Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Ehh. Not great breakdown of the three camps you've identified the last two largely overlap (if they were distinct camps I would reside in both) and the first camp "people who want BG3 to be more like DOS" has perhaps 3 or 4 members. There as many people calling for the return of the 3.5 ruleset as there are advocates of cooldowns and action points.

There are some pretty direct opposing wants between the BG1/2 camp and 5E camp though.
  • RTwP vs. Turnbase per 5E RAW
  • BG style adjusted monsters (including hp increases) (like in BG2) vs. Monsters implemented as RAW 5e
  • Okay with adjusted rules vs. rules implemented RAW (BG1/2 were far from 2.5E RAW)
  • No skill check (and thus no content lock) vs. skill check in dialogue and game (thus locks content)
  • Single character focused narrative (THE chosen one) vs. the table-top-esque group dynamic narrative of BG3/5E PnP (group of chosen ones)

With that said, it's totally valid for someone to say - I'd prefer a BG3 that's true to BG1/2, but if I can't have that, I'd rather have 5E RAW than Larian's invention. Which may be how some people can identify with both of those camps over the DOS/Larian camp.

Also, sometimes I have seen some instances where some people of these latter 2 camps are simply united more so by their distaste of Larian/DOS, than actually being on the same page (i.e. both camps may say this game is basically DOS3, etc).

Yeah, I ignore the RTwP bloodwar even if I'm in the BG3 should be like BG camp. I just like turn based better. But fair enough in the venn diagram of the two the RtwP is a part of the BG camp not covered by 5e camp.

I've also not seen anyone asking for a BG 2 type difficulty adjusted monsters -- I think mods like sword coast stratagems were a response to the critique that the difficulty slider above 'core' was too crude. I think everyone would prefer a difficulty slider that increased the intelligence of the AI like SCS does. (the unmodded beholders are a pretty dumb bunch)

Eh, I don't think the origin character is more table top like. I think Solasta is more table top like. (and I prefer the BG3 model to Solasta in terms of role play) Like many DOS2 fans I thought non origin characters had a diminished experience. And even among the origins it's really Fane's story -- I just don't think you can compare the experience of playing as Fane v Beast.

Our disagreements aren't large but they boil down to this:
(BG1/2 were far from 2.5E RAW)
That's said often but when people try and talk about what is different it largely comes down to issues of movement / kitting and things that are true of every other D&D adaptation except Solasta. (that I know of) Things like eliminating spell components, encumbrance rules, gp weight and the like have been repeated by every other D&D game. BG1 was the best adaption of 2e RAW there was and most of the exceptions / exploits were made at the request of the community. And there's the rub

When I first played BG1 it was clear to me that it was made by TT players because it's house rules pretty much mirrored the house rules I used in my own games. Larian's house rules by contrast are, well, strange and I think you would have a hard time finding a Table Top group that uses them. I mean dip is just a weird thing to implement. Candles = magic arrows ?

So I think "purist" is a strawman for those of us who want as close to RAW as possible -- once Solasta implements the promised check boxes for its house rules I'll turn off spell components. Hopefully Larian will follow Solasta's lead and make its house rules optional.