Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why I Want More D&D 5e Rules

Then do care to explain if you know so much.

Not necessarily no. There is something called "prototyping" - trying things out in a quick, cheap and easy to impliment way to see what works and what doesn't. Of course, Larian didn't create fully produced, fully working faithful 5e translation which they then started to change - that would be a massive waste of resources. But it doesn't mean they didn't do some prototyping. Maybe in their own engine, maybe in one of the free, easy to mod ones (like Unity). It's possible they didn't implement everything into one build, but rather created different experiements when considering different mechanics.

The mathematics AKA the mechanics of a tabletop game are DIRECTLY transferrable from paper to code. I know cus I can do it. There is literally no dice roll system that cannot be translated from a pen and paper system to code, it is very very easy to do in fact. The computer was literally invented to do this.

The caveats that are problematic are additional homebrew mechanics that change ^^^^^^^^^ these linear (cause and effect) calculations. They have cascade effects though the linear probability system that is 5e in a nut shell. Adding another dice roll for an AoE that isn't supposed to be there can change 5 other dice rolls trying to calculate the effect of "something else". This in turn makes a "misses" "hits" and makes another 6 saving throws that prevent concentration or sneak etc. Even linear probability can become extremely complex given enough variables.

My point being the mathmatics of 5e are set in stone, there is no wiggle room. Why? Because adding extra dice rolls changes the outcome of gameplay so drastically it becomes another system. Larian actually know this and have moved it closer to 5e as such. Larian can add new spells, weapons, armors, monsters and lore for all I care as long as they all follow the tried and tested 1+1=2.

Every class in 5e Phb is balanced around these numbers. Change one thing in the formula and Clerics become pointless, wizards become demi-gods, rouges become useless. Throwing a healing potion in the mouth of your mate 50 foot away is the same a a cleric casting a spell for the same purpose. Hding as a bonus action is a rouge skill not a wizard skill. All these little (not little) things take away from the tactical, straegic, class and difficulty of the game. It makes it cheezy in fact.

The DM does not change "the laws of physics" they add flavor. This being "would firing a lightning bolt into water while other are standing in it electrocute them?" sure of course, then lets do that then. Can I throw a 200kg barrel of "stuff" 60 feet with my 18kg halfling wizard with 6 STR? Urrrm no mate. <<<< this is the job of the DM (Larian).

What I don't get is why 5e doesn't work for video games, or rather why people think it doesn't.

I can create a map in Tabletop simulator and play with players and DM an entire campaign using full blown TT rules. With the map, the players can move their avatars and use full rules just fine.

This is what I was expecting with BG3 except instead of the DM moving monsters, the computer does.

For combat, I don't see why this isn't doable. It works. I've done it. Video game pawns and maps. So why don't those rules translate exactly?

Of course it can be done: see Solasta.

Still, tabletop and digital games tend to feel different to play. You know, a bit how card mechanics always feel off (at least to me) in a computer game, even if its a fun game. I think Larian really doesn't want their playerbase to feel like they are playing an adaptation of a table-top experience - but rather a game build from ground up to be a cRPG. I think it's more of a "game feel" that Larian has issues with.

Explain what? We've been over this hundreds of times in this forum. Every time somebody says that they want the game to be more like 5e or that 5e is better in some way there's always somebody like you who disingenuously reinterprets this as "it must be 5e raw by the letter no exceptions". The whole derail in this thread about whether or not Larian said "based on 5e" or "like 5e" was caused by you and Ragnarok doing exactly that at the page 1-2 break, like so:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=799460#Post799460

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=799470#Post799470

This is pure strawmanning. You are arguing against a point that you've built in your heads, and that is not representative of what GM4 actually argued. What's worse is, I even think GM4 made this thread more or less directly after the exact same thing happened in the food topic last night:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=799224#Post799224

And I apologise if I am being overly combative here, but having to always defend oneself against this strawman as soon as one brings up how BG would benefit from being more like 5e in any way is exhausting my patience. There's has been, since BG3 went into EA and joined these forums, maybe a single guy or two who has insisted that they want 5e exactly raw in every way, and I don't think either of them are still active here any more. They are certainly not representative of the forums enough to even matter in a generalisation of it. It only "seems like that's how it is here on the forums" to you because that's how you interpret it whenever somebody brings up 5e rules as a reference at all.

For my part, I do not believe I have ever seen anyone, on this forum or otherwise, ever, trying to suggest that the game should be, or that they want it to be, exact 5e raw.

Let's play chess.

I give the rook 5 HP. I give the pawn 1 HP. I give the king 50 HP. I give the bishop 3 HP.

Each does as much damage as they have HP.

Are we playing chess or a chess like game? Looks like chess. Some of the rules are even the same.

Doesn't feel like chess, though, does it.

First all do NOT accuse me of doing something that I am not, just because I may be seeing something differently. This is one the biggest problems in these forums. Occasionally there will be people like you coming into forums to answer in a very combative way to the point that a moderator has to step in. It's impossible to come into these forums to have a cordial conversation or even a disagreement without someone insulting the other person. Please don't do that. If you disagree with something I said, that fine but don't accuse me of acting a certain way. I'm tired of people doing that in these forums because I don't do that to them.

The homebrew stuff I like is,

1) Cleric casts create water
2) Mage casts lightning giving them a buzz
3) Rogue takes advantage with a sneak attack
4) Druid casts thunder wave to knock someone on the water

Thsi synergy adds mechanics without changing the rules.

I believe this is where the confusing is. I understand that there are certain things in the game that would benefit with better 5e rules. I'm all for that. What I don't understand is the language some may be using where it sounds like they may be asking for literal 5e rules. Example would be the chess analogy you just used. That's where the confusion may be. Could you explain that better?

