Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Unfortunately, its wrong. Owlcat again made their favorite "time limits", but now they are even worse, cuz it's a punishment. Do you think it's fun?
I do, for several reasons but especially because going with Kingmaker you'd have to be basicallty dumb as a brick to actually FAIL something because of a time limit.

It's like losing an XCOM 2 campaign to the Avatar Project. You'd have to basically ignore months of pre-warning without doing jack shit if not even deliberately working against your best interest... And then sport your best Pikachu face when when the campaign actually fails.
Most able-bodied players will end their campaigns with the Avatar Project steadily idle at ZERO just because it can't go on negative values. That's how easy it actually is to avoid the issue.

Originally Posted by Icelyn
Thanks for the heads up about it having timed quests! I will take that game off my list.
God forbid actually trying something out of your comfort zone and learn how it works before passing judgment on it.

Last edited by Tuco; 24/04/21 06:52 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by footface
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Where did I state that I expected "pure D&D"?

What I expected, was for Larian to do what they said they were doing, and start with adapting 5th edition, and make changes where necessary, not start with DOS, and add on a little 5e as lip service, which is what BG3 is in its current state.

Add a LITTLE 5e as lip service? How is it that I'm able to explain just about EVERY mechanic in BG3 to my friend, using nothing more than my knowledge of 5e? Seems like more than a little to me. Guess it's a matter of expectation.

As for them plugging the rules into DOS. Never played DOS, but it must be a lot like 5e, if what you're saying is true. The fact that they did this doesn't contradict anything they said, so there you have it.

Lol...you've not played much 5e have you?

Weapons don't grant abilities like cleave and trip. Reactions are something that you choose to do or not. Height doesn't give advantage. Every elemental spell doesn't create a damaging surface. Push doesn't launch people 15 feet, and isn't automatic. You can't jump to disengage freely. Barrels of oil weigh 400 lbs and don't explode when you hit them with a standard arrow. I can keep going on and on about all these aspects of BG3 that you believe are actually 5th edition, that aren't

And this statement from Swen, is 100% demonstrably false:

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...(Swen Vincke)

Last edited by Grudgebearer; 24/04/21 06:50 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by footface
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Where did I state that I expected "pure D&D"?

What I expected, was for Larian to do what they said they were doing, and start with adapting 5th edition, and make changes where necessary, not start with DOS, and add on a little 5e as lip service, which is what BG3 is in its current state.

Add a LITTLE 5e as lip service? How is it that I'm able to explain just about EVERY mechanic in BG3 to my friend, using nothing more than my knowledge of 5e? Seems like more than a little to me. Guess it's a matter of expectation.

As for them plugging the rules into DOS. Never played DOS, but it must be a lot like 5e, if what you're saying is true. The fact that they did this doesn't contradict anything they said, so there you have it.

Lol...you've not played much 5e have you?

Weapons don't grant abilities like cleave and trip. Reactions are something that you choose to do or not. Height doesn't give advantage. Every elemental spell doesn't create a damaging surface. Push doesn't launch people 15 feet, and isn't automatic. You can't jump to disengage freely. Barrels of oil weigh 400 lbs and don't explode when you hit them with a standard arrow. I can keep going on and on about all these aspects of BG3 that you believe are actually 5th edition, that aren't

And this statement from Swen, is 100% demonstrably false:

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...(Swen Vincke)

lol. You're right. When they said they made 5e with changes, I understood them to mean they were making 5e without changes.

I remember being invited to a 5e game, and when I got there the DM was like "oh, there's flanking bonuses." I felt so sad that I was lied to, as he said it was 5e, not 5e with changes.

As for the quote where he "lied", he expressly said they ported the rules from the PHB. What did they port it to? As for them STARTING from the PHB, duh. How could they port the rules if they didn't start by reading and considering the rules? You ASSUMED they would build everything from the ground up, which they did NOT say they would do, even in that cute little color coded block of text you provided.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I do, for several reasons but especially because going with Kingmaker you'd have to be basically dumb as a brick to actually FAIL something because of a time limit.

Well, personally, it causes me stress, if we talk about Kingmaker, even if you dont fail it. The new system of "time limits" is different, and it is related to rest, it works more like a punishment, it just gives a feeling of constant discomfort or even worse, a level 3 "curse" is hard to get, but getting level 1 is very easy, and it already lowers your stats.

There are other similar points, for example, you need to kill some boss RIGHT NOW, you can not go LVL up and return to it later, you need do it RIGHT NOW. If you can't do it, you'll just have to skip this fight if possible. And if not, then replay again from last safe and pray to the gods for "critical hit".

I don't like it.

