Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Differences and Similarities between BG3 and D&D5e core ruleset.

I've read many posts now, and after 200+ hours of gameplay it just seems to me that Larian would be better off being far more strict to 5e rules. Balance issues would be solved, mostly, if they did. Right now, it just seems like they are creating more work and overall dissatisfaction by not doing this.

Granted, I get why certain features are implements for ease of computer gameplay. For example, eating a cheese wheel as a bonus action saved my life several times. Still, I'd rather earn more money and buy more potions. It makes much more sense to drink a potion as an action than a rack of ribs as a bonus action.

As a final thought, each character has too many actions each turn which makes battle too volatile and uncontrolled. It is very frustrating when you have an enemy, for example the hag, take a half dozen actions before your characters get to go. This leaves too much room for things to go south real fast. One playthrough, she killed 2 members of my party before I even got to go. I didn't long rest beforehand, mind you, for realism sake, but they were full health. She just got too many actions in one surprise round.

Staying more strict to 5e would stop this kind of thing. The more you move away from 5e, the more balance issues you have to compensate for. Easier just to stay true to 5e in the end.

If you watched last Panel From Hell Video then you know, DnD is off table as it is far more easy to get Wizard of the Coast approve their own rules then implementing DnD rules.
That beeing said i would agree with you but sadly it wont happen.

I half-agree but ...


Larian has said they'd make the game according to their idea of fun. It doesn't appear as if all the complaints about combat around here, and what some of us would find "better", is really changing their mind. In fact it doesn't appear as if complaints about UI-and-controls, some of which are massively agreed upon, is really changing their mind either. I don't want to stop you from requesting they rethink their balance, but I'm personally not hoping for much impact.


Also, 5E rules and a satisfying balance (as per my tastes) are two different things.

I share the sentiment that the current balance is ridiculous, and I would be really quite happy to see a better-balanced, less-broken combat system. I don't care if the end result is strict 5E or not. In fact, I think there are many changes to 5E that could make is equally interesting or improve it. So 5E RAW is merely one option.

I believe that Larian adopting a closer-to-5E ruleset, even if temporarily, would immediately and drastically improve the combat. So I'd certainly support closer-to-5E rules, among other options. But again, I feel this is clearly not where Larian wants to go.

Yeah, i feel there could be more player involvement (reactions atm are just setup as automatic you dont have to decide anything during combat) and more tactical choice (a lot of universal bonus actions getting tired fast, the fact that i dont really have to position my chars around the enemies, they can just superhero jump away and back anytime with the disengage addition) than it is in the current build. Also there are some unneccessary clicking (backstab, dash double-click), small UI frustrations to be sorted out, but i dont worry about these, its still EA. Regarding universal actions i know Swen mentioned during an interview they tried out the dnd way and a lot of other alternatives and they felt with the dnd way player turns got too limited. I get their point but its kind of a double-edge sword, as now many people feel they went to the other direction too much and it already gets repetitive (and it will be a really long game designed for multiple playthroughs).

One thing i believe they could think about to improve on (also related to tactical level of combat) is the resource (spells, special skills, actions) management acpect and the pacing of the game. Lot of dnd rules, classes, enemies are designed around this aspect, so Larian either start to change each of these and get into a loop of further complaints or they have a think about how this can be brought closer to make it more exciting. At the moment the narrative and the tactical part of the game overlaps due to the camp including both (long rest and story progress) which makes this even more complicated to tweak but they might be able to separate the two. Im really looking forward to a DNd game which nails this aspect and the pacing is one (party heals, spells re-prepared) long rest/two-three-four encounters and combat decisions, preparation and resource management therefore feels very meaningful.

I have to say, the effects, sounds and visuals are spectacular and the animations are fluid (though again, the Jumping animation seems just a little too unnatural to me), there are a variety of spells and actions (and some of them have really cool gameplay additions not just flat damage) which is nice so the foundation is cool but i also feel the whole thing could be MUCH more tactical even with small tweaks. This is still early EA so i believe they are experimenting with these things still, im hoping we will end up with some customizable rules.

