Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 12 of 28 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 27 28
Joined: Nov 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

Thank you for this post, it's brilliant. You've managed to put into words my frustrations; Larian really should be taking on board your feedback here. Sometimes it feels that Larian are struggling to get a handle on how to implement DnD effectively.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.
+1 i agree - this is very well and succinctly put by evandir. id even go further and theorize that such adjustments would only be further exasperated at higher character levels, but that may be tough to verify given the current lvl 4 cap in ea.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
The base OGL (SRD5) also doesn't cover a lot of races, classes and subcalsses, many spells or most feats - this is why a lot of that game's races are custom-to-world, and their subclasses are not the same, etc.,

Oh, right, for sure. I guess I don't really consider those part of the "prime rules" so to speak. I expect them to change based on setting.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
(...) aside from leaping over enemies to backstab (...)
You do not even need to leap as a Bonus Action : you use about 5 to 10 feet of movement to backstab any target every turn. Or move over 15 feet (out of 30+) when you want to backstab a huge creature.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Quebec
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Niara
The base OGL (SRD5) also doesn't cover a lot of races, classes and subcalsses, many spells or most feats - this is why a lot of that game's races are custom-to-world, and their subclasses are not the same, etc.,

Oh, right, for sure. I guess I don't really consider those part of the "prime rules" so to speak. I expect them to change based on setting.
Example : SRD (free to use) has 1 single Feat. One. :P

Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
member
Online Content
member
Joined: Nov 2020
Location: Austria
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

Very, very well said! Thank you! +1

I am not against changes per se. But as the saying goes: "Never touch a running system", I just don't understand why, when developing a game around a system, you don't try to implement the system as it is first, and then iterate - based on feedback - from there.
I just don't believe Larian, when they say, they tried to implement the rules, but it didn't work. When you look at the engine they are using, they went the path of least resistance, which is fine by itself. But then please don't tell people in interviews, they just changed what does not work in a PC game.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

As others have chimed in, well said. I hope Larian takes notice.

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Larian says that the intention behind the changes they did to the rules is to make the game more FUN, with some homebrew rules.
I say it is not funny at all so far.

D&D 5 is successful because of a loooong experience in what is balanced or not in the game (and it worked quite well in BG1 & 2 when they respected former D&D editions btw).
And, we, - d&d 5 players - are the experts of what is balanced and what is not.

We have said numerous times that the way it is done is not balanced. When it is not balanced, well, it is not FUN.
This is so simple actually, isn't it ?

We are not naive and we know that 100% of the rules/spells cannot be implemented. But we also know that it would be possible for 95% of them. And it is far from being the case at this stage : it even does not respect very core and fundamental rules of D&D5.
For more fun ? Well, too bad. It is not.

You could have it all, Larian. Please be as close as you can to D&D core rules, you can do far better, and we already know it will be extremely funny for D&D players, and still quite funny for non D&D players.
Do this Larian, and you know we will follow you in any sequel of BG you'll make.

Last edited by Lunar Dante; 24/01/21 10:42 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by daMichi
Originally Posted by Evandir
I think something that people unfamiliar with 5e aren't grasping, is that limitations on action economy are what give certain classes and subclasses their identity.

In 5e, every class has the ability to use their action to disengage, hide, dodge, and dash as an action. This represents taking the majority of your 6 seconds in a round to utilize it in a way that is situationally greater than simply attacking or casting at you foe.

Certain classes are so adept at maneuvering or sneaking that through their class features, they gain the ability to use some of them as bonus actions instead. These classes include rogues, monks, and to a lesser extent; rangers and eagle barbarians. The ability to use these actions as bonus actions gives these classes an edge that really makes them feel like they are a step faster than their other party members and solidifies their character identity.

That doesn't mean that other classes don't have things to bring to the table with their bonus actions. While the speedsters have an edge on the maneuverability side; Barbarians, fighters, and paladins may be using their bonus actions to attack with reckless rage, smite effects, or GWM/PAM. These heavy hitters came to brawl, and they're gonna use their bonus actions to bring the pain.

Well what about casters? What do they get? Casters get a spellbook full of spells to play with. Clerics have more bonus action spells than you could ever ask for. Sorcerers can spend sorcery points to turn action cost spells into bonus actions instead. Bards have inspiration for their bonus actions and can choose a couple spells from other classes if they want even more to do with their bonus actions. Druids have wild shape and again... spells. Warlocks... rangers... paladins... spells.

