Am I crazy for thinking the game would be better if it didn't try at all to cater to DnD 5e?

[Gabriot]

Look I know I'm in the minority here since the game has such great ratings, and hey if you love the game as is more power to you - I'd say don't even read on from here as you may as well keep on enjoying the game and don't let my sourness awaken something in you that might spoil your own fun.

With that out of the way...

For the rest of us that don't really feel this game is "up to snuff" for either a Larian title or a BG title, I have honestly been feeling that the way they tried to shove DnD 5e over the top of the DOS engine just makes both "systems" worse in the end.

I absolutely love BG1/2 and DOS1/2, both BG2 and DOS2 are in my top 10 games of all time easily. I remember playing DOS1/2 and thinking these truly are the spiritual successors to Baldur's Gate, much moreso than other title that technically play more similarly to the originals such as Pillars of Eternity.

To me - and I know this is crazy - the strong point of BG2 was never the fact that it used DnD 2e as the system for combat. In all honesty, I thought it was the worst aspect of the game, and again I know how crazy I am for saying this seeing as it is a "Baldur's Gate" game set in the Sword Coast, but hey I can't help how I feel.

DnD just doesn't work for video games, at least non-roguelite games. I mean this both for combat and for general story progression. Those rolls are fine in the tabletop game because often you're playing a fresh new campaign and the DM has infinite possibilities available to them w/ how to handle what your low or high rolls mean for the story.

I don't like it at all in BG3 however. It's not like "rolling low" is ever fun in any way, shape or form here. It doesn't open up a different branch of play for your story in 99% of all cases, all it does is close down branches from being able to be played in the campaign, or at the very least closes down elements of the story from being ever revealed to you (or just character development for some major/minor characters). It's just all in all frustrating to deal with.

And then in combat, the weird attempt at forcing as many DnD rules as possible while still using the meat of the DOS system just makes it feel... wonky as hell. Advantage/disadvantage is a prime example - it's so easy to simply walk to the back of an enemy, or to find high ground, and the advantage you gain is on par with spells and abilities that cost an entire spell slot to achieve. There's also the terrain manipulation which is again just feeling very out of place as it often feels very overtuned, the only way to scale it back would be to literally nerf the radius lower than the DnD ruleset allows, at that point it seems you're fighting against your original intent.

I also have to say resting after each battle to restore spell slots... look I get it that's how DnD works, but for a "video game" like this I just think it kills immersion. You don't have to rest after each battle in DOS, your spells just have Cooldowns. That works soooo much better for a video game, and also allows rogue/warrior type characters the opportunity to be far more interesting in combat than they end up being in BG3 (which half the time is just an auto attacker).

The combat just feels like such a step back from DOS2, in every which way. Even BG2 didn't follow DnD rules that closely, hell it wasn't even turn based. I wish they just kept BG3's battle system far more closer to DOS2, they could still have all the same spells but just figure out CDs and tune the stats appropriately, it is in the Sword Coast universe after all, but it could just be "inspired" by DnD rather than try to shove a round peg in a square hole.

Well that's my rant anyway, I know it's far too late for the game to actually go this route (probably) but in a perfect world that's how I'd wish the game were changed. You can still have a great BG3 game without forcing it to follow DnD so closely.

[GRRz|Snake]

1 huge thing for me is the new dialogue system (like witcher 3/dao)which shows your char zoomed in, makes the game more immersive and the dialogue more fun and less boring.

the 2nd one is the actual class system...now we have classes with restrictions , flavor and lore.

3rd one is the less environmental effects/surfaces....which makes the game better and less chaotic imo, which i prefer. So i can focus more on my own skills...

DnD 5e makes the combat less chaotic which i actually prefer tbh...

plus the game feels more dark to me....which i like.


BG3 feels more RPG for me than DOS2... which is why i prefer BG3 over DOS2....

[BW022]

Originally posted by Gabriot:

Look I know I'm in the minority here...

All the more reason to voice your opinions.

I don't like it at all in BG3 however. It's not like "rolling low" is ever fun in any way, shape or form here. It doesn't open up a different branch of play for your story in 99% of all cases, all it does is close down branches from being able to be played in the campaign, or at the very least closes down elements of the story from being ever revealed to you (or just character development for some major/minor characters). It's just all in all frustrating to deal with.

You've already said that PnP D&D doesn't really rely on dice rolls. Most non-combat encounters are role played with millions of possible actions. No D&D party ever relies on a jump check to cross a 15' wide, 200' deep chasm. They chop down a tree and roll it across the chasm, or make a rope bridge, or at least tie a rope around their waists so they don't fall to their deaths.

Lots of discussions on practical ways BG3 should simulate this outside of combat rather than strict dice rolls -- more dialog paths with skill checks determining the path and not the outcome, chains of checks, options to gain alternate options likely to have success, meta-game (cinematic) the encounter rather than giving choices, just have lesser negative effects, give options for having skills (or hidden checks), etc., etc. Many of these aren't necessarily that hard to implement.

And then in combat, the weird attempt at forcing as many DnD rules as possible while still using the meat of the DOS system just makes it feel... wonky as hell. Advantage/disadvantage is a prime example - it's so easy to simply walk to the back of an enemy, or to find high ground, and the advantage you gain is on par with spells and abilities that cost an entire spell slot to achieve.

And you just proved the opposite. In 5e D&D you do not get advantage/disadvantage for flanking or for height. Larian made this up. All the poor results and game play resulting from those decisions is entirely on them. It is also foreseeable the effects these rules would have -- you could play them out in a PnP game in a few hours and see the balance issues. This is why many 5e PnP want the rules much closer to the core rules because the core rules don't have these issues.

You can easily go and play Solasta and see how differently the game plays using much closer rules.

