Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Gameplay poll: traditional or simplified combat?

There have been many threads on this forum (and others) about the gameplay mechanics in Baldur's Gate 3. It seems to me that many of these issues can be condensed into a single question regarding players' expectations about the type of combat they would prefer to have in this game. I hope you will share your opinion in this simple poll, so that the outcome will have a chance to affect the final game.

For any players who may not be familiar with the previous discussions or 5E game mechanics, I have given a few brief examples below that might help explain what the conversation is about. "Simplified" mechanics are what were released in the Early Access version of the game, which have remained largely unchanged.

Traditional actions and bonus actions:
This means that the game would follow 5E rules for the timing, distance, damage, and cost of actions defined in the PHB. Nothing that requires a full action could be done with only a bonus action, unless this ability was granted by a spell, class feature, or other special mechanic. Actions and bonus actions would generally follow the core ruleset restrictions on timing and usage, and their effects would follow those described in the handbook.
Example: Shove costs an action, and a successful shove attack pushes a target 5 feet.

Traditional reactions:
This means that players would have the freedom to choose which reaction opportunities to take, and how to use them.
Example: A player has the ability to decide which reaction-timed spell to cast as a reaction right after they are attacked.

Traditional dice roll and damage modifiers:
This means that the game would follow the core rules for gaining advantage (or disadvantage) on attacks, finding cover, becoming or staying invisible, adding damage to an attack, or utilizing other D&D combat mechanics. The game would try to preserve the cost and difficulty of these mechanics from the core rules.
Example: Players must follow one of the methods in the player's handbook to gain advantage, such as by casting a spell or using a class feature.

Traditional power of weapons and spells.
This means that weapons and spells would roughly match the relative power level given to them in the player's handbook. Values for range, damage, status effects, damage types, resistance, vulnerability, cost, timing, etc., would be similar to those in the player's handbook. Adjustments and improvements to spells and items would not imbalance any spell, weapon type, or ability.
Example: Longbows have significantly greater range than crossbows.

There are, of course, more core rules that would differentiate Traditional and Simplified combat, but I think these examples provide enough information to let people cast a vote.

Do you want Traditional or Simplified combat? single choice
	Traditional
	Simplified
Votes accepted starting: 24/04/22 07:56 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I will vote for traditional on basis of first two examples alone. I don't have enough 5e knowledge to comment on the other two.

I voted for Simplified ...
Bcs traditional as described here would require complete rework of almost whole game. :-/

Also it would erase some changes i really like ...
As high ground, bonus action potion, etc.

I voted traditional but I have a clarification to add. I want 5e as a difficulty setting option.

New players to D&D, or players who like DOS, may enjoy Simplified possibly more than actual 5e. There are plenty of people, myself included, who do not, but there has been enough out here who do like the as is gameplay a lot - myself included. Yes, I want 5e, but for the most part the current game is still very well done.

So, what I'm saying is that I think the game will please a greater audience with both, not just one or the other. That said, IF I had to choose between them it would be a Traditional 5e ruleset.

Honestly, only two possible answers are a bad idea.
The topic itself is a bit too complicated and most people are likely to be more in the middle.

I think that is a valid worry in general, but in the case of combat, I think that Larian could get a lot done with a moderate amount of development work.

First, many of the deviations from 5E are separately designed, meaning they could be worked on independently and without needing to iterate. This already eliminates the main delay in Larian's development system.

Secondly, as GM4Him noted, many of these changes could be programmed as optional adjustments to the existing gameplay system, and the rest do not have to be perfect. For example, you could disable the reactions system if you don't like it, or you could choose "Easy Mode" and let every character steal all the Rogue class features if you want. This is much less work than programming Honor Mode and Tactician Mode!

Third, I think a lot of these changes are actually necessary to make the game better. Yes, there are some subjective opinions about major departures from the core ruleset, like "high ground advantage," etc., but there are also large parts of the PHB that have been refined and balanced over a period of decades, with the benefit of feedback from a huge number of players and professional game developers. There is a good reason that a lot of things in 5E are the way they are, and if those could be included in BG3, it would improve the game.

I voted traditional, but by doing so Larian would need to fix ranges of spells, missile weapons, and vision effects (such as dark-vision/superior dark-vision) as they are currently capped at much shorter ranges (giving melee's the advantage over ranged opponents). This would also affect surprise range for ranged "sneak attacks" both for players and NPC's.

@OP are you trying to ask "Should BG3 be as close to the 5e combat rules as possible, or can there be rule changes that might improve combat?" (I'd vote for the latter because a lot of 5e rules are meh)
Alternatively, are you trying to ask "Should BG3 be as close to the 5e combat rules as possible, or do we trust Larian to make any rule changes?" (I'd vote for the former because Larian's decisions so far...haven't been the best)

But, as written, the poll is gives these choices:
- "Traditional": as close to 5e RAW as feasible
- "Simplified": mechanics as "released in the Early Access version of the game" (including surface-creating cantrips, high ground/backstab advantage, bonus action disengage + jump, etc)
which is not quite the same as the questions above. If you mean this, I'd vote for "Traditional" because so many of the original rules in BG3 were poop. But I don't categorically disagree with making any changes to 5e's system.