As a character levels up, they gain access to more and more possibilities as to what they can do in their turn. So most classes already have options to look to for their bonus actions. One's that don't can generally take a feat to give them more freedom in their bonus actions. There's also the ability to duel wield to get bonus action attacks.

The problem with diluting the distinction in action economy is that it kills variety and destroys class identity. Arcane tricksters barely feel more roguelike than a Wizard that took the criminal background, due to the Cunning Action handout. What's the point of taking the shield master feat, when everyone got the most important part of it for free? Why would I ever want to play an Eldritch Knight, when anyone can replicate their iconic 7th and 18th Level War magic feature by dual wielding? Why would I pick a control caster and pick spells that give my party members advantage on attacks when advantage comes freely. The list goes on.

Having options is fun, which is why you pick classes that have the options you want, because those options make you feel like you are that class. If everyone is special, then no one is.

Very, very well said! Thank you! +1

I am not against changes per se. But as the saying goes: "Never touch a running system", I just don't understand why, when developing a game around a system, you don't try to implement the system as it is first, and then iterate - based on feedback - from there.
I just don't believe Larian, when they say, they tried to implement the rules, but it didn't work. When you look at the engine they are using, they went the path of least resistance, which is fine by itself. But then please don't tell people in interviews, they just changed what does not work in a PC game.


Exactly, I get the same feeling! They didn't even try their best to properly implement the 5E rules to begin with, before making changes.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
In another thread, RealMoisan brought up some great points:

"-Opponents getting criticals on low rolls.
-Spell durations based off real time, and not actual turns of combat.
-Many creatures (including pets) have absurd stats, abilities, attacks, and status effects.
-Advantage on attacks with high ground (not a thing in D&D, and "high ground" can be 6").
-Cantrips applying status effects (often even on misses too), and not even getting a save for those status effects.
-Not hidden, but 3 to 4 proficiency checks after 1 to 2 sentences of conversation. That's insane.
-The change in spell stats is BS too. Not even talking about status effects, which sucks (in D&D barrels aren't meant to be feared), but many other spells too."

We were talking about gnolls in that threads but it's also true for many other enemy types; they are massively altered and it DOES feel like Larian are trying to make BG3 way too much of a DOS game due to the changes.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
stranger
Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Maybe thats obvious to many, but I recently started playing DOS:2 again and the reason why BG3 is such a ruleset mess right now became evident to me, they are building BG3 100% on top of DOS:2, because of that we have now this true Frankenstein of a system that dosent make any sense and is not fun at all, it looks more like a DOS:2 mod than a brand new game.

Take Solasta for example, they are building the game from scratch with a fraction of Larian resources and it already feels like im playing 5e with my friends, just because they had nothing to building on top and are "forced" to be true to the ruleset.

I love Larians work, love the DOS series, but when I see all these lame excuses about changing the 5E ruleset to be "more fun" all I truly read is "we are rushing this game using DOS:2 engine and we dont have time to make it a true DnD experience".

I would love to be proven incorrect about this, but the striking similarities and the large non-DnD playerbase that says things like "misses are boring", "game is too hard", "failing skill checks in dialogue is bad" are making me very pessimistic about this, only time will tell.

Last edited by Chacineiro; 30/01/21 03:59 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
I am not sure it is rushing BG3 but it does feel like shortcuts are taken, to make it easier/for budget reasons. The focus so far from what I noticed is pretty much on the Origin characters and their personal story, rather than adapting the 5e ruleset properly/better, or to build an engine from scratch.

Having played DOS2 after playing BG3 as well, I did notice that for all the clunky mechanics and things DOS2 had.. somehow BG3 made them feel even clunkier. Right now, rather than BG3 being Early Access it almost feels more like a big Tech Demo to me.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
I am not sure it is rushing BG3 but it does feel like shortcuts are taken, to make it easier/for budget reasons. The focus so far from what I noticed is pretty much on the Origin characters and their personal story, rather than adapting the 5e ruleset properly/better, or to build an engine from scratch.

Having played DOS2 after playing BG3 as well, I did notice that for all the clunky mechanics and things DOS2 had.. somehow BG3 made them feel even clunkier. Right now, rather than BG3 being Early Access it almost feels more like a big Tech Demo to me.

Yup. All this time they spent a ton on cinematics and fleshing out the origin characters with motion capture and voice actors. It’s pretty obvious where the money went. That left little for the actual game mechanics so they just tossed in the DOS system.