I also have to say resting after each battle to restore spell slots... look I get it that's how DnD works, but for a "video game" like this I just think it kills immersion. You don't have to rest after each battle in DOS, your spells just have Cooldowns.

Again, you are just proving the opposite. These are not core 5e rules. 5e doesn't allow you to rest in the middle of no where after every fight. Anyone camping in the middle of an goblin complex would be immediately attacked by every goblin in the place. Larian simply choose to allow you to rest at any time. Why?

We can only guess. However, it looks like the law of unintended consequences. They choose to implement a bunch of rules (hide and disengage as a bonus action, height giving advantage/disadvantage, etc. probably to highlight aspects of the DOS engine), then they discovered that players could easily abuse such rules against the monsters and combats were too easy. So... they then ramp up the monsters to insane levels (30hp goblins?). And now you end up with a rock-paper-scissors encounters -- if you know and use the Larian-rules... you can walk through encounters which PnP players would have no hope of, but if you don't know the Larian rules... they slaughter you with you having no hope. This is not how PnP D&D players out or else no one could be playing it.

Again, go play Solasta (if you don't want to play a PnP game) and notice these issues don't exist. The rules run fine. Classes are balanced. The rest system works and makes more sense. You can employ different tactics. Stealth and barrels won't win a combat for you every time. Combat runs much faster. They game plays much differently if you run through with different classes or take different spells.

The combat just feels like such a step back from DOS2, in every which way. Even BG2 didn't follow DnD rules that closely, hell it wasn't even turn based. I wish they just kept BG3's battle system far more closer to DOS2, they could still have all the same spells but just figure out CDs and tune the stats appropriately, it is in the Sword Coast universe after all, but it could just be "inspired" by DnD rather than try to shove a round peg in a square hole.

Or they could implement the rules correctly and they would have a balanced, predictable system without all sorts of goofy side effects. And if anyone says there are any technical or balance reasons the rules won't work if implemented in a video game... you have Solasta.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Gabriot:

Well that's my rant anyway, I know it's far too late for the game to actually go this route (probably) but in a perfect world that's how I'd wish the game were changed. You can still have a great BG3 game without forcing it to follow DnD so closely.

I agree. The dnd ruins the game. The game otherwise, bugs aside is great fun.

[Diablerie]

wouldn't have even considered this title if it wasn't 5e. Now if it were a full on sequel to DoS2? sure, but if this were just some stand alone game? nah.

[Coldhands]

If they're not going to cater at all to 5e, Larian should just make DoS3. But if they're going to make a D&D game, and a Baldur's Gate game, then they really need design it from the ground up as those things, and not try to cram some of D&D's rules work into Original Sin and throw in a couple references to the events of BG1 and 2. Right now, BG3 really can't decide if it's D&D or DoS, and it's not really a great version of either, and it certainly doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate.

I agree that this game shouldn't try to perfectly replicate D&D 5e in a video game, because it's a video game and 5e was designed as a tabletop game, so it doesn't make a great video game if you port it over RaW. But the changes BG3 makes to 5e's rules need to be in service of making it a better D&D video game, not because X is how it's always been done in DoS.

[Alealexi]

I don't know what you guys see that makes this a DOS game. I've played this game and not once did I think this was DOS. It maybe the barrelmancy that you can't look past or maybe you are stuck on the RTS style of BG simiar to Warcraft, Starcraft, or Pathfinder Kingmaker. You have to learn to adapt like you do in D&D game. If I remember correctly there were alot of people that also complained about this BG 1&2 being D&D inspired but not a 2e D&D game like most wished it was. Simple fact is that back then they didn't have the technology to emulate a D&D game on PC so they probably went with RTS since that was popular at the time. This game is fun an easy to play and as far as I can see it that you guys don't like table top games as all I hear is to follow the same path of the old BG RTS like Pathfinder Kingmaker did. I think that this game should not for the path of RTS games. So far they are doing an amazing job with the mechanics since it feels like a homebrew 5e game. Hell at least rangers are more playable in this games than in 5e tabletop which is a plus for me.

[Arlen]

Originally posted by Alealexi:

I don't know what you guys see that makes this a DOS game. I've played this game and not once did I think this was DOS. It maybe the barrelmancy that you can't look past or maybe you are stuck on the RTS style of BG simiar to Warcraft, Starcraft, or Pathfinder Kingmaker. You have to learn to adapt like you do in D&D game. If I remember correctly there were alot of people that also complained about this BG 1&2 being D&D inspired but not a 2e D&D game like most wished it was. Simple fact is that back then they didn't have the technology to emulate a D&D game on PC so they probably went with RTS since that was popular at the time. This game is fun an easy to play and as far as I can see it that you guys don't like table top games as all I hear is to follow the same path of the old BG RTS like Pathfinder Kingmaker did. I think that this game should not for the path of RTS games. So far they are doing an amazing job with the mechanics since it feels like a homebrew 5e game. Hell at least rangers are more playable in this games than in 5e tabletop which is a plus for me.

everything that has a divinity root in concept can be exploited easily. I have no problem with Larian trying to mesh the two systems, I want to see them succeed at this, because I believe if done correctly, in a way that balances the game, would make an incredible game.

Take the Ranger class for example, I agree, if you play the way it's supposed to be played, the changes are absolutely awesome - The problem you start running into is , it is absolutely easy to exploit the stealth/range/height adavantage mechanics. Creatures will stand in whatever surface effect arrow you shoot at them, most time without initiating combat. So they will immolate themselves (if you created a fire surface) without even acknowledging they are being attacked.

It would not be so bad if it was just 1 or 2 exploits, but there are a ton of exploits that are easy peasy to abuse, mostly due to divinity concepts.