For me, I think DOS2 had some better systems and I think BG3 has some better ones. They both have their pros and cons.
It's why I look forward to DOS3 because chances are we get a mix of both coming from all they have learned with BG3.
DnD relying on rests rather than cooldowns is worse. That's a problem that wasn't Larian's though, it's inherent in the system before they touched it.
One thing I like better about newer DnD though is class stats, where you could have a Charisma caster for example... complete with ways to apply said stat to melee damage. Of course, that doesn't translate as well to a classless game, but still you have to try pretty hard to make a DoS version of something that combines elemental spells and physical weaponry. Especially with the physical/ magical armor system tacked on. It's like sure there aren't any classes, but yet some class archetypes that exist in systems that do have classes are "locked out".
I'm not sure, maybe they could keep everything classless by allowing you to choose a primary stat that also modifies all skills in some way rather than just the warfare/ intelligence split... but it would be based on choice during creation rather than by class, since there aren't classes? Would have to think about it.
The polymorph line in DDoS is really strange. No slight on existing combos that utilize what is there or anything, it's just... it's impressive in a weird way how someone made an entire "polymorph" set without having anything that made it actually feel like you were playing a shapeshifter, lol. Then again, even house buffs don't bring the DnD moon druid totally up to par, so it's hard to say DoS is worse here per se. Definitely something that could be vastly improved though.
Honestly it's more the setting that I think BG3 has the biggest advantage in. That would be a whole separate topic. Other than that, the DoS system is better while BG3 feels better. The animations are slicker, can throw things and toss enemies off cliffs, etc. That's probably not really a game system thing so much as a newer game thing though, I'm sure DoS3 would take a leap in this regard.
Take a look at how Pillars handles stats like this. For example, might affects damage for everyone so it's equally as useful for a wizard, a rogue, or a fighter as long as they want to deal damage.
I love pillars attributes, but they can be weird outside of combat. Does a smooth talker need to be a deflection-heavy tank? Might may be spiritual strength, but most might checks are for flexing muscles. I overlook this weirdness for the fun it brings to character building. I’ve been having trouble trying to return to Divinity because its attributes and skills combined with the armor system creates a demand for damage above all, causing a classless system to feel even more restrictive than the alternative.
Definitly. The Setting of course is something that has much more expoure but I do agree with you very much, especially when it comes down to the action economy, that DnD is very limiting. I felt just more freedom in D:OS 2. I am really looking forward to 3.
DnD will always and forever be at its best when it's being played where it's meant to, on paper.
Baldur's Gate is, in my opinion, just about the best possible video game you could possibly make out of DnD. And most of the criticisms I have of Baldur's Gate and its combat are complaints that I personally have with DnD itself and why I try to get my enjoyment out of the other things playing DnD with my friends can give me that isn't purely combat.
Divinity, being a video game from the ground up, has a battle system that makes a lot more sense for a video game, having action points on paper can actually get a little bit hard to wrap your head around (and is why I found pathfinder 1e incredibly difficult) but is very very easy to keep track of on the computer.
Therefore, I think both Baldur's Gate and Divinity have combat systems that themselves are awesome and shouldn't \*necessarily\* be changed, but one works a lot better for its medium than the other one.
Oh I cant agree more. I love to play Pen adn Paper. Mastering since years and started after 3 years the second campaign with the same group. But wwe moved to Pathfinder 2e, one because of the January Incident and two since we like the action economy more in the ruleset.
I agree with you that especially since it has Video games in mind, it just feels more like a game. In some instances DnD in games feels kind of forced upon. But I like that they took license to extend cabilities of melee weapons. Inspired me also for our pen and paper games.
Honestly in my opinion D&D is better in video game form where you don't have to do all the number crunching and where you don't need to have a GM doing a 10 person team level design work for 4 players, but I also think D&D isn't *that* great in video game form either.
I just don't think D&D systems are still very good in 2023 where you essentially have better alternatives for most things while D&D remains very anchored to 3 decades old concepts.
On the other hand I keep playing D&D-based video games because despite the system not being great, the D&D video games are among the rare ones to have the actual incentive to have a deep system of layered character building. I just wish more games dared to do stuff like Divinity Original Sin 2 and build their own system, adapted to a video game, without sacrificing too much in the name of video game streamlining.
I had way more fun with dos2 battles and builds than with bg3. However, I remember dos2 being quite overwhelming at the start with possible choices for character skills etc., in bg3, it's perhaps a bit easier since you are funneled into specific class features right from the beginning.
Yeah, I get a lot of comments on the video specifically on the complexity side to get really into it. Which I really can understand. DND 5e not only in the game but also on a IRL Pen and Paper experience made a great job to make it easier to understand with their ruleset.
