Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 14 of 14 1 2 12 13 14
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Archaven
correct me if i'm wrong. is larian not implementing the correct implementation of the dnd5e rules? if so why larian does that? i basically in favor of the implementation of how the rules supposed to be.
Larian used borrowed code from D:OS2 to launch Early Access faster. Said borrowed code was not written with 5e rules in mind. And, each patch we've had improvements to get closer to 5e (mostly from player feedback).

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Archaven
correct me if i'm wrong. is larian not implementing the correct implementation of the dnd5e rules? if so why larian does that? i basically in favor of the implementation of how the rules supposed to be.
Larian used borrowed code from D:OS2 to launch Early Access faster. Said borrowed code was not written with 5e rules in mind. And, each patch we've had improvements to get closer to 5e (mostly from player feedback).
I don't know about code, but according to Larian themselves, it's not entirely accurate
https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/
Quote
"We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work. So we started working on that."


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
I have my doubts that Larian built a game with D&d 5e rules as written (in entirety), and then spent time changing the code again to be more like D:OS2.

Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Archaven
correct me if i'm wrong. is larian not implementing the correct implementation of the dnd5e rules? if so why larian does that? i basically in favor of the implementation of how the rules supposed to be.
Larian used borrowed code from D:OS2 to launch Early Access faster. Said borrowed code was not written with 5e rules in mind. And, each patch we've had improvements to get closer to 5e (mostly from player feedback).

thanks. that explain why BG3 have striking similarity of being a DOS2 enhanced edition. most software developers they basically just copy paste and rework on the assets, UI and content from old codes and assets. they should perhaps change different artist and graphics designer as there won't be much difference when they reuse the same one from DOS2 devs.

back to point on reaction. i prefer the Solasta reaction. I believe it's the way how it depicts 5e. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I have my doubts that Larian built a game with D&d 5e rules as written (in entirety), and then spent time changing the code again to be more like D:OS2.
Yeah it does sound stupid, but still that's what they said. Even if they did it and even if they didn't, this just a very stupid thing to say.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
I have my doubts that Larian built a game with D&d 5e rules as written (in entirety), and then spent time changing the code again to be more like D:OS2.
They did not, but they also made and are making substantial changes - it is not the same engine that run D:OS2 - that should be obvious just comparing them side by side. And considering how much stuff they add and change, I don’t think “engine doesn’t support it” is a reason for anything.

They clearly do want to keep many things from D:OSs - that is creative choice however, not an engine limitation.

I suppose an odd quote is this:

Quote
We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work.

I wonder what form it took - did they added functionality to their D:OS engine? Or did they created basic prototype in which they can mess around with stuff? You hear stories about devs prototyping ideas within days to prove a concept - they might have tested potential implementations without going full in and building proper framework for it. I doubt there is another build of BG3 with faithful 5e implementation, but that doesn’t mean that what they said is a lie.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I don't think they lied either. I suppose I just wonder what exactly did they do and what exactly "didn't work" according to them


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Yeah, “we saw the things that didn’t work” is ambiguous. It could be from a technical perspective, like “our engine doesn’t let you take actions outside of your turn so reactions don’t work”. Or it could be from a design perspective, like “we can’t really constrain the frequency of long rests, so the short rest/long rest balance baked into 5e doesn’t work”.

Reading that Larian quote, I always assumed it was the latter but reading this thread I think it might be the former.


TRIBE!
Joined: Mar 2013
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Mar 2013
i beg your pardon for reviving this thread. but why is reaction is something that didn't work?

"We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work.".

I think reaction is a nice mechanic. They shouldn't have remove it? If they claimed that they took the dnd5e ruleset and ported it over to a video game. Also, while it's nice that bonus action was given to everyone, i think that's not a right thing to do? As i checked the bonus actions only available to certain special abilities, or feats:

"Various Class Features, Spells, and other Abilities let you take an additional action on Your Turn called a Bonus Action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a Bonus Action.".

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Thats easy ...
Some people believe that reactions would prolong the combat, wich is sometimes allready quite tedious. frown


I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
We don't know exactly why BG3 doesn't have a more 5e-like reaction system. That quote implies that Larian internally implemented and tested it, but decided it wouldn't work because [some reason]. Theories for this reason are on previous posts ITT and don't really need restating.

Unfortunately, we as the EA players/testers can't judge whether Larian's implementation of a functioning 5e reaction system is actually tedious or not because we've never been given a chance to test it. We can base our opinions off of other games' implementations, or what we think Larian will do, but that's not quite the same.

Larian has indicated that there is a reaction system overhaul in the works. So who knows what we'll see and when/if we'll see it in EA.

Page 14 of 14 1 2 12 13 14

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