Game is Great, here are the problems.

[SpicyCrab]

1) Disengage should not be a bonus action. It's horrible, it feels horrible, it should not work that way. It really makes no sense that you can disengage from a melee opponent FOR FREE, walk away, and then just shoot them with an arrow. It's far and away the dumbest thing about the combat design.

2) Jump should not be a bonus action, for the same reasons.

3) Terrain effects last far too long, this was an annoyance in divinity and it really doesn't belong here. The amount of damage you can stack off of terrain effects feels completely inappropriate, especially because the way damage works in DnD it makes terrain effects THE BEST, because they can't miss. Bad design. Cannot just port over the terrain system from Divinity and cross your fingers, it makes no sense here. TONE IT DOWN.

Other than that, the game is excellent. As someone with 300+ hours of Baldurs Gate; this one Truly lives up to the Baldurs Gate license and is extremely impressive for an early access. The world in this game absolutely feels like Baldurs Gate, the stories are actually more complex with more decisions and more interaction with the characters. It's really impressive how many unique lines will trigger in response to your character's background and such. It's really incredibly well done.

For all the people that say this "feels nothing like Baldurs Gate"... all I can say is... when was the last time you played Baldurs Gate? Because this game feels a LOT like it.

For me... manyt of the things people are complaining about don't land;, but these three are important. Please fix.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by SpicyCrab:

1) Disengage should not be a bonus action. It's horrible, it feels horrible, it should not work that way. It really makes no sense that you can disengage from a melee opponent FOR FREE, walk away, and then just shoot them with an arrow. It's far and away the dumbest thing about the combat design.

2) Jump should not be a bonus action, for the same reasons.

The way Larian builds combat encounters almost requires more mobility. From a D&D rules perspective it might be bad, but without disengage and jump the game would be less enjoyable.

[Enigmatory]

Originally posted by SpicyCrab:

1) Disengage should not be a bonus action. It's horrible, it feels horrible, it should not work that way. It really makes no sense that you can disengage from a melee opponent FOR FREE, walk away, and then just shoot them with an arrow. It's far and away the dumbest thing about the combat design.

2) Jump should not be a bonus action, for the same reasons.

3) Terrain effects last far too long, this was an annoyance in divinity and it really doesn't belong here. The amount of damage you can stack off of terrain effects feels completely inappropriate, especially because the way damage works in DnD it makes terrain effects THE BEST, because they can't miss. Bad design. Cannot just port over the terrain system from Divinity and cross your fingers, it makes no sense here. TONE IT DOWN.

Other than that, the game is excellent. As someone with 300+ hours of Baldurs Gate; this one Truly lives up to the Baldurs Gate license and is extremely impressive for an early access. The world in this game absolutely feels like Baldurs Gate, the stores are actually more complex with more decisions and more interaction with the characters. It's really incredibly well done.

For all the people that say this "feels nothing like Baldurs Gate"... all I can say is... when was the last time you played Baldurs Gate because this game feels a LOT like it.

Most of the things people are complaining about are pretty stupid, but these three are important. Please fix.

If we talking about "not should be" list it about 20x times greater or 50x. But i don't think we gett full 5e rules realisation here.

[Holy Athena]

Originally posted by dulany67:

Originally posted by SpicyCrab:

1) Disengage should not be a bonus action. It's horrible, it feels horrible, it should not work that way. It really makes no sense that you can disengage from a melee opponent FOR FREE, walk away, and then just shoot them with an arrow. It's far and away the dumbest thing about the combat design.

2) Jump should not be a bonus action, for the same reasons.

The way Larian builds combat encounters almost requires more mobility. From a D&D rules perspective it might be bad, but without disengage and jump the game would be less enjoyable.

They just need to add DnD rules into Jump and Disengange.. It needs to have stat checks when doing it, not for free, unless its a very specific spell, like some of the mages warp spells, or blink spells. (Forget their names sorry). That's what's supposed to give these spells such uniqueness and power. The ablity for the mages to teleport to safety if they get jumped on.

Jump should be an Agility check vs the opponent.