I was pleasantly surprised when they admitted they had to change the original shown team-based initiative system because testers felt the longer times of lack of player involvement while enemies moved together kind of killed their interest, i think that was a good direction as they listened to feedback and even improved on it (with the function that chars can act at the same turn if next together) to make it more tactical. They also commented that new version is also spicing up decision making on actions rather than just using the same winner tactic over and over.

Oh this got longer than i planned. Anyway, due to the above im fairly optimistic, they always iterate on things, fingers crossed we get a "our plans for combat tweaks" community update in the near future so they can let us know how they plan to approach the common complains.

Yeah, sometimes I can't be bothered to get up and make food while playing a game either.

Honestly, I love the game as it is. I just think it would be better and meet more of the desires of fans to be a bit more strict on 5e Core rules. Maybe they could do like Solasta devs are about to do in their most recent update and have difficulty settings. One setting is strict Hard Core 5e rules that don't allow people to throw barrels (I mean, an ogre makes sense to be able to throw a barrel but Gale???). So Core rules setting would be for all of us people who want a full D&D 5e video game experience. Difficulty settings give all players the ability to really enjoy the game. Those who want to be able to eat a rack of ribs as a bonus action would have a difficulty that is more Story Based. Those who want a full, immersive feel would have a Core rules setting. Those who are so good at 5e that the Core rules are not even a challenge could have a full blown Hellfire/Brimstone Challenge setting. It just seems like this would be a huge solve to a lot of the issues fans are having out here.

My advice to Larian would be to prioritize this above all other fixes. Loaded dice seems more like a band aid to the issue. Difficulty settings would be the full cure.

If you really want fans to feel like they are apart of the EA experience of developing the game, this seems like the next big fix you need to make. Then probably things like Day/Night/Real-time Clock with weather changing affects and limits on rests in the wild with random encounters for those who try to Fast Travel or rest in dangerous areas (basically outside of camp). Then probably items management, and maybe the lack of sifting through mundane items. Maybe that could be a setting too for Difficulties/Gameplay. Turn on/off the need to sort through low cost, mundane items so if there are fans who want total immersion they can sift through every empty sack and pick up every spoon, but for those fans who just want to pick up only valuable gear they can Turn Off Mundane Items so that they can't even click on such items. A Loot All would also be good with this, and a Select Multiple Items in the inventory so that you can move more than 1 thing at a time from one inventory to another would really improve gameplay.

As much as I want Half-Orc and Paladin and Barbarian and Dragonborn and Sorcerer and other such classes, until you fix these things, I think you're shooting yourselves in the foot. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but based on things I've read, it doesn't seem like I am.

While some of these things are abusable, I do not really agree that they need to create option toggles for anything that is a player choice (food, scrolls, consumables, barrels). Some people enjoy exploiting these features and it helps them have a more enjoyable experience, while those who disagree can set personal rules for themselves and avoid them. The same way someone who is playing a nuzlock run of pokemon might avoid using items.

As for things that can't be avoided like advantage I hope these will be solved later when they introduce difficulty. They are trying to appeal to a wide audience that might not understand DnD when they start playing. Things like height advantage are simple to understand so is good for a normal difficulty setting. Harder settings could restrict how easy it is to get advantage so that it forces you to use supportive spells and have a greater mastery of DnD.

In short don't limit the options on how to succeed and difficulty settings that make the unavoidable game rules "more DnD".

I see your point and while i agree that freedom is a good thing but i have several issues with the personal rules suggestion. Before i get to it, I want to say I like a lot of things in the game, so its not like i dont like everything Larian added to it or the overall direction they took. But as Larian said multiple times this is EA, its not about bugfixing but feedback on feel of the game and features, and there is a significant volume of people including me who likes the game but would like some feasable to implement tweaks implemented in-game for some of the rules so we can enjoy the game even more. Personally I dont care if a feature is less DND or not, im only interested in the overall feel of the game.

One issue i have with personal rule is that i don't really like to pay attention during gameplay to what personal rules i need to maintain, i prefer if the game I bought ensures that part once i set it up. i plan to play this game in coop as well, if all of us need to set and keep in mind personal rules its just even messier than the game letting us on agree on one preset of the rules beforehand.