I mentioned in my descriptions that improvements and adjustments could be made to RAW, as long as Larian attempts to preserve balance and depth in the action economy, class identities, and combat strategies. I don't think these things are preserved currently, and the easiest solution is to just include more of the PHB. Of course I want the developer to make improvements, but ignoring the core rules and ending up with a shallow, imbalanced game system is not fun or rewarding to play. I don't think the changes that have been made have "improved" combat.

Quite the contrary...
Combat would be worse for litteral transcription.

Just take range ...
Eldrich Spear gives your Eldrich Blast 300f range!
I didnt measure that but by guess i believe that means you would be able to snipe Gnolls from Risen road from the Grove!
In pure matter of range, ignoring line of sight. Ofc.

Then take for example Chromatic Orb ...
Many people around here complains about its surface effects ... i was one of them until i counted out that curent fire orb have even greater damage potential than tabletop one ... and there is no component needed, meaning Chromatic Orb basicaly owerdamage any other spell you have. :-/

My post was pretty clear in stating that the spirit of the PHB should be put into the game, with relative balance and qualitative features. This kind of nitpicking is pointless, as is voting because you think it requires a rework of the game. Yeah, that's the point of the feedback forum. I'm not sure why you are in here.

I have you my vote, told you my reason ... you reacted, i reacted ...
Its called conversation.

Feel free to google it.

Normal people learn it from real life, not google. But thanks for your very valuable contributions.

Well, since you asked, i didnt get the feeling that you knew.

Thank you for sharing your feelings. They are so important. We are all glad you are in this thread.

For me it's mostly traditional, but I would actually love more complexity on certain aspects that were clearly designed for human math ease-of-use. So:


Actions - Traditional

Reactions - Traditional

Dice Rolls & Modifiers - More Complexity Please

Traditional power of weapons and spells - More Complexity Please


For the items that I want more complexity - what I would love to expand on is have more nuance instead of just "advantage/disadvantage", and resistance or no resistance - a lot of the 5E elements that purely designed for easy math at the table, but IMO feels a bit simplified for a computer game.

For example - fire resistance being a flat 50% and immunity being a 100% feels very simplistic and not very immersive. Would love to see smaller increments so you can differentiate enemies more, or even encourage various types of item stacking (like in BG1/2)

Another example that I think Larian has NOW done well is high ground. The +2/-2 flat modifier for being on higher ground is 100% not RAW, but I much prefer that to nothing (less tactical depth), or advantage (too much, too redundant).

I agree. The PC allows more complex mechanics that match the themes more, and a good developer would use those. The problem I see is that Larian is not utilizing more complexity in the spirit of the core rules. They are dumbing down the rules and ignoring huge swaths of the PHB. So, I think your comments are actually in the opposite direction of what Larian is doing.

As usual, +1 to everything @Topgoon said. We're definitely not the same person posting from different accounts. XD

It sounds like you don't trust Larian to make changes and you'd rather have 5e RAW rather than what Larian has come up with. Which is fine (at this point in time I also would prefer full 5e RAW), but I think it's better to advocate for specific individual changes rather than tell Larian to remove all of their hombrew. I like some of their changes after all.

The +2 Highground bonus is great imo, as is the concept (not the exact implementation) of weapon skills. A widely held opinion is that the base version of 5e's Fighter should have access to all of the Battlemaster Maneuvers, which is kind of what the weapon skills do.

Enemy damage resistances is one of the things Larian could have copied from DOSII that might improve D&D combat. As Topgoon suggests, instead of resistance=50% and immunity=100%, BG3 monsters could have anywhere from 0-100 (200?)% damage type resistance. Perhaps then attacking with a magic weapon would halve that value (or subtract a flat percentage to a minimum of 0%).

I voted for traditionnal too but you over simplified it in my opinion.
If there were a choice in the middle I would have voted for the middle choice which is exactly what BG3 is...

There are many changes I like but at the same time, I also think that DnD has many rules more interresting than what we have even for a video game... (reactions, shove-ready-dodge, items, rests,...)

But I'm glad that Larian is trying to improve or add new mechanics.
(highground, potions as a bonus action, weapon skills even if I don't really like what they've done, more items variations even if I don't really like what they've done, surfaces even if I don't like what they've done...)

I have many complaints about the game but not strictly following the rules isn't one.

I don't think it's a matter of "trust" at this stage. Larian has put their vision on display for about two years now, and they have made it clear that they do not like the PHB and do not want to preserve the balance and identity of 5E. I would be happy if Larian started with 5E, and then incrementally improved on it, but that is not what they chose to do, so none of these arguments about "improvements" matter. It's not an "improvement" if you make worse mechanics without even trying the original ones first.