Ok, that should be easy to explain ...
How would you implement this spell?

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/spell:minor-illusion

This. As a moderator, I can with some authority confirm that this is the case, with knowledge that it's usually just natural human emotions distorting an underlying interest for improvements in a game they care about. So I don't typically read into it much, but there is a tendency for people to eventually get into extremes. And that's where I sometimes butt in, unless I see that people have resolved it already in conversation or reeled themselves in. Last thing I want to do is stifle genuine discussion and criticism (I have a bunch of criticisms and desires for change in some areas too! I'm here as a gamer, and moderator. I try my best to differentiate, but it's important to point out because lots of people see the color of a name before a person.)

I refer to a previous post of mine, albeit it it took two pages rather than halfways into the next page.

Minor illusion cantrip is already in the game. In D&D it simply compels anything with senses to go look at "something", once investigated they roll an INT saving throw per round until they realise it is bogus. Then, depending on the circumstances may investigate a wider area to find the caster or simply go back to whatever they were doing.

The point is that the more you change the characteristics of the game, the less like the game it is. If a pawn no longer moves only 1 or 2 spaces ahead, or you give them HP, or whatever, you change a lot of the feel of the game. What you would once do no longer applies because the new rules have changed the entire feel of the game.

Let's take Star Wars RPG. I've played like several versions. Every time, there are new rules for the Force. Each new set of rules changes the entire way the Force is used in the game. Slight rule changes trickle to other areas.

Now, I'm not suggesting no homebrew. I'm merely saying that changes in rules should be done with discretion and should not drastically change the whole system. +2 for height advantage doesn't break the system. Making Hide a Bonus for everyone breaks Rogues and makes them less valuable.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you mean now.

It kinda makes sence tho, that Larian is pushing on Bonus Actions so hard ...
I mean i dunno about you people, but i have them unused like 75% of time, it just feels little odd to left resources unspended. :-/

Im aware ... the question was "how would you implement it" tho, not "is this in game?"

Might be ...
Until your Illusionist Wizard get to level 14, where "something" is no longer good enough, since you get:

"Illusory Reality
By 14th level, you have learned the secret of weaving shadow magic into your illusions to give them a semi-reality. When you cast an illusion spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose one inanimate, nonmagical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real. You can do this on your turn as a bonus action while the spell is ongoing. The object remains real for 1 minute. For example, you can create an illusion of a bridge over a chasm and then make it real long enough for your allies to cross.

The object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone."

You can ofcourse bypass this by seting max level for 13 ...
Lazy, but effective "solution" ... question is if that will work every time.

//Edit:
Problem here is that you are comparing game wich have rules set for few hundert of years and nobody even know for sure theese days why wich figure plays the way it plays ...

And game thats rules is curently in progress of creation ...
Yes it have some set of rules they can inspire with, but for once even those are not set in stone, and even if they would it means little to nothing, since they are ment for different game anyway. :-/

It's partial due to perspective and perception, in my opinion / understanding. Just to be absolutely clear, I actually do not view the following quotes to be demanding exact 5e RAW, and in fact the threads are overall in the same ballpark of "prefer to see changes closer towards 5e in a reasonably faithful way", but I believe it's clear how they can be perceived to demand as such. And due to the bombastic, emotional and slightly hyperbolic nature of how the message is framed, you can see how those threads begin as wholesome, reasonable and calm, and slowly degrade and turn into more hyperbolic and over-dramatic arguing as the pages move on.

I think some people subconsciously still have those threads in mind, stuck as a feeling. Then future perception is influenced by that under a bias, regardless of where our individual opinions recide.




Edit: I point these out, because I believe a similar tribalistic nature is taking foothold in this thread as well. We can keep this civil and grounded, I think. I ask you to, because ultimately I dare wage that we all just want the game to feel as much D&D as it reasonably can, whilst realizing there's a compromise somewhere in the middle. The disagreements tend to boil down to semantics and nuances of how much is enough, and I don't think this "No you are the baddie, no you are strawmanning me, I'm not the one strawmanning you" shenanigans bears any positive points to continue. Stick to the merits of the criticism and feedback, than trying to upper got'cha one another.

Edit 2: I refer mostly to Dexai, Lady Avyna and <Redacted> in the moderation-aspect of this post. It doesn't matter which one of you are more right than the other. In terms of OP and thread topic, you're all wrong.

That's because I did see more than one person want RAW DnD. That could be maybe 5 people tops but that still is classified as some people. This of course isn't everyone and I get that. I also don't want to continue this discussion of pointing fingers or people coming in into a conversation between two people to stir the pot. That doesn't help anyone and it turns in an online fight. Let's just leave it at that and continue discussions with GM4HIM who is the OP.

Hence why hyperboles and being over-dramatic to make a point is nearly always a bad idea in discussion. People think it exaggerates a point to make it more clear, but more often than not, it distorts and undermines the point they try to make. Big fan of calm and level-headed discussion. It also makes it harder to interpret due to pure text form, missing intonation (and often context. In my quotes in previous post, the replies seem less intense if viewed as a part of the whole thread, but read on their own, they may be perceived as pretty intense, which is what I'm trying to illustrate.)

Anyway, I hope you can all rest your shoulders and get rid of the tension now.

Edit:


Oh nothing particular or severe. Just a combination of discussion participants kicking an anthill that I don't think is necessary to be dragged on as long as it has already. I'm just wanting to put an end to it. From all of you. Because most of what's needed to be said has been said, and it can only lead to bickering and needless arguing from here.