Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Sven gets it. You can feel his pain.

youtu.be/OE956yV6hNk?t=233
Sven gets it. D&D5e is boring and empty by itself (it is what it is), it's only interesting with good DM and hyper-actor players coming up with insane stuff (watching Critical Role, for example, is very entertaining), but, from technical and mechanical standpoint, it's empty and boring for normal, non-hyper-actors, people, and now he must translate it mechanically into the game. I kinda feel bad for my mans, what can he do about this. You can feel his pain.
D&D3e was very rich in terms of mechanics, but it was "too hard to get into" for most people. There are some great games based on D&D3e.
D&D5e in comparison with D&D3e and Divinity OSII is so empty, so little tactical freedom (don't even start about "but in tabletop I can imagine whatever duh") in the game. You can't put an "imagination engine" into the game. Only thing that kind of simulates D&D5e is AI Dungeon, it's insane but very entertaining, as some insane DM.
Sven, at least give us some good characters, some normal straight smart man (a good brother-in-arms) to take in the party and some normal cute women (at least a single good woman) to have a in-game relationship with. For now it's... well, Lone Wolf. Divinity characters are so good. I get all the "business" bowing to twitter and reddit (and we all know who are the loudest there), but, Sven, the silent majority will not enjoy the game in this case. Cheers.

Having played the DOS games and also not caring much about the whole D&D thing, even though I find it interesting enough, I'd be totally fine if they end up with an enjoyable combat system and fun to play. I may be picky about other things but "faithfulness to D&D rules" is not one of them. They can bend all the rules they want and in the end all I care is, "is it fun enough for me?"

I don't know D&D rules and I can't say I agree or disagree with this but I have watched a number of Critical Role episodes, so I understand the sentiment here and can sympathize with the person being in charge of and making the calls in a project this big. I've made combat mods for the old BG games and DAO so I understand what it's like when you have to be the one deciding what is "fun" and what is "probably not fun", what is "cool" and what is "probably not cool" for other players. Sometimes it's just a pain in the neck. And sometimes after hearing feedback from someone you realize some of your calls are just really bad.

That being said, you make your choices and you face the consequences. This is what Larian gets for getting themselves into their greatest challenge ever.

Did you say normal? As in normal? Like one of those situations when you just wish for something normal for a change?

I am not going to argue about how you feel about D&D, but if that's the case for this Sven guy, then why bother acquiring the IP and the rights to use the system instead of just making a DOS3 game?
I don't think they came cheap.

Why not? Forgotten Realms are quite recognizable, it's always a way to attract more players.
This isn't pure 5e and most people probably don't care. Certainly the WotC doesn't care.

I disagree with that.
I doubt many people who were lured into buying by the promise of a D&D experience are all that satisfied with the game.
And as for the Forgotten Realms I don’t think that saying that a mage is from Waterdeep or throw Volo around is enough. Personally I don’t get any FR or D&D vibe from the game or its characters at all.

Yes it's very dissapointing to hear in any interview that DnD doesn't translate well into video games.

Just don't make a DnD game if you don't like how it's gonna be translated. Why bother with core mechanics you don't like ? (D20, ressource management,...)

DnD classes and races are builded to be appealing in this specific system. It's not like if it was impossible to create new classes, races or spells for another system.
The Forgotten Realms ? I mean... There are tons of other universe in which you can create a game.

I guess they took DnD, the FR and the name of the city for the prestige. Probably nothing more.

I'm not saying anything about the game here but his attitude is really strange and the tone has changed a lot before/after EA release.

So I disagree heavily with the claim that DND5e is not rich mechanically. But going past that.
Larian didn't just aquire the rights to work in the Forgotten Realms, if they wanted to they could have negotiated to make a new IP in the setting with their own rules. Instead they acquired the rights to BG AND the rights to make a game using the DND5e system (ostensibly with its addons since there are races from Volo's). In other words, they took on the challenge to making a game based on the 5e systems, that is what they chose to do.