Second, and i think most important one for me, is that its a completely different mindset you have when you are going into a battle or even plan with your resources before that, if you know you wont be really in "danger" even if you screw up you wont be in trouble probably. Another player's sacrifice matters less if we know its not really a sacrifice. The game becomes less tense, less exciting if you are the type of person who needs more challenge. This is subjective obviously, but i dont think im alone thinking that at the moment bg3 could be a little bit more tactical and it would be nice if it would have more meaningful resource management or some kind of mode which makes it more challenging. You can of course imagine for example that you HAVE TO prepare more resources before the next encounters because you will forbid yourself to long rest (which atm can make you skip some story in bg3 actually but thats another topic) or you say to yourself you cannot eat healing food during combat, but it will never feel the same, winning the battle will just never feel as rewarding as it could be when you win by the set rules with clever tactic. You just wont be trying that hard to win a hard fight, you wont feel that frightened when suddenly enemies surround you.

Third is that i think customizable rules can add to the game in long term. I plan to play the game multiple times so these could help to spice things up for additional playthroughs. Also these actually can help the devs to appeal to an even wider audience by giving more options.

Customizable rules (a lot of depth RPGs have some for a reason, Pathfinder, Pillars) can be overwhelming for new players so most clever way to do it is to have presets (this can be like "Authentical", "Homebrew" modes etc.) so people who doesnt want to deal with that just choose what they like and can get to the game quickly without starting to toggle everything. I agree its best to keep the current light setup of rules as a Story mode option or something (can be default, thats fine by me) there as a lot of players like to play like that for sure. But its clear there is a significant portion of players who like the game but would even like it more with some minor tweaks. Also people who play without these more restrictive rules would be able to try out the game with a different flavour once they got the hang of the lighter version and just see how the feeling of the game changes and becomes more challening. I can imagine the game can grow even more on them too.
Thats just my 2 cents on it!

English is not my native language so sorry if im not easy to understand.

Your post is very well written overall and clear ; better written than many born into English.

Your post made me think about another issue in the current BG3-EA : the user-interface needs to be made more user-friendly for the average player who does not know how D&D works.
The current indicator that shows you have an Action | Bonus Action* | Movement left is tiny and somehow UNDER the main hothars! I did not even see it except after a few hours of playing.
Suggestion: when you have a Bonus Action left, for example, everything that cost a Bonus Action could be under one hotbar section or be more clearly highlighted.
( I know they currently dim what cannot be used : the dimming effect could be increased to nearly invisible. Simple tweak. )

Solasta has its own way of doing it, but it works radically well: the UI only shows you what you can do at the moment. Once you did an Action for example, you only see what cost a Bonus Action* | Free item interaction** | Movement. All Actions are temporarily hidden and it makes it very easy and intuitive for players.

[ Nerd notes :
* it is 1 Bonus Action maximum per turn in 5e (official interpretation; not an opinion), but anyhow.
** In BG3-EA, you can interact with objects and switch weapons at will. Solasta applies the 5e limitation of one free item interaction per turn.]

If they made it an option that could be toggled, that would be amazing! I say this only because I pray that it wouldn't be long before a modder made a way to add an optional toggle for 3.5 rules, which I would MUCH rather have available to play by.

Yeah that would be wonderful, if they did include options that are far closer to the DND rules.

Thanks!
Yeah i played Solasta's EA for a couple of hours and it does have a simple but very clear and intuitive UI. Also it does a good job to make you understand what is happening on the battlefield. For BG3 these are still areas for improvement, even Swen was confused during the panel which Bonus actions (and how many times) he is able to use after he used an Action. I like that in Solasta you cannot just switch weapons and interact with items whenever you want so you have to think more carefully, i hope there will be a simple toggle to tweak how this work in BG3, would be nice.

Im unsure what is currently wrong with the current rules out of the complaints of AC class which from what i understand (in my limited knowledge of dnd) is that it effects accuracy to much?