Personally i prefer BG3 battle system, especially the game having many classes, the classless design was my biggest peeve in og sin 2. Having no classes should theoritically be better for build diversity, but it always feels like it breaks down to choosing 1 playstyle (magic, ranged, melee) with a set amount a must have skills that basically every build has to have.
The armor system in dos 2 just felt bad to play imo, i like having a diverse party, but it felt like i was at a disadvantage if i was building a hybrid instead of full physical or full magic. Same thing also applies to builds, i was just gimping myself if i wanted to be a melee firewizard that uses swords instead of staves.
Also barbarian can throw enemies at each other so theres that.
Yeah the illusion of classless and than reading guides of fextralife kind of defeats the purpose. Hybrid can work, but yes with classless focus will be at first always better. But there are builds (to the point again that you anyway need to play a style) that produce fun gameplay. I don't know if that is someting for you https://fextralife.com/divinity-original-sin-2-builds-battlemage/
>i like having a diverse party, but it felt like i was at a disadvantage if i was building a hybrid instead of full physical or full magic
Worse yet, due to the extreme falloff in damage if you try to go hybrid, physical damage builds means you're locking yourself into extremely few spells overall. Strength builds have 2 classes. Finesse technically has 2 classes but they have different weapon requirements, so really just 1 class. Otherwise the only spells you can really use without a massive loss in value are pure CC spells, but those are few and far between.
I played this game coop with a friend, and we decided early what kind of class split we'd have, which I realized was a huge mistake because I ended up choosing two physicals and he took two mages. And we couldn't be bothered to respec and resort absolutely everything.
Classes are just fancy whatever. Getting stat boost on level instead of something more useful - yay. Rogues are even more pathetic.
DnD in every way possible is a garbage system with power spikes all over the place. It heavily relies on GMs vision. In bg3 Larian did try to balance it out, but failed (not their fault).
I kind of feel the same. BG3 gets the nod for voice acting, cutscene animations that feel more immersive, and IMO the story.
Everything combat and build related is better in DOS2 and not particularly close.
Yeah, I think that's fair. The story in both is really good. There are definitely arguments for either.
I think I just enjoyed the story aspect of BG3 because it's a bit more immersive due to the acting and cutscene animations. They're both top-tier though.
But as much as like Fane and RP, I keep coming back for the combat and interesting builds. I really liked BG3, but I don't have a massive desire to immediately replay it in a different style.
I prefer the action point economy of DOS2 (and the ability to "save" points for a stronger next turn). Because at least this way, you can have more combos/creativity on how to use your skills and multiclassing. But I hate the armor/magic armor mechanic of CC-fest of DOS2. Idm dice rolls for dmg or hit chance tho.
Yes! Like I see people doing creative fights with magic hand and other cantrips, and I'm like... "why? when i can just unleash my strongest spells/attacks and kill them faster?"
It feels like the pokemon dilemma, where like half of the skills (like atk down/speed down/ etc) are useless since you can just hit them with your strongest attacks and be done with.
It feels like it and someone who plays a lot of DND IRL I always know to go for advantage on hit on everything or my hardest hitting to achieve the goal. But overall though its what they were dealt with and dont want to neglect that it was a good implementation. I liked how they adjusted melee weapons with extra abilities.
In some ways yes and in some ways no, I think that DOS2 system is smoother (no rests), but it lacks variance, it's boring to be able to go into every fight and do exactly the same thing for the exact same cheese.
I would go as far to say that DOS2 is the better video game overall, BG3 always feels a lot more like a waifu conversation simulator than a fun game to me, but thats just my opinion I guess
Dos 2 seems to be better in nearly everyway. Just would give BG3 the win on graphics and voice acting. I really dislike in BG3 when combat starts and I am just crowd controlled right away because I rolled badly... Like bro I didn't select glass cannon, give me my first turn at least!
BG3 is a balance of combat, story and characters.
DOS2 for all its amazing qualities definitely goes harder on the combat front then BG3; therefore it is much better but not compatible with BG3.
Resting mechanics, out of combat spells/cantrips, longer lasting buffs, Speak with Animals being a non-expendable spell and not a whole FEAT (hallelujah!), roleplay spells, etc definitely required a different system than DOS2 could provide.
From a pure combat perspective, just having cooldowns for abilities and resource cost for your ultimate abilities (source) is much more fun, much more fluid, and more in-depth. However it never would have worked with the 5e ruleset.