Going back to my first statement though, 5e has a lot that can be explored by those who look into the mechanics. Character building is something I like to do, and I like to pursue random concepts and try to figure out how to make them, which almost always there is something in the mechanics or rules allowing me to make said character, especially with Tasha's and its changes to race and its addition of Artificer for more interesting combinations. And it isn't just in characters, Spells in particular are a highpoint of 5e in the variety and how they can be applied. True, in tabletop 5e rewards RPing and Creativity (effects like Minor Conjuration are practically built for it), but a straight mechanics game can function just as well as a RP heavy game. I will concede though that a large part of that is 5e mostly cares about Rules As Written and thus allows a player to be loose with most everything else. Going to minor conjuration, its applications are inumerable and thus is hard to translate to a videogame, but Larian has show great competence in translating such spells with Speak With Dead and its ability to speak to many of the corpses in the game, and so I believe that with otherRP focused spells that they will be able to translate many of them to a videogame while keeping their mechanics intact.

In fact, a game that I will not mention cause that will illicit a groan from some has been discussed many many times in this forum proves that 5e mechanically can translate to a videogame just fine and remain engaging and mechanically rewarding.

You got it, brother. Indeed, a normal, for a change.
It's not. In comparison with previous editions it is empty and dull.
You do understand that you literally proved my point here, right? Literally described an "imagination engine" I was talking about.
I am interested. Solasta? Heard it's quite nice, though, mostly empty.
Money and more prestige for the company, clearly. But I would indeed prefer a DOSIII. A new part of a tactical heaven.

From what I heard, the mechanics and gameplay is the highpoint of S****** (I am kinda exagerating avoiding saying its name as a joke, but some really don't like it mentioned in every conversation cause the same topics have looped a bit).

5e overall to me is a good balance of mechanics and RP, it is far from hollow. It is certainly less complex than 3.5e to be sure, but it also puts more RP forward than 4e (as 4e mostly focused on combat abilities). Often times mechanics and RP can intertwine in 5e, which I see as a good thing. There are many spells and abilities meant to be used outside of combat and are looser for player creativity, but there are also harder rules that are meant to create an interesting combat and mechanical experience.
To me, mechanics being able to serve concepts isn't a negative thing and in fact shows something good in that there is enough there to make interesting concepts work without any homebrewing required. DnD as a tabletop system has always been a merger of imagination and numbers, imagination engine can describe the entire series in my eyes. It is a system designed to facilitate imagination and put forward a story made with the players and DM. In this case Larian is our DM, crafting the story for us to engage with. And in my eyes they have to get the mechanics side down well for the creativity to actually shine.

This is kind of a tangent, but if Laezel as a Battlemaster can cast way more than Gale as a wizard, that doesn't feel true to dnd to me, it actually breaks the established classes way harder than any subclass does, and actually is where it begins to feel hollow cause the structure that propped up the imagination is being gutted. In that sense, while 5e feels full to me, BG3 actually feels hollow as it is right now, kinda like a fancy plastic apple with some hotsauce of barrel explosions dribbled on.

But this is all opinion. DnD5e to me feels very rewarding tactically while DOS2 I would usually get into a pattern.

3.X is by far the better system for computer games IMO. The laundry list of crpgs published using various iterations of its ruleset and spinoffs of it proves this by itself. 5e is only now getting into the game with Solasta and BG III despite the success of this edition. IMO it's all about completely different focuses in design. 5e might make for good watching, might be good for quick sit-down-and-play, might be beginner friendly and forgiving for improvising DMs, but that comes at a cost.

A lot is made about how 3.x was 'too complicated' but that trait is anything but a failing when we are talking about video games, because all those calculations, all that paperwork and index cards etc can be handled by the game itself for the player. Folks point out all the modifier stacking that happened in 3x, but turn based video games regularly do this all the time.

There's also a lot less choice in character creation/progression/build I feel. Like how you get pidgeonholed into one of two specializations only a few levels in. weapon choice is almost an esthetic choice outside of damage type (where applicable) with the removal of so many weapon types, the critical modifier and range, and special properties. Armor is almost a straight progression with no variation in dex modifier or armor check penalty etc, no special materials, no nonmagical modifications that can be made to them. I could go on, etc.

So I don't blame Larian at all for trying to fiddle around with special attacks for weapons and codifying some new instances of when and where you can get advantage/disadvantage to encourage positioning. Stuff like that. Because the places where 5e shines just really don't show or count for much in the medium of video games.

Once you include expansions to 5e, there are a lot of options in specializations and differentiations, but I do concede weapons are not that different from eachother.

Though one thing I did really dislike about 3.5e is that often times it felt like you could mess your build up royally for just doing what you wanted, and that the system felt like it expected you to make the optimal choices when leveling up instead of what seems fun or right for the character, but that may just be my limited experience with it.

Swen and Larian are too hung up on putting as much game into games as possible.