Disengage should be a DEX check.

This makes Rogues/Rangers good at disengaging via Disengage, and or Jump, but Front line's not as good as they shouldn't be, like Warriors, Paladins, etc. Their checks should stop people from disengaging as easily though.

It's not hard to keep it in as it is, but have stat checks if engaged with an enemy.

If you fail the stat check the enemy gets to make a free swing at you. (This is how other versions of the rules work, and I like it).

[Farsha]

Originally posted by dulany67:

The way Larian builds combat encounters almost requires more mobility. From a D&D rules perspective it might be bad, but without disengage and jump the game would be less enjoyable.

Problem is that.
1st melee characters can't control combatants with attack of oportunity thread. It's pretty much useless. That is the main keep agro system in DnD.
results in melee being weak, you are better of with 4 ranged characters.
2nd free jump results in player jumping over every enemy each turn to get advantage of backstab, if you do melee. And that is just stupid.

These mechanics don't really result in good ganeplay at all atm.

[Morden]

Good points and without all that childish and sjwish complains that are boiling around.
I'd like to see more posts like this, thanks OP.

My points - disengage should be action (like in tabletop) and jump can be part of movement (like tabletop too) but with athletics and acrobatics chekc accordingly (for high jumps and grounding on difficult terrain). And jump shouldnt be equal to disengage.
terrain effects is ok as for me, but maybe they could be shorten a little too (1d6 rounds?).

[Enigmatory]

Originally posted by Morden:

Good points and without all that childish and sjwish complains that are boiling around.
I'd like to see more posts like this, thanks OP.

My points - disengage should be action (like in tabletop) and jump can be part of movement (like tabletop too) but with athletics and acrobatics chekc accordingly (for high jumps and grounding on difficult terrain). And jump shouldnt be equal to disengage.
terrain effects is ok as for me, but maybe they could be shorten a little too (1d6 rounds?).

There are feedback button in launcher.

[Sniperfox47]

Originally posted by Holy Athena:

Originally posted by dulany67:

The way Larian builds combat encounters almost requires more mobility. From a D&D rules perspective it might be bad, but without disengage and jump the game would be less enjoyable.

They just need to add DnD rules into Jump and Disengange.. It needs to have stat checks when doing it, not for free, unless its a very specific spell, like some of the mages warp spells, or blink spells. (Forget their names sorry). That's what's supposed to give these spells such uniqueness and power. The ablity for the mages to teleport to safety if they get jumped on.

Jump should be an Agility check vs the opponent.

Disengage should be a DEX check.

This makes Rogues/Rangers good at disengaging via Disengage, and or Jump, but Front line's not as good as they shouldn't be, like Warriors, Paladins, etc. Their checks should stop people from disengaging as easily though.

It's not hard to keep it in as it is, but have stat checks if engaged with an enemy.

If you fail the stat check the enemy gets to make a free swing at you. (This is how other versions of the rules work, and I like it).

Wait what? They need to add D&D rules into it...? And they also need to add checks to it? Pick one or the other.

In 5e disengage is an action that allows you to move away from foes without drawing attacks of opportunity. At all. Period. For the rest of the turn. Even if you later get to move as a reaction.

In 5e you long jump a distance equal to your strength score (score, not modifier) with a 10ft running jump. No Check. Or half that from a standing jump. No check. The only thing you need a check for is a DC10 check to vault a low barrier.

In 5e you high jump a distance equal to 3+your str modifier with a 10ft lead or half that from a standing jump. A Strength(Athletics) check may, at your DM's discretion, allow you to jump higher.

If they're going to make jump and disengage follow D&D rules these are the ones they should follow... And all it ends up doing is moving what's already there from a bonus to a standard action and making it more awkward to get up cliffs...

[SpicyCrab]

The issue is that, Attacks of opportunity are the primary way that melee characters keep aggro and control enemies. Being able to just... ignore AOP.. for free (90% of the time you do not even need to use your bonus action anyway...) ... is crazy.

There's basically no reason to roll a melee character, unless you think that 'absorbing bonus actions' is a viable thing to build a character around, which it isn't.