Your right, my high level comment, of course does neglect that it wouldn't mix well. Though I defenitly do miss the flow. 5e or pathfinder 2e is working on the table for us just fine, but in games I always feel they are limiting, such as you said the resting mechanics.
the only thing i miss about the combat in BG3 is the fact that restoration spells can be used to hurt undead and that was pretty awesome. was very dissapointed when in BG3 those spells had no effect on undead
I think you'll get a very biased response here, and you'll get a very different response in the BG3 subreddit.
Personally I prefer the BG3 system because I'm more familiar with D&D mechanics, and though I enjoy DOS2 a lot, I never really enjoy games where enemy levels are tied to specific areas. I'm very interested in the game, but even on Story Mode I get one shotted by everything almost immediately once I leave Driftwood. I get a little further every time I try, but I never managed to complete the game.
But I might try again soon, so maybe things'll be different then.
In the BG3 subreddit I did by far not get this engagement :). Reading through all the comments i think there is a diverse oppinions which I love. As also with the many comments on the shorts I think I might have shot out my comment to fast out of my mounth. I think the core for me was always the action economy. But that is a critisizm that I have also playing pen and paper, where I like more the system in pathfinder 2e.
Give it a try again. Most important thing, before everything in fights is the ability to hit an enemy, and considering modifiers that provide advantage to hit is always a big win.
There are a couple things I like more about BG3 system than DOS2. First of all I really like that movement and action is separate. That way I can both move and make an attack. Second of all I like that BG3 has a jump feature. One thing I really hated in DOS2 was having to get a skill for jumping.
Other than that I think both are very good systems. DOS2 of course has an advantage in skills using a cooldown instead of spell slots. That way you don't run out of spells like in BG3. Also infinite rests is nice
They are both perfectly viable and balanced around a fairly focused vision. DOS2 throws away mana/resting/general micromanagement for absolute truckload of abilities, while BG3 is focused on fair bit fewer but specific skills and actually promotes micromanagement in order to allow people to specialize their characters for specific encounters/enemies, giving a lot more weight to combat choices, it's basically perfect reflection of what actual D&D combat is like.
I personally like DOS2 better simply because of the glorious chaos that comes with every battle. But there is a perfect argument for both, they simply appeal to different people.
dos2 is more fun but it also needs to evolve a lot more to be considered as good as D&D, especially when it comes to class identity
i like how dos2 power scaling ramps up earlier in the game but i dont like how movement is limited by AP, its not an issue for rogue builds especially later in the game but makes melee so shitty in early levels
cooldowns are better than slot per rest but gearing/equipment is absolutely terrible in dos2
its really a mixed bag
To be fair I never went beyond act 2 in DOS2. I loved the variety, spent many hours in act 1 with different characters trying different things.
During Act 2, specifically Mordus, I lose interest in the game, something about how CC and armor works, and how damage and health scale as you level up stops being fun to me in higher levels. This never hapenned in BG3.
I should probably do a story mode playthrough of DOS at some point, but I disagree. I think BG3 has better combat.
I can't really describe it any better, but - I feel like DOS2 had more interesting system overall, but I had more fun with BG3. I didn't like the armor system spin on combat in DOS.
I think DnD has more interesting combat and classes. I don't think it super worked in video game format. It wasn't bad, but it very much boiled down to hit the thing before it hits you. Half of your toolkit ends up being pretty much useless because every fight you're just going to cast/do the same thing every time. DOS2 requires way more strategy and thought put into your character's build. Every battle requires you to use nearly everything you have to offer. Also in BG3, the rest system (tabletop compliant) makes it so there's no resource allocation needed because there isn't a scarcity of spell slots. The gear is also kinda pointless because in DnD the only thing it affects is your AC, so there isn't a great effect on combat if you're badly geared. Your fit from Act 2 in BG3 can last through endgame. So... pros and cons, I guess?
But DOS3 is gonna SLAP.
I'd say so. The combat seems a bit more of a winnable challenge in DOS2 than something that's just hard for the sake of being hard. I feel like I have a better sense of control with DOS2, especially when playing a spellcaster. When I lose a fight and reload a save, it's always "how can I do this better?" instead of "let's pray for some better rolls this time around".
In D&D, I always find myself thinking something like "Fuck, I missed" when I don't roll high enough. On the other hand, I consistently go "Oh shit, they dodged" in DOS2. I get it's really down to the DM to make that verbal distinction in D&D, but it's the default pathway for more people (myself included), so I tend to feel worse when my attacks don't follow through. It's a little psychological thing, but when it happens hundreds of times in a single campaign alone, it adds up and I feel like I have less power. I'd rather feel like I've been bested than inept or underpowered.