Simplistic board game combat that is solid and balanced can be better than BG3's shoving, high ground and barrels meme fest. I'm having much more fun in combat in BG1&2, or Solasta which compares to BG3 directly.

Maybe I'm old school but I never learned to like the Diablo -like loot systems in RPG's. I hate being showered with stuff in DOS games and constantly upgrading my gear for microscopic numerical stat increases. That's not fun, it's more like work. And it doesn't resemble real life at all. That's where immersion comes from. Credibility.

I don't mind getting only one, or a few actions per turn. It's much more reactive, and reactivity is a turn based system's greatest weakness. What they should be focusing on is making the turns go faster. Enemies is BG3 take too long.

So no, 5e is not boring. It's vastly superior to DOS or Diablo and many others because it focuses on the right things. Trying to force videogamey systems on top of 5e makes the whole thing an unsatisfying mess.

[quote=1varangian]Swen and Larian are too hung up on putting as much game into games as possible.

Simplistic board game combat that is solid and balanced can be better than BG3's shoving, high ground and barrels meme fest. I'm having much more fun in combat in BG1&2, or Solasta which compares to BG3 directly.

Maybe I'm old school but I never learned to like the Diablo -like loot systems in RPG's. I hate being showered with stuff in DOS games and constantly upgrading my gear for microscopic numerical stat increases. That's not fun, it's more like work. And it doesn't resemble real life at all. That's where immersion comes from. Credibility.

I don't mind getting only one, or a few actions per turn. It's much more reactive, and reactivity is a turn based system's greatest weakness. What they should be focusing on is making the turns go faster. Enemies is BG3 take too long.

So no, 5e is not boring. It's vastly superior to DOS or Diablo and many others because it [i]focuses on the right things[/i]. Trying to force videogamey systems on top of 5e makes the whole thing an unsatisfying mess.[/quote]

+1

Been playing fire emblem again, it's such a relief that moving to a position is near instant. After waiting for every move and ability for so long in DOS2, BG3, and even Solasta, which is a bit faster.

First of all, hold up, mate. Why would you bring an ARPG, a totally different, distinct genre, while we here are talking about tabletop RPGs and their adaptation for a videogame? What nonsense. Diablo is great for its own genre, Diablo II basically created a genre. Which leads to the second point,
Have you ever played DOSII? "showered with stuff"? Where? If you kill a bandit and he/she has a sword and armor that you can strip, how this "doesn't resemble real life at all"? You also have an option to not loot every corpse. You find unique and rare stuff on specific bosses/quests. You find food in food barrels, books on bookshelves, rare gear in specific locations, regular items and trash where they should be. Realistic. You are free to take, but not forced. Never heard anybody complain about the loot system in DOSII. Diablo-like loot system? What a nonsense.
Sure.
Never heard of an "old school" who would prefer a 5th edition to a 3.5 edition.

To throw such nonsense statements (like "vastly superior", and again, why do you bring up Diablo, a totally different genre?), you need to back it up with, at least, something. Not an abstract "it focuses on the right things", but say what these "right things" exactly.
5e is inferior in everything mechanically to previous editions, and I can say in what exactly. To name a few things, gold having a use, magic items being purchasable, skills for specific things, feats for specific combat maneuvers. Ways to improve/modify every character ability. Magic in 3.5 is much more versatile and powerful. Alignments. Builds. You need to go deep into system to understand it in 3.5/Pathfinder.
5e is indeed an "imagination engine". 5e is ultimately simpler, with a looser rules system, fewer mechanics. It requires more GM interpretation of the rules (so many Homebrew systems out there), and isn't as solidly written as 3rd edition (CJMPinger literally have already written about this above).
3.5/Pathfinder are much more complicated and deep. In 5e you become a hero through the imagination play with DM, it's much more beginner-friendly, in 3.5/Pathfinder you become a hero through the deep understanding of a system and grind. Surely most people (especially tabletop people) would prefer 5e. Who wants to spend a lot of time on understanding of systems? But we are talking about a mechanical greatness in a videogame, and about videogame that is interesting. Not empty and dull.
DOSII is like a personal homebrew of Larian, of a 3.5e, a tactical heaven. To understand superiority of it to a 5th edition, just compare Solasta to a DOSIInd tactical greatness that captured hearts of millions (we are talking about mechanics only, will not judge Solasta for anything other, it being an indie game basically. It looks quite nice.).
5e is boring by itself, and only a good DM and hyper-active players can change that. Then it is interesting to watch/play. Because to compensate the lack of mechanics it uses imagination, where you can "do anything", "become anything". Everybody who knows about 5e and how it is played will agree on that. Another point that in 5e you can "become anything" basically from the beginning. Leveling doesn't really matter. Just imagine yourself a barbarian, use Rage, and be a hero.
Would agree on this point. As I've said previously, indeed, how would you transfer an imagination, that is a core component of 5e, to a videogame? There is no way. Maybe only using an AI, as constant DM. Try AI Dungeon to understand what an AI sharpened for this can do as a DM.

