The writer got mad when a goblin shoved Astarion off a cliff. It reminded me of when I had Karlach shove a goblin in lava, then a goblin ran up and shoved HER in the lava. I didnāt get mad; I took it as a learning moment: enemies can shove me back, so move away from the lava.
The author really loved the sound of their own voice. Iām a dozen paragraphs in and thereās not an actual argument to back up the assertion that āitās not funā besides combat being ātediousā. I mean, look, I gave up 5e in favor of other systems after the OGL disaster and havenāt looked back, but this is a garbage tier article and Iām surprised it made it through Polygons editors, given how many of their writers and members have been espousing their joy for the game. Criticism is great, but āitās not any goodā just seems lazy and contrarian for contrarian sake.
5e is a bad table top game, but thatās part of whatās made it so successful - itās not treated as a game unto itself anymore, but just some loose guidelines to help generate setpieces, and people like that.
But also BG3 seems to recognize this and actually fills in the broken or missing game elements, just like everyoneās DM does whenever they come across these gaps. It takes an opinionated approach to implementing the rules, and does so with the confidence of years of building CRPGs.
Itās an impressive feat.
5e is a bad table top game
No itās not. Everybody loved 5e before the OGL fiasco early this year, but the hardcore old-schoolers who found it too simplified. The recent bad sentiment is about poor business moves by WotC regarding their license, and has nothing to do with the 5e system, which has been to date the most successful edition of dnd.
Being popular and being a good game are completely different things. Being fun and being a good game are different things. Being useful and being a good game are different things.
Iām not making a value judgement on whether 5e is likeable. I like 5e. Itās just that itās not a complete and coherent experience.
Argument ad populum doesnāt change that.
Right. Gladly, youāre here to explain those masses of idiots who are having fun why they should not. Youāre just being pedantic. And for the record, no, it doesnāt make you sound smart.
The only thing that I would say is missing from BG3 is a more comprehensive encyclopedia of game and class mechanics a la the Owlcat Pathfinder games. Being able to see all the things a class would get ahead of time would be hella dope and help with character planning.
I feel like the game really, really, really needs an āIāve Never Played D&Dā mode - one that actually explains what the terms and such means. It took me forever to figure out what things like ā1d6ā in weapons meant, and Iām still not completely sure what a ācantripā exactly is.
Cantrips are just spells that donāt use spell slots. No further explanation needed
And this info is nowhere.
To be honest I think they have a really good point, in that the game _isnāt _ a dungeon master and it isnāt going to have the sort of creative leeway that a real DM could give you. Butā¦ no shit, itās not a real DM. Nobody expected it to be one. It is a video game, and a damn good one at that, and while it does its absolute damnedest to give you as much creative freedom as possible itāll never possibly be able to match up to your buddy Frankie telling you to make an athletics check to slam-dunk the goblin through his own war drum.
But this author sounds like they frequently try forā¦ Letās say, non-standard approaches, and bothers the DM about it until they allow it. Or, alternatively, the DM is just awesome and has rule of cool take priority over nearly any other rule (I admit I am guilty of this sometimes). Itās not necessarily a bad thing but the author is comparing apples and tomatoes by comparing the video game Baldurās Gate 3 with the tabletop game Dungeons and Dragons. Sure, theyāre just about the same color, but the similarities end there.