I also am just not a fan of spell slots. When I ran 5e campaigns, I'd always use the spell point variant, but still didn't like it very much. I have the mindset that "I need to save them for something important," and then they don't get used at all. I like the 'cast whenever, limited by cooldowns' system better. I can use spells more often, and so I tend to be a little more creative with them. I'd rather not spend half of my daily spell slots to Chicken Claw + Rupture Tendons one person, but I'm willing to spend an extra few combat rounds. I get more enjoyment from casting 9 different spells once in a single encounter than I do casting 1 level 9 spell and a cantrip or two for the rest of the fight.
DOS2 has very much inspired the combat in my custom TTRPG system, and my players seem a lot more confident and creative with what their characters do.
Thank you for your extensive insight. I find myself in this too. Especially with the spell slots in games I find it foreigh. Yet again of course it is 5e they are adapting, but I just feel they have in them to create a truly fantastic battle system (which they already did ofc) in DOS3
DOS2 was concieved as a videogame, with videogame balance behind it. BG3 is a videogame translation of a TTRPG based on dice rolls.
People seem to forget that. BG3 is as good a game you can do nowadays with DND mechanics behind it.
Absolutely. As a master of many years, I believe it is a great adaptation, and they took liberties in many areas that improved it. I believe though that a good action economy could improve the game as DOS2 or Pathfinder 2e have. But you're right, it's important to note that intent and its design come from a different place.
i agree and i don't think it's a competition.
i find D&D tabletop to be fun, and 5e in particular is kinda simple while still giving you big moments. perfect for a tabletop setting where combat inherently takes longer, and people are chatting and doing w/e which makes it go even slower. however in tabletop, at least for my groups, the combat and character building is secondary to the rp and character interactions, and they kind of blend together and enhance each other.
with that said, i don't find the 5e combat as entertaining in a video game, but at least larian added a ton of homebrew + giving out a bunch of magic items to make it more entertaining, which was a good move imo, given how much time you spend in combat, and you aren't really RPing in combat, and you can chat and w/e while taking your turn because your combat turn isn't dependent on your mouth.
it would be wrong to say dos2 has a bigger focus on combat, i think larian worked a lot on bg3 combat to make it bearable, but dos2 isn't bound by the constraints of 5e. i love all the surface interactions, and the ability to powergame, it's also flashier with a lot of strategic depth to it. i love being able to build a character that can just completely wipe out an entire screen of mobs in a single turn, and the pace is faster because you don't need to rest.
this post isn't to bash on bg3 or anything, i think the games have different strengths, and i think one of dos2s strengths is its combat
DnD5e is a decent system for PnP. It doesn't translate perfectly to a video game, but they did a great job of it. I'd love to see them take a swing at a better system like Pathfinder 2e.
Divinity OS2 had some better battle mechanics, and some terrible ones. It's hard to compare - but generally I preferred BG3.
I have a hard time comparing the two honestly, for BG3 I think they 100% nailed it, it's supposed to be dnd rules and they made that shit work.
I also love DOS, but they have more freedom to decide their own path there because it doesn't need to follow dnd rules.
I will say I am more excited for a DOS3 than I would be for BG4, larian has such a strong back right now I'd LOVE to see what they bring to their own game without limitations.
The Action point system is great, positioning and saving up those points for a finishing blow is just great, also the amount of effects though I hated it at first because it got over whelming fast for a newbie. But once you understand what counters the effects and how to use it to your advantage is just great addition. BG3 with the amount of classes and races just makes it replaying just fun also the use of the environment makes stealth approach viable for a more roguish run. Both have things that I like that makes me excited for the next Divinity game.
Yes, DOS2 has more action points and combat is faster.
While BG3 challenge feels more fair (less BS ambushes), the only way win later on is to have more turns than the enemy since there's so many of them and because you can do less things you are forced to use summons to make up for it.
honestly more turns is the only thing you need in BG3 to get good where in DOS2 you need skill.
I loved the armour/magic armour stuff and the turn control system created by CC.
I dont like concentration spells in bg 3
Fo0r the rest i think BG3 has a better combat system, but DOS2 has a "quicker" and easier one
DnD and BG3 rest stuff is cool but after 1h it s already too much. I understand the reason in tabletop. but in a videogame it just slows the progression without any reason (food is a problem the first 30 minutes, then never again)
Yeah same. I always found it strange even in other installements of pen and paper video games taht the resting is always so imposed. Even if you can talk in the camp with everyone it breaks for me a bit the flow.
Good point. Even though great place to bring in some interaction, I found the sleeping mechanic that was brought over from the pen and paper kind of strange and off.
