Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I don't even care about how faithful BG3 may or may not be to the core DnD rules anymore. I came to realize over the past few months that I cared far more about how imbalanced the game is in general at its very core, and not about any comparisons between BG3 and the actual tabletop rules themselves. It just so happens that the vast majority of mechanics that contribute towards this feeling for me are the homebrew mechanics and changes that were haphazardly shoved into the system anyway.


Barrelmancy? Fine, I actually don't care about that. Backstab/high ground advantage and low ground disadvantage? That's not interesting at all, they just force a specific playing style and don't encourage options at all.

I completely agree with the game not being balanced. I made a comment earlier saying, I never played 5e but combat was good in solasta but not in Baldur Gate 3. The animations and everything else is superb, but the mechanics of combat feel lame to me. I do not care if the game abides by 5e rules, or whether the drows are a subrace or a race by themselves. To me dnd is already made for turn based combats, you shouldn't alter it so much that it gives so easy advantages.

It would be like if XCOM gave you a guaranteed crit if you are at a higher elevation and enemies got -60 hit chance along with full cover bonuses. Why would you use bombs, rockets, flanking maneuvers, rangers, melee at all? Also I hate surface effects in bg3. In dos2 it works because every character can fly around everywhere. Phoenix dive, blitz, nether swap, teleport, many more abilities that can just ignore surface or height. That's why in dos2 elevation bonuses made sense and wasnt a big deal since it was a fragile bonus. This game however, enemies have to walk through all that with no magic armour or physical armour.

The combat balance is super weak in my opinion, just implementing a more balanced game's rules would be the easiest solution.