When I talk about the Pathfinder's "difficulty", I'm not just talking about "time limits". In fact, the Pathfinder leveling system is very complex, and you can easily ruin a companion or your own character. In new pathfinder, you also have to lvl up your pet, which you can also ruin. This may surprise you, but it can put a lot of people off. They'll just get tired of figuring it out.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by footface
lol. You're right. When they said they made 5e with changes, I understood them to mean they were making 5e without changes.

I remember being invited to a 5e game, and when I got there the DM was like "oh, there's flanking bonuses." I felt so sad that I was lied to, as he said it was 5e, not 5e with changes.

As for the quote where he "lied", he expressly said they ported the rules from the PHB. What did they port it to? As for them STARTING from the PHB, duh. How could they port the rules if they didn't start by reading and considering the rules? You ASSUMED they would build everything from the ground up, which they did NOT say they would do, even in that cute little color coded block of text you provided.

Thanks for proving my point, nearly every aspect of 5e that they've tried to implement, they've changed with their homebrew rules, i.e., they've paid "lip service" to 5th edition.

Swen is the one who said that they started by implementing the PHB, those are his words, his description of how they developed BG3, you can simp for him all you want, but that still won't change the fact, that those were his statements, and from what we have in Early Access, it is obvious, that they did not do what Swen stated. They've tacked on some 5E concepts onto DOS, and called it DnD.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Bufotenina
Oh the usual "if it doesn't exactly fit my own personal point of view about what dnd is then I don't accept it".

I love the game. It has dragons, it has dungeons. By pure logic this is a dungeons and dragons game.
Just in case it is not clear enough, Dungeons and Dragons doesn't refer to actual dungeons and dragons, but its a title of a game with an established ruleset and lore on which BG3 is based on (the 5th edition of the ruleset specifically). Whenever game has dungeons or dragons is actually irrelevant. Many games have dragons and dungons and are not DnD. I am glad you are enjoying the game though.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
you can simp for him all you want,
You have been asked before to keep the conversation polite yet you persist in using confrontational and insulting language and phraseology in your posts.

The next time you are insulting, belittling or aggressively dismissive in these forums, you will find that you are no longer welcome here.

Last edited by Sadurian; 24/04/21 07:42 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
you can simp for him all you want,
You have been asked before to keep the conversation polite yet you persist in using confrontational and insulting language and phraseology in your posts.

The next time you are insulting, belittling or aggressively dismissive in these forums, you will find that you are no longer welcome here.

What term or phrase would you prefer I use, to describe ' illogically defending the indefensible' ?

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by footface
lol. You're right. When they said they made 5e with changes, I understood them to mean they were making 5e without changes.

I remember being invited to a 5e game, and when I got there the DM was like "oh, there's flanking bonuses." I felt so sad that I was lied to, as he said it was 5e, not 5e with changes.

As for the quote where he "lied", he expressly said they ported the rules from the PHB. What did they port it to? As for them STARTING from the PHB, duh. How could they port the rules if they didn't start by reading and considering the rules? You ASSUMED they would build everything from the ground up, which they did NOT say they would do, even in that cute little color coded block of text you provided.

Thanks for proving my point, nearly every aspect of 5e that they've tried to implement, they've changed with their homebrew rules, i.e., they've paid "lip service" to 5th edition.

Swen is the one who said that they started by implementing the PHB, those are his words, his description of how they developed BG3, you can simp for him all you want, but that still won't change the fact, that those were his statements, and from what we have in Early Access, it is obvious, that they did not do what Swen stated. They've tacked on some 5E concepts onto DOS, and called it DnD.

Proving your point? You understand I was being facetious, right? Maybe when you've played more 5e you'll understand that a good chunk of players play with some sort of homebrew. Are they simply paying lip service to dnd?

Call me a simp if you like. I prefer to think of it as comparing Swen's words to his actions. Seems like he told the truth, considering that the sweet caramel center is 5e. Quote all the homebrew you want, it doesn't change that the core mechanics are 5e.

Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
you can simp for him all you want,
You have been asked before to keep the conversation polite yet you persist in using confrontational and insulting language and phraseology in your posts.

The next time you are insulting, belittling or aggressively dismissive in these forums, you will find that you are no longer welcome here.

I won't tell you how to do your job, but for what it's worth, my feelings aren't hurt. People will bash this game for not being what they want or expect. Some will do so with more passion than others. If they're going to do it, I say let them do it here, so I can correct any misconceptions they have.

Last edited by footface; 24/04/21 07:59 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
you can simp for him all you want,
You have been asked before to keep the conversation polite yet you persist in using confrontational and insulting language and phraseology in your posts.

The next time you are insulting, belittling or aggressively dismissive in these forums, you will find that you are no longer welcome here.

What term or phrase would you prefer I use, to describe ' illogically defending the indefensible' ?