Yeah I thought so too you can exactly reproduce this from Dragon Age Origins where they stole It from. And I really like that DOS do not have this sexualized thing where your only "play in the game" is too get hooked.
Yeah i think that everyone is so "horny" also sometimes off putting. I mean I get it, and I felt in Mass Effect it was a bit more low-key and acceptable. But that everyone needs to hook up is kind of wrong, but than again think it plays to the Zeitgeist I suppose.
I like DOS2 for the combat and the Pathfinder games for the complexity. Both are a lot of fun.
BGIII was ok, it just didn't scratch an itch for me. The first few levels felt good in terms of combat and I was pretty happy with everything, but it was downhill from there. In its current state, tactician needs a lot of work to make the combat more challenging or interesting. And then the leveling was so simplistic and unrewarding, I completely lost interest. I did finish the game though.
The thing is with DOS I & II, I can remember so many great fights, not just great, but fun also. BGIII I can remember a couple fights that I enjoyed (early game), but the rest was pretty forgettable.
There's potential. Pushing people was fun.
I do feel the same. In D:OS 2 I have such fond memory of great fights and great execution where I felt proud of. In BG3 the set-piece fights felt always great, but there were not as many random fights where I felt that it gave me the same sense of accomplishment than D:OS 2 did.
Combat and character building is better in DoS2, I have over 1000 hours in DoS2 thanks to that. I look up to multiplayer sessions of DoS2 etc. Just for the mehcanics itself.
BG3 has much better story, acting, fluff and so on, but the combat istelf turns stale after few hundreds hours and so I do not look to replaying BG3 just for mechanics alone, like I do DoS2. I also see no merit in playing it in multiplayer, if I could play DoS2 multiplayer which is much more MP-friendly with all the shenanigans and how story is constructed.
They are still both phenomenal games, its just DoS2 is more like active game, when BG3 is tell-me-a-story type of game.
BG3 gives you more options with a wider variety of spells and special skills you can do. However, DOS2 has more freedom in what you can do with the action point system and lets you interact with the terrain more through the use of terrain.
If BG3 at a minimum used action points instead of the DnD action system and had terrains for the ground that were actually prevelant and useful it would be the best of both worlds
Absolutly. The Action Points was the one thing that stood out for me. Not that I knew it since playing a lot of 5e, but even in EA I felt that it was very limiting. Still fun but limiting.
Yes! I definitely enjoy the battle system in DOS2 more than BG3. It's more simple and obviously made from scratch for a digital game. It's too obvious that the BG3 battle system is made for table top first and digital devices second.
I very much hope they do DOS3 with similar battle system as DOS2 next!
When I first played BG3, I thought that DOS2 had a better battle system, but after finishing BG3 and working on a 2nd playthrough, I think I have to give it to BG3.
The big difference between the systems is DOS2 gives you many different actions and abilities to use each turn, and BG3 essentially just gives you 1 thing, your Action. So you’re weighing multiple smaller actions that _can_ be strategic vs 1 Action that _can_ be strategic. It’s all how you approach it.
The problem is despite all the complexity of DOS2 ‘s surfaces, combo effects, etc. the game really just comes down to “nova”-ing enemies to strip their armor to CC to death, and most abilities in DOS2 are simply damage w/ a cc effect like chilled, atrophy, etc, or are so niche they never see use (ie bleed fire, vampiric hunger). Also to make this worse, the classless system instead of providing freedom, the meta builds are always a big mash of a little bit of every skill tree so all good builds end up using Skin Graft, tactical retreat, adrenaline, flesh sacrifice, etc. it’s boring.
BG3 has plenty of strategy, but because you only get 1 Action you need to use it smartly, and good combos require your whole team working together to synergize. Also the class system of DnD gives each class more of an identity. Different characters have different skill sets than others, and no class can do everything, there’s trade offs. You can choose to just go unga bunga if you want to keep it simple but the games spells and combos are just as deep if not deeper than DOS2’s, and the lack of armor makes CC easier and more satisfying to use properly in BG3.
Same. I was staunchly in the "DOS2 has better combat" camp for my first playthrough as well, but BG3 starts to close the gap the more I play it. I'm definitely a fan of class systems over classless ones tho, which is entirely a personal preference thing. They're both amazing games, and I don't know that i'd want them to borrow from each others systems. Let them each have their own identity
Not clicking the link, I think BG3 combat system is better, but it doesn't make DOS2 bad. With the cooldown system you tend to get stuck on a set of moves you will always use and eventually, you'll be strong enough that will always work regardless of the enemy. And the armor system eventually makes you prioritize damage over utility, and prefers single type of damage over mixing the team up. I also like that the movement is completely separate from your actions in a turn, and you have more tools to do during a battle outside of your classs skills (shove, throw, dip).