I suppose the DOS crowd like this. The flashy environmental effects and bright colors. They like the big explosions and powerful characters who can’t miss. It’s like Michael Bay is the lead director for BG3. Can’t wait for the cinematic camera spin of the origin characters.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm actually glad Larian is looking to adapt the 5e system. 5e simply doesn't fit perfectly into video games

  • People talk about 5E being a system perfectly balanced over 5 years - but the truth is, the game never has had a proper "patch". The PHB was printed at the beginning of 5E and stayed the same. Aside from a few minor line changes in Erratas, all the fixes are built in supplementary material, which BG3 won't be implementing.
  • I don't mind adjustments to the combat system because in PnP you're used to controlling 1 character, whereas here you control multiple in most games.
  • I also accept the fact that 5E PnP is played in ironman mode, which alters the way encounters are designed (pnp encounters are inherently easier since there's no reloading).


My larger issue is that while I'm happy for Larian to be playing with the combat system, they really aren't taking advantage of the EA to push out quick iterations, and let the fan base try and feedback on different things. The only combat related change I think we've received due to EA feedback has been surfaces. It's already been months since the release - realistically we could've tested multiple system by this time.

Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I'm actually glad Larian is looking to adapt the 5e system. 5e simply doesn't fit perfectly into video games

  • People talk about 5E being a system perfectly balanced over 5 years - but the truth is, the game never has had a proper "patch". The PHB was printed at the beginning of 5E and stayed the same. Aside from a few minor line changes in Erratas, all the fixes are built in supplementary material, which BG3 won't be implementing.
  • I don't mind adjustments to the combat system because in PnP you're used to controlling 1 character, whereas here you control multiple in most games.
  • I also accept the fact that 5E PnP is played in ironman mode, which alters the way encounters are designed (pnp encounters are inherently easier since there's no reloading).


My larger issue is that while I'm happy for Larian to be playing with the combat system, they really aren't taking advantage of the EA to push out quick iterations, and let the fan base try and feedback on different things. The only combat related change I think we've received due to EA feedback has been surfaces. It's already been months since the release - realistically we could've tested multiple system by this time.

The thing is, there is a perfect example of another game in development that uses the 5e system with some minor modifications (compared to BG3 at least) while being more limited with what they have to work with and the combat is much better, smoother and generally more fun.

Adjustments are fine, in some cases needed. But BG3 made changes that completely throw any balance out of the window. Combat becomes boring and tedious and generally the same (Go for backstabs and highground. That is the tactics). Which makes some classes the same and less unique, and thus more boring to play. The best way to succeed in combats is to make clever use of these added houserules and game mechanics. It caters more to DOS1/DOS2 tactics and ignoring many 5e tactics (And class abilities, spells, etc).

If you are going to do that, why even bother making it the weird 5e/DOS hybrid that tries to do two systems but fails at both. Stick with one or the other. And definatly do not sell it as a 5e game while it clearly is not this.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
I am not sure it is rushing BG3 but it does feel like shortcuts are taken, to make it easier/for budget reasons. The focus so far from what I noticed is pretty much on the Origin characters and their personal story, rather than adapting the 5e ruleset properly/better, or to build an engine from scratch.

Having played DOS2 after playing BG3 as well, I did notice that for all the clunky mechanics and things DOS2 had.. somehow BG3 made them feel even clunkier. Right now, rather than BG3 being Early Access it almost feels more like a big Tech Demo to me.
I'd say it's probably all either budget related or a bug. As much as some would like to allude to Larian not understanding DnD rules, I'm sure they understand them as well as the players or better.

Questions like
"Is it worth it to the players to have a proper reaction system?" it will take X hours to add in the game.
"Should we have random encounters at camp?" that'll take Y hours to add in the game.

And Larian wants our feedback to know what is worth investing the time in. It makes a lot of business sense to wait for player feedback in early access rather than spend time that you did not need to spend.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Topgoon
My larger issue is that while I'm happy for Larian to be playing with the combat system, they really aren't taking advantage of the EA to push out quick iterations, and let the fan base try and feedback on different things. The only combat related change I think we've received due to EA feedback has been surfaces. It's already been months since the release - realistically we could've tested multiple system by this time.
Larian has been open about some of the challenges they're facing. COVID has limited what they can do and they've had their offices flooded recently.

Twitter

I'm sure they wanted patch 4 out sooner but the holidays, COVID restrictions, and flooding will definitely slow things down.

Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2021
Location: Netherlands
Yeah, I am willing to go with the mechanics feeling clunkier because it is still EA and some copying of the DOS engine may not have gone flawlessly. But that does still make it feel like a Tech Demo. It works, but barely. With a focus on the writing/origin characters.

I do not doubt Larian understands 5e rules. It would be silly to assume they did not research. There are oversights with the houserules/adjustments/homebrew they used in the translation from 5e to CRPG that seem maybe minor but ultimately have a huge effect on how some classes play, how it makes some spells/abilities pointless and generally the feel for the game.

Random encounters are one of those things that is more related to worldbuilding/storytelling in my opinion (It is an event, basically) where something like reactions is a (in my opinion) large part of the rules. Many classabilities and spells are made to function around reactions, afterall.

As it stands it all comes across as an initial copy paste of the DOS systems, and then reskinning it with the 5e ruleset rather than make a system based around the 5e ruleset, and then fiddle/adjust with houserules based on feedback/testing. For me, someone who was hoping for a 5e CRPG experience (That was the a sales pitch, afterall. Aside from brand recognition of Baldur's Gate, but that is a different subject and not related to 5e core rules) this raises quite some concerns still.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Chacineiro
Maybe thats obvious to many, but I recently started playing DOS:2 again and the reason why BG3 is such a ruleset mess right now became evident to me, they are building BG3 100% on top of DOS:2, because of that we have now this true Frankenstein of a system that dosent make any sense and is not fun at all, it looks more like a DOS:2 mod than a brand new game.

Take Solasta for example, they are building the game from scratch with a fraction of Larian resources and it already feels like im playing 5e with my friends, just because they had nothing to building on top and are "forced" to be true to the ruleset.

I love Larians work, love the DOS series, but when I see all these lame excuses about changing the 5E ruleset to be "more fun" all I truly read is "we are rushing this game using DOS:2 engine and we dont have time to make it a true DnD experience".

I would love to be proven incorrect about this, but the striking similarities and the large non-DnD playerbase that says things like "misses are boring", "game is too hard", "failing skill checks in dialogue is bad" are making me very pessimistic about this, only time will tell.


I agree with you on every point there, including that I *LOVE* Larian but... I just really wish they'd drop the DOS obsession and focus on DND.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
The thing is, there is a perfect example of another game in development that uses the 5e system with some minor modifications (compared to BG3 at least) while being more limited with what they have to work with and the combat is much better, smoother and generally more fun.

That is strictly opinion though. It sounds like Solasta's vision aligns with what you want more, which is totally fine.

For me, I think Solasta's done a great job with what they have. I do legitimately like some of their implementation (i.e. reactions) far better than BG3. However, I far enjoyed BG3;s combat far more.

For me, combat in Solasta was extremely dull and repetitive. By the end of the Solasta EA I was dreading each additional fight because I was just spamming basic attacks and cantrips against the same repetitive mobs, and I was steamrolling. I blame this more on encounter design than class mechanics, but they do work hand in hand.


Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
Adjustments are fine, in some cases needed. But BG3 made changes that completely throw any balance out of the window. Combat becomes boring and tedious and generally the same (Go for backstabs and highground. That is the tactics). Which makes some classes the same and less unique, and thus more boring to play. The best way to succeed in combats is to make clever use of these added houserules and game mechanics. It caters more to DOS1/DOS2 tactics and ignoring many 5e tactics (And class abilities, spells, etc).

While I think backstab and height is overtuned, I didn't find the mechanic repetitive. It at least add a bit more choice for "attack only" classes and make you consider the terrain more. It's as repetitive as any cover or high ground mechanics you see in X-com and other combat games. Get cover, get high ground, and flank when you can. Most games will sound repetitive if you sum up its core like that. Most RPG combat would just be - buff self, debuff enemy, attack. I'm not sure how removing it would make things any less repetitive?

I agree with you that they haven't nailed the balance (like I said, way overtuned), but I don't have a problem with them trying something new to make 5E work better for a videogame.


Originally Posted by TheFoxWhisperer
If you are going to do that, why even bother making it the weird 5e/DOS hybrid that tries to do two systems but fails at both. Stick with one or the other. And definatly do not sell it as a 5e game while it clearly is not this.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. Just sticking to DOS or 5e seems like an incredibly lazy way to do this. Neither are perfect systems and have gaps that can be improved on, which is what I would prefer Larian try to do with BG3.

All successful D&D videogames (BG1/2, NWN 1/2) have been adaptations of the D&D rules and made massive implementation changes, but sold as D&D video games.

Page 12 of 28 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 27 28

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