As far as I am concerned there is no possible justification for disengage being a bonus action, it is fundamentally broken as a design concept. Also rogues are supposed to have disengage as a special bonus action, so it's a nerf to one of their best abilities.

The jumping thing is slightly less important but... it's silly and trivializes positioning. Who cares where I put my guy if he can just backflip over my enemies heads at no risk every turn? Nobody cares, that's who.

Divinity 2 was a great game but its armor system was fundamentally broken, it basically prohibited you from mixing casters with physical attacks if you wanted to 'min-max' or play on higher difficulties.

By disincentivizing melee weaponry and neutering rogues by taking away their main unique ability (unless you count backflipping over peoples heads every turn and backstabbing them for free...)... we are in danger of the opposite thing happening in BG3. Instead of "make your whole party two handed melee warriors" it will be "give your whole party bows, disengage every bonus action, kite enemies, and focus fire with arrows or spells." That WILL be the dominant strategy.

I feel very strongly that this is the wrong direction for the game to go in.

[Sniperfox47]

Originally posted by SpicyCrab:

The issue is that, Attacks of opportunity are the primary way that melee characters keep aggro and control enemies. Being able to just... ignore AOP.. for free (90% of the time you do not even need to use your bonus action anyway...) ... is crazy.

There's basically no reason to roll a melee character, unless you think that 'absorbing bonus actions' is a viable thing to build a character around, which it isn't.

As far as I am concerned there is no possible justification for disengage being a bonus action, it is fundamentally broken as a design concept. Also rogues are supposed to have disengage as a special bonus action, so it's a nerf to one of their best abilities.The jumping around is silly and trivializes positioning.

Divinity 2 was a great game but its armor system was fundamentally broken, it basically prohibited you from mixing casters with physical attacks if you wanted to be successful...

By disincentivizing melee weaponry and neutering rogues by taking away their main unique ability... we are in danger of the opposite thing happening in BG3. Instead of "make your whole party two handed melee warriors" it will be "give your whole party bows, disengage every bonus actiobn, run away, and focus fire with arrows or spells." That WILL be the dominant strategy.

I feel very strongly that this is the wrong direction for the game to go in.

I mean your fighters can still move back in and engage since they get free movement... And it adds some variety to their gameplay. Otherwise the turn to turn gameplay for a fighter is "I use Great Weapon Fighting, and attack twice. Oh that attack hit, I use a superiority dice. Okay I'm done." Every. Single. Turn. Unless an enemy is dumb enough to run away and draw an attack of opportunity.

Yes, it removes one of the rogue's bigger benefits but instead they get two bonus actions they can use for these things, and they have far more options to fill those two with.

[SpicyCrab]

I don't get that at all. According to you... the 'bonus' the fighter has is that after your melee opponent that is holding a ranged weapon walks away for free and shoots you with their primary weapon at 0 risk... on your next turn you can walk back over to him (likely through a blazing inferno that deals 10 damage to you on the way...) and then he can just do it again? How is that any better than standing next to him and forcing him to trade blows?

It simply means that engaging with ranged enemies is pointless, there is essentially no disadvantage in standing next to a hostile melee combatant while holding a ranged weapon. C'mon, this is not rocket science; it is just flat out bad design, this has been part of DnD since almost the very beginning. You cannot just walk away from a guy with a sword at your neck for free.

If I have a bow, it works exactly the same as you just described... except now I don't have to chase my enemy through a pool of acid... and I get to do my full damage every turn without risking myself by going near enemies... and hell, if a melee enemy engages with me I will just... walk away for free. Why would I ever use a sword again?

For early Access it's fine but a mechanic this half baked should not make it to release. It's easily, far and away, the worst thing about BG3.

[Sniperfox47]

Originally posted by SpicyCrab:

I don't get that at all. The 'bonus' the fighter has is that after your melee opponent that is holding a ranged weapon walks away for free and shoots you with their primary weapon at 0 risk... you can walk back over to him (likely through a blazing inferno that deals 10 damage to you on the way...) and make him do it again? How is that any better?

