I'm worried about it too. So much so that I'm going to wait for reviews. I'm expecting it'll be a buggy mess for at launch anyway, considering it's Bethesda, the delays, and the unusually high minimum specs listed.

And the recent D&D movie was basically free advertising for Larian.

Indeed, DnD has been catching my interest but have never known any players, and jumping in the DM role is daunting. BG3 lets me play something very close to DnD without any hassle.

Camera was still complete shit in DOS2, they must not play their own game, because how they think that it's acceptable is beyond me. Thank fuck for modders though, their camera mods make the games so so so much more enjoyable (even if the camera still has the larian jank attached).

They should just give people free cam, let me look around wherever I want and stop taking control of it to try and focus on actions, I am constantly wrestling with the camera for no reason. Bizarre they kept it like this.

I didn't even know who Larian was before BG3 blew up lol, I can't get into isometric either nor turn-based combat, I'm mainly a MMORPG player, but when I saw reviews for this game and AAA devs shitting on it I decided to buy it and give it an honest try.

I fell in love with it immediately, still struggling a bit with mechanics but I'm learning :D

Imagine more battlefield manipulation, more pushes and pulls. And a bit more dangerous ground

Ok, I'm imagining something much more complicated than it needs to be. I just want to kill goblins, not win the battle of Waterloo!

I do agree with the person you're replying to, in that I'm not a huge fan of DnD mechanics - "works ok-ish" is what I would also say about them. It does do its job just fine, so this isn't a big issue by any means.

Related to game mechanics in BG3, my personal issues are as follows:

1. Heavy reliance on RNG in combat. In turn-based games, I always prefer game mechanics which work as I planned, maybe with small variance (i.e. look at Advance Wars). Basically I prefer when my planning is the part determining how the combat flows (damage or cc? Which target? Where do I move to?) - there'll always be some "I'm not sure what happens on next round" due to just not being able to know what the enemies will do on their turn, so I don't really need even more RNG in the form of hit/miss (& save) rolls. Basically: chess is a good game as it is, I wouldn't want to have a 50-50 coin toss determining if I can kill a unit or not.

   • I do think that some form of randomness is fine, but I don't like that there's just so many layers of RNG in all things. Damage abilities: first roll if you hit or miss, and if you hit, then the damage variance is often like 5d6 (5 to 30) - it's almost like doing two rolls to figure out if you actually deal any notable amount of damage or not.

2. Practically everything related to the resting mechanic. I really feel like I would enjoy the game more if I just had fully recharged spells (and other stuff) in the beginning of any fight - and obviously then balance the game with that in mind. Where needed, devs could tag a certain area as "no resets here" so you know you'll be forced to do a couple of fights in a row without resets.

   • One reason making me think this way is just the amount of available food, since you get more than enough resources to do a full rest after practically any fight anyway - so now it just becomes a QoL issue. It's not "do I want to use my resources to reset here?", in practice the choice is just "do I want to spend a couple of minutes going through loading screens?".
   • If there was less food available so that you'd need to be careful about when/where you do a full rest, progress through the game would be: go forward until you fail a fight, load the game, do a full rest, fight with full resources - this really doesn't sound fun in practice. I don't think there's a way to implement this style of a resting mechanic in such a way that I'd personally like it (at least without changing a lot more about the game).

I do want to finish this with another disclaimer that I do think BG3 is a great game, and these are really just minor issues - I completed it yesterday and enjoyed my time for the whole ~120 hours. But my two biggest issues that I can point out about the game's mechanics are both just base mechanics of DnD.

I know very little about DnD so I don't know what you're talking about, but if you mean more difficult or complicated, please no, I'm mainly a MMORPG player, having more complicated mechanics would make it almost impossible for me to get into this game.

I believe BG3 is attracting a wider audience than pure DnD/cRPG players, having it accessible is a very good thing IMO.

4E would have been a mess. Non DnD players already struggle with the mechanics of 5e in BG3, trying to get them used to 4e would have been worse. But I really hope DnD One is coming out soon and the next project will use that. That should get rid of the biggest issues of 5e, mainly that just a handful of builds are "competitive". Not having to take Great Weapon Master as a fighter anymore is something I am so looking forward to.

Public trading ruins every company in every industry, not only gaming, lets hope Larian doesn't fall in that trap.

If you're like me and wondering what was ever good about the Electronic Arts model, here it means Early Access

Well, I decided to roll a nature loving ranger who speaks to animals and very early on in the game I absolutely wrecked a very notable animal npc. Whelp, I'm evil now.