Wow.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by footface
Proving your point? You understand I was being facetious, right? Maybe when you've played more 5e you'll understand that a good chunk of players play with some sort of homebrew. Are they simply paying lip service to dnd?

Call me a simp if you like. I prefer to think of it as comparing Swen's words to his actions. Seems like he told the truth, considering that the sweet caramel center is 5e. Quote all the homebrew you want, it doesn't change that the core mechanics are 5e.

Yes, and in your attempt to be facetious, you've proved the point. Swen stated that Larian was starting with adapting the PHB, and then making changes to mechanics that didn't translate well.

From what we have in Early Access, it's readily obvious that is not what Larian actually has done; his statement, is false. Larian started with DOS, added some heavily modified 5e concepts, and ditched the rest. Reality is incongruous with his previous statements.

Whether you like homebrew rules, or like having a sprinkling of 5th edition on DOS, is irrelevant to the original discussion. Given your limited experience with 5e, I don't really expect you to grasp the importance of the mechanics and why they don't mesh with DOS. Maybe finding a local gaming group and getting a few hours getting a character up to level 5 or so would help your perspective.

Joined: Apr 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2021
I never ever played 5e, but after playing solasta. They should just copy paste the gosh darn mechanics. The mechanics of the game is fun.

I have downloaded mods to make bg3 more dnd like but man that mod is not perfect and somethings break sadly. I really do not like it when mods fix the gameplay of the game. I like it when they improve it, like Long war 2 from xcom. Mods will certainly improve the game and let us have other classes from other books.

Dont get me wrong BG3 is an absolutely beautiful game but combat feels too easy once you understand the mechanics. No challenge beyond the game when you understand the mechanics right now. In xcom 2 for example in legendary, hell even commander, you only get a fighting chance once you understand the mechanics.

The mechanics of BG3 are way too easy to abuse. Backstabbing and shooting from high ground is way too easy especially with shove. Plus the high ground mechanic is buggy as hell anyways. You can get low ground disadvantage from the half ogre in the barn just by aiming your shot to its head. But if you aim at its feet you can normal aiming without disadvantage. The best advice I saw was give +2 to high ground -2 to low ground.

I would go even further, why should shoot better if you have high ground. You will just be harder to hit because of less exposed body parts. So - 2 to low ground only would be good enough. Maybe even too powerful.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by PolyHeister
I never ever played 5e, but after playing solasta. They should just copy paste the gosh darn mechanics. The mechanics of the game is fun.

I have downloaded mods to make bg3 more dnd like but man that mod is not perfect and somethings break sadly. I really do not like it when mods fix the gameplay of the game. I like it when they improve it, like Long war 2 from xcom. Mods will certainly improve the game and let us have other classes from other books.

Dont get me wrong BG3 is an absolutely beautiful game but combat feels too easy once you understand the mechanics. No challenge beyond the game when you understand the mechanics right now. In xcom 2 for example in legendary, hell even commander, you only get a fighting chance once you understand the mechanics.

The mechanics of BG3 are way too easy to abuse. Backstabbing and shooting from high ground is way too easy especially with shove. Plus the high ground mechanic is buggy as hell anyways. You can get low ground disadvantage from the half ogre in the barn just by aiming your shot to its head. But if you aim at its feet you can normal aiming without disadvantage. The best advice I saw was give +2 to high ground -2 to low ground.

I would go even further, why should shoot better if you have high ground. You will just be harder to hit because of less exposed body parts. So - 2 to low ground only would be good enough. Maybe even too powerful.

5th edition mechanics translate better to the PC than any previous versions of DnD, Solasta is proving that.

5th edition is also pretty well balanced, any changes that Larian makes in their implementation, will have unintended consequences, which is what we're seeing on top of the issues caused by the inclusion of DOS barrelmancy/surface spam.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Grudgebearer
Originally Posted by footface
Proving your point? You understand I was being facetious, right? Maybe when you've played more 5e you'll understand that a good chunk of players play with some sort of homebrew. Are they simply paying lip service to dnd?

Call me a simp if you like. I prefer to think of it as comparing Swen's words to his actions. Seems like he told the truth, considering that the sweet caramel center is 5e. Quote all the homebrew you want, it doesn't change that the core mechanics are 5e.

Yes, and in your attempt to be facetious, you've proved the point. Swen stated that Larian was starting with adapting the PHB, and then making changes to mechanics that didn't translate well.

From what we have in Early Access, it's readily obvious that is not what Larian actually has done; his statement, is false. Larian started with DOS, added some heavily modified 5e concepts, and ditched the rest. Reality is incongruous with his previous statements.

