Controversial Opinion: 5e isn't great for CRPG?

[lazarusblack]

First off, this isn't a thread to knock Larian.

I know some people are going to come in hot, right out the gate having read the title and I'm sure to receive an abundance of clowns. I humbly accept your scorn (and the points)

But I'm asking for a genuine conversation and not just ♥♥♥♥ flinging.

I'm generally finding many of the 5e mechanics as Larian has interpreted them, underwhelming. I wasn't much of a fan of 5e anyway, so it's entirely possible I'm heavily biased here and so I'd love to hear some advocates make a compelling case for why 5e is better IN CRPG FORMAT than previous editions. I recognise it has benefits in terms of table top, expecially for new comers and those that aren't as invested in the meta.

But while I'm enjoying playing BG3, I'm finding certain aspects of the game... not good. That isn't to say that Larian haven't done something worthwhile with the material but that the material just doesn't have the same impact in CRPG format as perhaps it does in TT.

Just in terms of character development. The whole system feels so empty. I gave up playing a martial class pretty quickly as there really seemed little to decide upon at level up and class progression is pretty binary/boring.

I find myself comparing BG3 and 5e to WoTR and Pathfinder 1st edition which is close to DnD 3.5e and it's hands down a less engaging system. I know it isn't this bad in TT. I mean the same issue exists there, but it isn't as stark as it appears to be here.

There are other examples I could give, but hopefully that's enough to get the conversation going and finding out what other people think.

[Kahi - Flavious Vile]

I really missed having more choices when levelling as well. Didn't really feel like there were many at all. By the time I had hit 12 with Zel, I had maybe 4 or 5 total choices, though two of those were due to Paladin, one was Battle Master, and a few feats that simply increased initative. Priests and Wizard was pretty much the same, felt more or less like I was autoleveling my characters.

[Banelord]

not controversial at all. far left cant create anything interesting.

[lazarusblack]

Yes, exactly that. I felt much the same way. Even with a sorcerer which has meaningful spell choices, I didn't really feel like there was much to decide upon. The feats in game are very uninspired I felt. Nothing really had any character or flavour.

[Ignosius]

I feel like 5e has been simplified so hard there's barely any game there anymore. It's mostly just background for the DM to tell a story and make up rules as he goes.

The whole advantage/disadvantage system is one of the peak examples of this. It's so poorly defined it's basically anything goes.

Seems like Pathfinder is going to be the go-to for this type of game from now on.

[lazarusblack]

Originally posted by Ignosius:

I feel like 5e has been simplified so hard there's barely any game there anymore. It's mostly just background for the DM to tell a story and make up rules as he goes.

The whole advantage/disadvantage system is one of the peak examples of this. It's so poorly defined it's basically anything goes.

Seems like Pathfinder is going to be the go-to for this type of game from now on.

It does seem to have had all the rough edges smoothed out. Which is where so much of the character came from.

It does seem like the shortcomings of the ruleset are on full display here.

[Naked Granny]

It's not controversial at all.

The tabletop community is more united than literally any other subculture about anything: D&D 5e sucks. It's a commercial success. It has a plurality of marketshare. But the majority of tabletop players can't stand it, and those who use it only use it because they are afraid they can't find any games for other systems (which isn't true, but I digress).

It's definitely a truly terrible mechanical system for a CRPG. Objectively. Provably.

But we wouldn't have a Baldur's Gate game without it using D&D because it's owned by WotC / Hasbro.

[wei270]

while 5e may be a bit under whelming, but larian did a fine job with them.

the other alternative to look at is pathfinder, and that one is so overwhelming i refuse to buy the sec game because it would be too hard to optimize the character with all the mystic features.

lets be honest no one really wants pathfinder , and wish 5e would have a little more feature. and this is where we are at.

[x_equals_speed]

I like 5e but I have to agree, it's not best suited to a CRPG. A lot of it seems intended to give the DM more freedom at the table to allow players to follow through on their ideas (In contrast to "You can't do that because there's a feat for it and you don't have it). That's not something that translates well when there's a computer DMing.

Conversely I didn't find 4e a great game around the table but I think it'd make an incredible CRPG!

It's a shame that the most successful tabletop rules get more computer game translation, because what makes a good comptuer game and what makes a good tabletop game don't perfectly line up.

[Klutch]

considering what 5e is, I think Larian did an outstanding job

[Mr Fred]

Its not controversial at all its called the common sense opinion. Game was entertaining but damn it was shallow all the way through being limited by a barebone ruleset and has NOWHERE near the replayability of Wrath of the Righteous.

[Lamp]

Totally agree.

Am familiar with 3.5e, not so much with 5e. Seems very simplified and geared towards combat, (or the BG3 version of 5e seems that way at least.) Where 3.5 was more about roleplay/life in a fantasy world.

[n#n#m#]

I think it's fine for an entry-lvl, more mainstream cRPG. Although Solasta did a better job with it than BG3.

[Zogtar]

Originally posted by Ismael Clowndova:

not controversial at all. far left cant create anything interesting.

Incorrect tribalism.

[NzFox]

Originally posted by ideyaf1x:

I think it's fine for an entry-lvl, more mainstream cRPG. Although Solasta did a better job with it than BG3.

I would agree to that, I prefer BG3 over solasta as a game but the latter was a better 5e conversion.

[dulany67]

It's very arguable that DOS2 is a better system for a computer game (or Deadfire). But not all games need to be the same.