It simply means that engaging with ranged enemies is pointless, there is essentially no disadvantage in standing next to a hostile melee combatant while holding a ranged weapon. C'mon, this is not rocket science; it is just flat out bad design.

Hey if I have a bow, it works exactly the same as you just described... except now I don't have to chase my enemy through a pool of acid... and I get to do my full damage every turn without risking myself by going near enemies... and hell, if a melee enemy engages with me I will just... walk away for free. Why would I ever use a sword again?

Umm what? There's no disadvantage to shooting a person with a bow at point blank anyways because if you're playing a bow character you take Close Quarters Shooter fighting style... >.> Why would you ever take a bow user with anything else? And if they move away to shoot you they aren't also placing acid between them and you since that would be an additional action. Or you just... disengage out of the acid... in which case you have burned their action for a bonus action...

If Disengage was an action it would instead just cost you a full action to get out of that acid pit...

And why would you use swords? Maybe because they do more damage? And because they threaten the opponent and prevent heavy hitting enemies moving up into your defensive line?

Lae'zel and my custom Wizard are both primarily front line melee fighters/spellcasters and they're the two most useful characters I have...

[hairyscotsman]

Originally posted by Holy Athena:

Originally posted by dulany67:

The way Larian builds combat encounters almost requires more mobility. From a D&D rules perspective it might be bad, but without disengage and jump the game would be less enjoyable.

They just need to add DnD rules into Jump and Disengange.. It needs to have stat checks when doing it, not for free, unless its a very specific spell, like some of the mages warp spells, or blink spells. (Forget their names sorry). That's what's supposed to give these spells such uniqueness and power. The ablity for the mages to teleport to safety if they get jumped on.

Jump should be an Agility check vs the opponent.

Disengage should be a DEX check.

This makes Rogues/Rangers good at disengaging via Disengage, and or Jump, but Front line's not as good as they shouldn't be, like Warriors, Paladins, etc. Their checks should stop people from disengaging as easily though.

It's not hard to keep it in as it is, but have stat checks if engaged with an enemy.

If you fail the stat check the enemy gets to make a free swing at you. (This is how other versions of the rules work, and I like it).

I like it, shame it's not official. For a few seconds I thought that might be how 5e actually did that.

[SpicyCrab]

Originally posted by Sniperfox47:

A bunch of stuff...

Running away from melee attackers should have a cost... and the fact that Player characters and certain special NPCs might mitigate *some* of the inherent disadvantages of ranged weapons by taking specific feats actually bolsters my point significantly.

For example: Why would I even bother taking Close Quarters Shooter in BG3? I can't do attacks of opportunity anyway because my enemy will just... disengage... walk away... and shoot me. And the other bonuses it gives are largely pointless because... hey, if someone is too close to me I will just... disengage, walk away, and shoot them! Why would I ever take such a useless feat?

Beyond that, even if I take point blank shooter in tabletop... I still draw attacks of opportunity when I try to run from melee attacks.. that means if I want to be safe, I have to use my disengage action to escape their threat range. Now I can't attack on the same turn. There was a price for my safety! Now that's pod racing!

[His Quivzness]

Have to agree with disengage being too powerful. It costs too little and allows you to too much mobility in combat as is. Should be an action for everyone but rogue. I think it would be okay if jump was a bonus action rather than just part of movement as it is in 5e, but it should draw attacks of opportunity if used without first disengaging OR if used to jump over someone to get a backstab.

[SpicyCrab]

Originally posted by His Quivzness:

Have to agree with disengage being too powerful. It costs too little and allows you to too much mobility in combat as is. Should be an action for everyone but rogue. I think it would be okay if jump was a bonus action rather than just part of movement as it is in 5e, but it should draw attacks of opportunity if used without first disengaging OR if used to jump over someone to get a backstab.

This, 100%, it's a simple problem with a simple and somewhat obvious fix. but the fact that Larian was very reluctant to put decent Attacks of opportunity into Divinity 2 (they require a feat to trigger at all and are generally quite weak...) ; it worries me that they will miss the memo.