This is the main reason many prefer tabletop 5e. Freedom of imagination.

Indeed, for a computer game, where computations are done in the background, 3.x system is much better. Hope Larian will add more mechanics into the Definitive BG3 release, hope WoTC will allow them freedom to do this. But, hearing screeching about basic environmental effects from D&D folks... I understand why Sven is in pain.

You are labelling other people's opinions as 'nonsense' but you sound a tad biased yourself.
Many consider DOSII to be anything but tactical, forcing you to adopt the same strategies over and over, oftentimes cheesy ones.

Maybe it's not all so black and white.

I think you guys are just being trolled, to be honest.

While I do agree that 3(.5)e was probably the best edition for CRPGs, 5e is far from empty or dull and is definitely the second best (third if you count 3.5e separately) D&D edition for videogames - definitely better than e.g. 2e AD&D used in BG1/2, although I love those games. And anything is better than 4e (for TT OR CRPGs).

I don't care at all about the game being faithful to the ruleset, but currently, the combat just completely blows once you begin to understand it (and how easily it can be cheesed) and the reason it blows are the changes Larian introduced (for the most part), not the vanilla 5e rules. While I, again, don't care about the ruleset faithfulness, I genuinely believe that if they removed backstab/height (dis)advantage BS and severely toned down surfaces/dipping, the combat system would at least not be a horrible cheesy, boring, repetetive mess that made me uninstall the game before finishing my druid playthrough...

DOS2 loot system actually derives from Diablo's in certain capacities, in particular the randomized loot tables with different rarity loot that has differing stats with the goal of you finding loot that raises the stats you need, it isn't a bad loot system because it gives constant upward progression but I wouldn't apply it to a game based on dnd. Or at least a cRPG like Baldur's gate.

Also DOS2's systems are not bad, they give across their own thing with surfaces and everyone having flashy strong abilities, however I don't think it meshes well with any system of dnd as the goals are very different. DnD, in particular 5e, starts off considerably more grounded, initial levels are fairly fast but eventually it slows and your progression does too, you are expected to play the character you made for awhile. With leveling slowing, progression becomes based on how you use abilities and what loot you find, but it is less about number crunching and more expanding your repertoire (though there is some number crunching items).

That said, legitimately every system has its ups and downs. And I can appreciate things in them, but usually each system has different goals in what it is trying to put across. Notably, I am one of those weirdo's who likes 4e. There was a good amount of abilities, most character concepts were doable and mechanically strong such as a healer that hurts themself for every healing spell, and there was a lot of things with combat such as the bloodied condition. However on its downsides combat was slow as a lot of riders were attached to abilities meaning they would go off at once, and people could often activate enough actions in a turn by proccing certain things it could go on a bit. (I had the issue of long turns cause I played a summoner and after every turn I did, I would then have to do Intrinsic Natures). However, 4e is a system I could see working really really well in a video game due to how the classes are structured, BUT I wouldn't really consider it for BG3 and I'd consider it more for a videogame adaptation of scales of war or something like that.

Ultimately, and this is my opinion, I feel like 5e is the most appropriate for BG3 with how its system goals as well as how beginner friendly it is meaning it translates well to a computer game in my eyes while also maintaining the looser aspects of roleplaying for a roleplaying game such as character decisions and abilities affecting conversations.

tldr; Different systems have different goals, and to me 5e's goals align the most with BG3.


Eh, perhaps, but I like talking about TTRPGs and their systems, and I am a bit of a narcissist who likes to spew out my worthless opinions and knowledge.

+1

I agree Building in 5e is quite boring since there is no much choice there (pathfinder kingmaker level is fine in PC-game, I think), but comparing Solasta and DOS2? DOS2 isn't that tactical either, it's too easy to get good position, easy to gather enemies in one place, magic/physical armor system disturb your party balance too.