I have to say for the health of the game, and not the table top, the current new rules are better, because it offers exploration and potential for new builds. This is highly important. If you wanted original rules you could just opt for other dnd accurate games. As far as i have seen the current bg3 is fairly perfect out side of a few things.

When it comes to accuracy, you can simply change the equations slightly to offer a slightly better accuracy rate. Having lower AC makes the game much more interesting in the way that it validates tanking oriented build more inline with current industry standards of using a holy trinity (heal, tank, damage) form of game play. This is highly important for validating specific fighter and cleric builds geared toward that feat. If it was easier to hit people these builds, and subsequently heavy/plate armor would be heavily invalidated.

As a senior game designer i can recommend for you to provide feedback, and if there is enough of an outcry it should get fixed, but I'd rather you just find ways to alter the current game mechanics to be more of a compromise with the current system so the dev team can focus on pumping out more content, classes, itemization and races.

Kind of a real question for you as a "senior game designer" that maybe will bring you closer to understanding what many people's problems are with all of Larian's homebrew rules.

If you spent literal decades tuning and refining your own personal game, to the point where you felt it was basically as balanced as you could have it, and some other developer decided to do a sequel to your game where they arbitrarily changed around large portions of the game's mechanics and added completely new ones as well because they found it to boring as is...you wouldn't have any problem with that?

The main issue is that it favors certain abilities for the player versus others, limiting player choice. Mainly attacks that are derived from "d20+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy AC"
benefit with a higher success rate and attacks derived from "8+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy d20+Modifier" (Spell Save DC) don't benefit. There are other factors, but this is big picture.

How does it offer new builds? We currently have less sub-classes than 5e and don't have the ability to multiclass. I'd actually like to see a write up on how the new rules are better. When it's been discussed with written thoughts and opinions, Baldur's Gate 3 appears to have fewer options for builds and tactics. I haven't seen anything to rationalize the opposite.

But they didn't change the equation, and not all attacks and spells use the same equation. Someone actually did an in-depth review of the impacts of lowered AC and raised HP and it's mainly to make turns-to-kill more consistent with less variation.
Essentially if a player uses an attack from "d20+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy AC" it will take fewer turns to kill enemies than using "8+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy d20+Modifier" (Spell Save DC). In the current meta, the player has to take a handicap if the want to use spells based on "8+Proficiency+Modifier versus enemy d20+Modifier" (Spell Save DC). Spells derived from Spell Save DC are there to help combat high AC enemies. Lowering AC takes away their intended use.

There is exactly 1 game out (also in early access) right now that is accurate to D&D 5e rules: Solasta. And even this game doesn't have the full 5e rules license, so a lot of its subclasses and rules are new.

What are you trying to say here? You say that "Having lower AC...validates tanking oriented builds" but then you also say that "if it was easier to hit people these builds...would be heavily invalidated." These statements contradict each other, as having lower AC means it is easier to hit people.

You see, when I jumped into this EA I knew very little about the source material as well and on first glance thought that this game was doing a pretty ok job. But the more of the criticism I heard and the more I learned about 5e, the more I realized that those 'fun additions' to the base ruleset are only additions in name. Because for every little thing Larian implemented to shake up the 5e ruleset, like weapon dipping or height advantage, they crippled multiple other spells, abilities or other tactical options of 5e that aren't implemented yet and probably can't get implemented in the future without a string of more and more now necessary changes to even retain their usefulness.
So you could make the comparison that Larian pretty much dropped like a quarter of the cake to the ground in their attempt to put a few cherries on top of it.

Yeah this is what I fear too. I feel that they should FIRST implement everything faithfully, THEN play around with homebrew stuff.

That they did not do that, shows that they have not much respect for the 5e system and they just want to do their own thing, and they see the 5e brand just as a marketing asset.

They are using the names from the D&D rules, but what the stuff does in their game has not much in common with it.

When they would be honest, they would change the class system. Then you would be able to choose between the following classes:

• Pit Shover
• High Ground Jumper
• Magic Missile Spammer
• Backstabber

I guess then everyone would have a better idea how to build characters and what each character's purpose is in combat.

xD