Whether you like homebrew rules, or like having a sprinkling of 5th edition on DOS, is irrelevant to the original discussion. Given your limited experience with 5e, I don't really expect you to grasp the importance of the mechanics and why they don't mesh with DOS. Maybe finding a local gaming group and getting a few hours getting a character up to level 5 or so would help your perspective.

You're right. If only I had played the proper amount of dnd, I'd ignore the fact that
A. The quotes you're providing don't help your case and
B. The things you complain about are homebrew changes, despite the fact that, as per your words, homebrew is irrelevant to the discussion.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
As much as I uh don't exactly enjoy the confrontational nature of Grudge's statements, he does have a point with a lot of BG3.

They did claim they started with the DnD5e ruleset and then made changes as needed, but it is clear they started with their DoS engine and ruleset and started to apply 5e to that, hence why many DoS mechanics still remain in BG3. Atleast with implementation, they did start with DoS, even if in planning they started with 5e.
And homebrew is very relevant because it is what Larian has done, it has homebrewed mechanics, and many of these homebrewed mechanics have become detrimental to the experience of players while others have been fun. I really don't like how they changed mage hand but I do like how they added just a little bit to weapons to give them a special action that is equivalent to asking the dm if you can swing your sword at the enemies' legs to trip them. Larian has to try to balance BG3 as a 5e game while still being fun as a videogame to someone who has no experience with 5e, which can be difficult. But genuinely closer to 5e sounds to me like it'll achieve both.

Joined: Feb 2021
P
addict
Offline
addict
P
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Larian has to try to balance BG3 as a 5e game while still being fun as a videogame to someone who has no experience with 5e, which can be difficult. But genuinely closer to 5e sounds to me like it'll achieve both.

Ironically, from the posts I have seen. The people that have little to no 5E experience are enjoying the game a lot, and the people that are knowledgeable in 5e are the people with the problems. People that don't have 5e experience see this as a dungeons and dragons game, with good story telling, and do not get hung up on translations of rules. While the hardcore 5e crowd are the ones that seem to despise the game and go on about Solasta being so great.

Just thought this sentence was slightly off.

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Larian has to try to balance BG3 as a 5e game while still being fun as a videogame to someone who has no experience with 5e, which can be difficult. But genuinely closer to 5e sounds to me like it'll achieve both.

Ironically, from the posts I have seen. The people that have little to no 5E experience are enjoying the game a lot, and the people that are knowledgeable in 5e are the people with the problems. People that don't have 5e experience see this as a dungeons and dragons game, with good story telling, and do not get hung up on translations of rules. While the hardcore 5e crowd are the ones that seem to despise the game and go on about Solasta being so great.

Just thought this sentence was slightly off.

If you give up on playing it as a 5e DnD game, and embrace the DOS mechanics, then the difficulty is greatly reduced in all but maybe the Bulete encounter. I could imagine that not having any knowledge of 5e makes doing so considerably easier.

Last edited by Grudgebearer; 24/04/21 11:42 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Pandemonica
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Larian has to try to balance BG3 as a 5e game while still being fun as a videogame to someone who has no experience with 5e, which can be difficult. But genuinely closer to 5e sounds to me like it'll achieve both.

Ironically, from the posts I have seen. The people that have little to no 5E experience are enjoying the game a lot, and the people that are knowledgeable in 5e are the people with the problems. People that don't have 5e experience see this as a dungeons and dragons game, with good story telling, and do not get hung up on translations of rules. While the hardcore 5e crowd are the ones that seem to despise the game and go on about Solasta being so great.

Just thought this sentence was slightly off.

Not really, my knowledge before bg3 was 4e and 3.5, previous versions of d&d still carry over features to the next. Core fundamental features are to be expected from a game being advertised as dungeons and dragons.

From my First Post you can see me questioning missing features from races along with balance between the races. BTW there is a free pdf of 5e rules on d&dbeyond website.

Generally anyone that puts enough time into something, you'll see the cracks in it. I have 205.8 hours into EA, started optimistic for the most part and now generally the game comes off as a leap frog simulator with a mime main character. Most aspects of the game has been adjusted and tweaked by larian and uses 5e just as a guideline.

BTW you can't group up people and presume they will all have the same mind set about something.

Last edited by fallenj; 25/04/21 12:03 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Was anyone in EA for DOS2 as well? How did your impressions of the game from EA correspond with the final product? Were you able to accurately judge how the full game would play from what was shown of Act 1?


Flumph Fancier. Elsecaller. Tolerated by cats.
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by Darklord Vonotar
Was anyone in EA for DOS2 as well? How did your impressions of the game from EA correspond with the final product? Were you able to accurately judge how the full game would play from what was shown of Act 1?

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/io18gb/for_reference_changes_during_the_divinity/

BG3 has a very different scope and will remain on EA for much longer. It is hard to predict how the end product will look like.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

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