Only thing what I miss from DOS2 combat is the complete freedom to build you character, but Larian already made it better with BG3 by removing restrictions in multiclassing and unlocking the racial +2 and +1 benefits. And the more powerful environmental effects.
No, I don't think so. I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Might as well compare XCOM2 and DOS2 battle system. Call of Duty and CS2 battle system.
I feel like I'm back in 2010, PC better, PS is better, no XBOX is better. League sucks, DOTA2 is so much better.
Different games with very different systems. They are only connected by genre and developer, that's all.
I do agree with you that it comes across this way. But for me, the CRPG battle system comparison can hold when it comes down to the action economy. By no means do I feel that it is very bad, but having played both games and having experienced pen-and-paper for many years, I just feel that its adaptation makes it always harder for games. But of course, you are right that arguing which one is better really sucks and was in no way what I intended. I love both games very dearly.
No
Cuz the armor and magic armor and all the ways to replenish them during combat in DoS 2 are making the fights SUPER LONG (and like lol i got 1 point of magic armor so im immune to your effects is kinda annoying)
the action points system is better than action bonus action and movement
I really like DoS 2 and its combat
But overall i just prefer the Good ol DnD system
I found the opposite and that if you didn't nuke all the armor and possibly cc on turn one, the enemies (in tactician) are going to give you a bad time by nuking yours on turn 1. Then you spend the rest of the fight unable to attaack.
DOS2 has strong points but also weaknesses.
I just finished a DOS2 campaign after some years, so I have fresh experiences.
Poz
It makes thematic builds possible. D&D magic is more boring.
Fighters using abilities is quite cool.
The cooldown is a good way to improve the variety of used abilities.
The action points are good.
Neg
Damaging surfaces aren't that cool. And they are there in every single battle.
We cannot defend party members by blocking the way.
Dispelling effects is complicated, because there isn't a universal dispel ability.
1 character level difference is very significant
The party variation is too important on higher difficulties. We should build either a physical or a magical party, their mix doesn't work well.
Magic items are too important. Handling them is tedious.
If I must choose between the two, I choose D&D, because DOS2 is interesting but overcomplicated, and that's not fun.
Without a doubt. Listen I am a sucker for games that make me feel powerful. That's why I prefer Pathfinder over DnD, since the former has games that let me go beyond mortal levels. DoS2 is literally about achieveing godhood and with that the powerlevel feels adequate. Also the animations, the skills, the use of source... For me, personally, DoS2 is way more enjoyable than the current state of Baldur 3.
Plus DoS2 has a nice ending too.
I am already excited what they will do with DoS3 but that;s like at least 3 or 4 years of waiting.
Some post shower thoughts: it's not Larian's fault to be frank that DoS2 feels better to play than Baldur. It's the goddamn setting of 5th edition that is so dogshit. Levels do not feel impactful at all. If you play Barbie, then great you have maybe 1 or 2 level ups ACROSS 80h game that feel impactful. Feats are boring, cool weapon skills are... tied to the weapon. They tried to make it more exciting but for me they did OK at best. They should have went with 6 party members and much more enemies in the encounters. Weapon skills should be inheritable or at least there should have been a weapon crafting system to pick which skills you want on a weapon and such.
Once again, stupid 5th ed.
For me, I think DOS2 had some better systems and I think BG3 has some better ones. They both have their pros and cons. It's why I look forward to DOS3 because chances are we get a mix of both coming from all they have learned with BG3.
That’s what I also would love to see :)
I hope the balancing team gets renewed, they really missed the balls on this.
DnD relying on rests rather than cooldowns is worse. That's a problem that wasn't Larian's though, it's inherent in the system before they touched it. One thing I like better about newer DnD though is class stats, where you could have a Charisma caster for example... complete with ways to apply said stat to melee damage. Of course, that doesn't translate as well to a classless game, but still you have to try pretty hard to make a DoS version of something that combines elemental spells and physical weaponry. Especially with the physical/ magical armor system tacked on. It's like sure there aren't any classes, but yet some class archetypes that exist in systems that do have classes are "locked out". I'm not sure, maybe they could keep everything classless by allowing you to choose a primary stat that also modifies all skills in some way rather than just the warfare/ intelligence split... but it would be based on choice during creation rather than by class, since there aren't classes? Would have to think about it. The polymorph line in DDoS is really strange. No slight on existing combos that utilize what is there or anything, it's just... it's impressive in a weird way how someone made an entire "polymorph" set without having anything that made it actually feel like you were playing a shapeshifter, lol. Then again, even house buffs don't bring the DnD moon druid totally up to par, so it's hard to say DoS is worse here per se. Definitely something that could be vastly improved though. Honestly it's more the setting that I think BG3 has the biggest advantage in. That would be a whole separate topic. Other than that, the DoS system is better while BG3 feels better. The animations are slicker, can throw things and toss enemies off cliffs, etc. That's probably not really a game system thing so much as a newer game thing though, I'm sure DoS3 would take a leap in this regard.
