strengthening rest classes.
Even if you cut back somehow (unless you set a hard limit, but we all know Larian won't) you will still be able to rest several times more than you normally should.
The system itself is broken from scratch and you can't fix it without making the game annoying.


It's not broken from scratch. I get what you're saying here, and you have a valid point. But the two things you're saying aren't connected after me.

In D&D resource management is a thing in BG3 not necessarily. You either need a hard limit to limit rest or deal with the consequences of a fully rested party. The game doesn't need to become " annoying" from a rest limitation ( if implemented in a smart way - we had a discussion about it in one of the "sleep threads" few days ago).

Let's admit you ignore it and just leave rest as it is ( it would be a shame, but it could work). You just have a game that needs to be ready for all spells you might have at given point in the game(encounters need to be balanced around it when it comes to type and number of enemies).

Now admitting you have it (it's arguably the case in BG3 EA for some encounters) your D&D mechanics ( like AC ) will balance the fight in the intended way.

While rest makes certain classes shine brighter than they should on long -term, on short - term they can still be on a similar power level.


A few days ago I wrote a post for ways to reduce rest.
I have come to the conclusion that creating a system that is actually limited in a meaningful way (and fairly easy to understand) is terribly difficult in a computer game with the fast travel option.
We'll probably end up with the option to use most resources in combat, which is not that bad option.
That this will affect the balance of some classes, which causes the need for additional changes.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Let's immediately skip the arguments that this is D&D so it has to play like D&D because then we'll never get anywhere. Each of us has a different definition of what D&D is.

Let's assume for a moment that they remove all combat rule changes. Will the game really get better then?
Will the game be balanced?
As for the latter, I can immediately say that it is not.
The very changes in how rest works have crushed the whole balance, enormously strengthening rest classes.
Even if you cut back somehow (unless you set a hard limit, but we all know Larian won't) you will still be able to rest several times more than you normally should.
The system itself is broken from scratch and you can't fix it without making the game annoying.


It's not broken from scratch. I get what you're saying here, and you have a valid point. But the two things you're saying aren't connected after me.

In D&D resource management is a thing in BG3 not necessarily. You either need a hard limit to limit rest or deal with the consequences of a fully rested party. The game doesn't need to become " annoying" from a rest limitation ( if implemented in a smart way - we had a discussion about it in one of the "sleep threads" few days ago).

Let's admit you ignore it and just leave rest as it is ( it would be a shame, but it could work). You just have a game that needs to be ready for all spells you might have at given point in the game(encounters need to be balanced around it when it comes to type and number of enemies).

Now admitting you have it (it's arguably the case in BG3 EA for some encounters) your D&D mechanics ( like AC ) will balance the fight in the intended way.

While rest makes certain classes shine brighter than they should on long -term, on short - term they can still be on a similar power level.


A few days ago I wrote a post for ways to reduce rest.
I have come to the conclusion that creating a system that is actually limited in a meaningful way (and fairly easy to understand) is terribly difficult in a computer game with the fast travel option.
We'll probably end up with the option to use most resources in combat, which is not that bad option.
That this will affect the balance of some classes, which causes the need for additional changes.





"I have come to the conclusion that creating a system that is actually limited in a meaningful way (and fairly easy to understand) is terribly difficult in a computer game with the fast travel option."

Yes....now we're talking resources you spend on combat anyways. So you only need a reliable way to calculate how much resources a player would need per encounter...But is it really a problem? Like as you said, more spells per combat - more possibilities. I think with how the game looks currently it's straight up easier to just go for endless rest.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by virion



"I have come to the conclusion that creating a system that is actually limited in a meaningful way (and fairly easy to understand) is terribly difficult in a computer game with the fast travel option."

Yes....now we're talking resources you spend on combat anyways. So you only need a reliable way to calculate how much resources a player would need per encounter...But is it really a problem? Like as you said, more spells per combat - more possibilities. I think with how the game looks currently it's straight up easier to just go for endless rest.


I would say this is a problem.
You have to take into account a lot of factors such as team composition, character builds (some players create optimized characters but others not necessarily), as well as different skill levels and knowledge of D&D rules.
If we add to this the different levels of difficulty there is a problem.
Sure, we can balance under the lowest common denominator, but does that make sense?
There is a reason why Bioware didn't even try.


Last edited by Rhobar121; 07/11/20 12:34 AM.
Joined: Jan 2014
L
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
L
Joined: Jan 2014
Resource management is a very minor thing in a sense because it makes an assumption that you have X available against Y encounters per Z. Though when it comes down to a more micro level such as within that day then resource management becomes important.

And then you can browse through any thread talking about resource management and you'll find players and DMs divided on that issue.

Then there's this giant nugget.

Quote

Jeremy Crawford: Changing a skill and changing your subclass are great examples of the fun nuggets we like to include in a book like this that weren't necessarily in Unearthed Arcana, because we always like there to be a few surprises. People saw a version changing skills back in Unearthed Arcana in our Class Feature Variant article where we explored this as an option, customized for each class, but we decided when finishing the book, it was better to just provide a general rule for everybody.
Changing your subclass, though, is truly something people haven't seen. We give you concrete guidance on when is a good time to change your subclass, how you might go about it, some comments for the DM on whether some in-world training should be involved in this transformation of your character. This is the kind of thing many DMs let their players already do with their characters, but what we often find is that some DMs are hesitant to allow this sort of liberty unless we, basically, give "official permission" to do it.

So this is really us telling DMs, "It's okay to let people do this." You know? If they find their subclass just isn't playing the way they'd hoped, or if there's been a major story transformation for their character, changing your subclass is a great way to address those different things... These all go under what I often refer to as the "follow your bliss" umbrella of giving people the permission – and the encouragement – to make tweaks that will enhance their enjoyment of their character and of D&D more broadly.


But you know what's nice about a CRPG? Mods.

Joined: May 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
They fall within the realm of normal, intended DM prerogative.

Most DMs would only adopt one or two optional rules, making it feel largely as intended with a slight tweak. This is a host of optional rules, combined with lots of things way outside those, and adding a ton of changes after. "DM prerogative" is being so loosely interpreted here that we could say writing an entirely new rules system would count as "DM prerogative".

Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
I knew from the footage that this was just DOS2 with some different rules, but they didn't even make the tiniest effort to make the game *feel* like Baldurs Gate.

The music, atmosphere, tone - nothing feels anything like the original series. It's "Divinity: Original Sin 2: Forgotten Realms" - that's it.

There aren't any soundtrack riffs that throwback to BG1/BG2, and even the story just starts out ridiculous by going with some of the zaniest fringe D&D lore (brains with legs, githyanki riding around on red dragons everywhere)

Baldurs Gate made you feel like you were part of a bigger, grounded world with fantasy elements.

I don't know what this game is. I just wish they had tried a little bit

Page 50 of 61 1 2 48 49 50 51 52 60 61

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