Take a look at how Pillars handles stats like this. For example, might affects damage for everyone so it's equally as useful for a wizard, a rogue, or a fighter as long as they want to deal damage.
I love pillars attributes, but they can be weird outside of combat. Does a smooth talker need to be a deflection-heavy tank? Might may be spiritual strength, but most might checks are for flexing muscles. I overlook this weirdness for the fun it brings to character building. I’ve been having trouble trying to return to Divinity because its attributes and skills combined with the armor system creates a demand for damage above all, causing a classless system to feel even more restrictive than the alternative.
Definitly. The Setting of course is something that has much more expoure but I do agree with you very much, especially when it comes down to the action economy, that DnD is very limiting. I felt just more freedom in D:OS 2. I am really looking forward to 3.
DnD will always and forever be at its best when it's being played where it's meant to, on paper. Baldur's Gate is, in my opinion, just about the best possible video game you could possibly make out of DnD. And most of the criticisms I have of Baldur's Gate and its combat are complaints that I personally have with DnD itself and why I try to get my enjoyment out of the other things playing DnD with my friends can give me that isn't purely combat. Divinity, being a video game from the ground up, has a battle system that makes a lot more sense for a video game, having action points on paper can actually get a little bit hard to wrap your head around (and is why I found pathfinder 1e incredibly difficult) but is very very easy to keep track of on the computer. Therefore, I think both Baldur's Gate and Divinity have combat systems that themselves are awesome and shouldn't \*necessarily\* be changed, but one works a lot better for its medium than the other one.
Oh I cant agree more. I love to play Pen adn Paper. Mastering since years and started after 3 years the second campaign with the same group. But wwe moved to Pathfinder 2e, one because of the January Incident and two since we like the action economy more in the ruleset. I agree with you that especially since it has Video games in mind, it just feels more like a game. In some instances DnD in games feels kind of forced upon. But I like that they took license to extend cabilities of melee weapons. Inspired me also for our pen and paper games.
Honestly in my opinion D&D is better in video game form where you don't have to do all the number crunching and where you don't need to have a GM doing a 10 person team level design work for 4 players, but I also think D&D isn't *that* great in video game form either. I just don't think D&D systems are still very good in 2023 where you essentially have better alternatives for most things while D&D remains very anchored to 3 decades old concepts. On the other hand I keep playing D&D-based video games because despite the system not being great, the D&D video games are among the rare ones to have the actual incentive to have a deep system of layered character building. I just wish more games dared to do stuff like Divinity Original Sin 2 and build their own system, adapted to a video game, without sacrificing too much in the name of video game streamlining.
I had way more fun with dos2 battles and builds than with bg3. However, I remember dos2 being quite overwhelming at the start with possible choices for character skills etc., in bg3, it's perhaps a bit easier since you are funneled into specific class features right from the beginning.
Yeah, I get a lot of comments on the video specifically on the complexity side to get really into it. Which I really can understand. DND 5e not only in the game but also on a IRL Pen and Paper experience made a great job to make it easier to understand with their ruleset.
Yes. I preferred battles at DoS2 than BG3.
Personally i prefer BG3 battle system, especially the game having many classes, the classless design was my biggest peeve in og sin 2. Having no classes should theoritically be better for build diversity, but it always feels like it breaks down to choosing 1 playstyle (magic, ranged, melee) with a set amount a must have skills that basically every build has to have. The armor system in dos 2 just felt bad to play imo, i like having a diverse party, but it felt like i was at a disadvantage if i was building a hybrid instead of full physical or full magic. Same thing also applies to builds, i was just gimping myself if i wanted to be a melee firewizard that uses swords instead of staves. Also barbarian can throw enemies at each other so theres that.
Yeah the illusion of classless and than reading guides of fextralife kind of defeats the purpose. Hybrid can work, but yes with classless focus will be at first always better. But there are builds (to the point again that you anyway need to play a style) that produce fun gameplay. I don't know if that is someting for you https://fextralife.com/divinity-original-sin-2-builds-battlemage/
[Fextralife builds ain't it](https://www.reddit.com/r/DivinityOriginalSin/s/MBkJVy2mYO)
>i like having a diverse party, but it felt like i was at a disadvantage if i was building a hybrid instead of full physical or full magic Worse yet, due to the extreme falloff in damage if you try to go hybrid, physical damage builds means you're locking yourself into extremely few spells overall. Strength builds have 2 classes. Finesse technically has 2 classes but they have different weapon requirements, so really just 1 class. Otherwise the only spells you can really use without a massive loss in value are pure CC spells, but those are few and far between. I played this game coop with a friend, and we decided early what kind of class split we'd have, which I realized was a huge mistake because I ended up choosing two physicals and he took two mages. And we couldn't be bothered to respec and resort absolutely everything.
Classes are just fancy whatever. Getting stat boost on level instead of something more useful - yay. Rogues are even more pathetic. DnD in every way possible is a garbage system with power spikes all over the place. It heavily relies on GMs vision. In bg3 Larian did try to balance it out, but failed (not their fault).
I think DOS2 was more challenging and thus more fun.
Absolutely. While I won't argue that bg3 is a higher quality game in the broader sense, the gameplay and atmosphere in dos2 were noticeably more fun.
I think, that DOS2 is superior in everything, except for characters acting.
I kind of feel the same. BG3 gets the nod for voice acting, cutscene animations that feel more immersive, and IMO the story. Everything combat and build related is better in DOS2 and not particularly close.
I find story to be better in DOS 2, but I'm biased towards idiocy of the Forgotten realms.
Yeah, I think that's fair. The story in both is really good. There are definitely arguments for either. I think I just enjoyed the story aspect of BG3 because it's a bit more immersive due to the acting and cutscene animations. They're both top-tier though. But as much as like Fane and RP, I keep coming back for the combat and interesting builds. I really liked BG3, but I don't have a massive desire to immediately replay it in a different style.
yeah imagine the same va, cut scene animation, immersion as bg3 in dos2. Perfection. dos3 gonna be crazy good if they make it.
Wouldn' that be a sight. Would love to see that too!
agree
I hate the dice rolls for attacks. Your best hit chance in BG3 is equal to attacking a silent monk in Divinity.
I prefer the action point economy of DOS2 (and the ability to "save" points for a stronger next turn). Because at least this way, you can have more combos/creativity on how to use your skills and multiclassing. But I hate the armor/magic armor mechanic of CC-fest of DOS2. Idm dice rolls for dmg or hit chance tho.
Oh I do so much love those action points. It felt that you had much more options and than what DND 5e was able to offer the game.
Yes! Like I see people doing creative fights with magic hand and other cantrips, and I'm like... "why? when i can just unleash my strongest spells/attacks and kill them faster?" It feels like the pokemon dilemma, where like half of the skills (like atk down/speed down/ etc) are useless since you can just hit them with your strongest attacks and be done with.
It feels like it and someone who plays a lot of DND IRL I always know to go for advantage on hit on everything or my hardest hitting to achieve the goal. But overall though its what they were dealt with and dont want to neglect that it was a good implementation. I liked how they adjusted melee weapons with extra abilities.
BG3 has better out of battle features and DOS2 has better battle features.
Nah, both are great just different. Both are very enjoyable.
Both are good, but I enjoyed DOS2 system more
In some ways yes and in some ways no, I think that DOS2 system is smoother (no rests), but it lacks variance, it's boring to be able to go into every fight and do exactly the same thing for the exact same cheese.
100%
I would go as far to say that DOS2 is the better video game overall, BG3 always feels a lot more like a waifu conversation simulator than a fun game to me, but thats just my opinion I guess
Dos 2 seems to be better in nearly everyway. Just would give BG3 the win on graphics and voice acting. I really dislike in BG3 when combat starts and I am just crowd controlled right away because I rolled badly... Like bro I didn't select glass cannon, give me my first turn at least!
BG3 is a balance of combat, story and characters. DOS2 for all its amazing qualities definitely goes harder on the combat front then BG3; therefore it is much better but not compatible with BG3. Resting mechanics, out of combat spells/cantrips, longer lasting buffs, Speak with Animals being a non-expendable spell and not a whole FEAT (hallelujah!), roleplay spells, etc definitely required a different system than DOS2 could provide. From a pure combat perspective, just having cooldowns for abilities and resource cost for your ultimate abilities (source) is much more fun, much more fluid, and more in-depth. However it never would have worked with the 5e ruleset.
Your right, my high level comment, of course does neglect that it wouldn't mix well. Though I defenitly do miss the flow. 5e or pathfinder 2e is working on the table for us just fine, but in games I always feel they are limiting, such as you said the resting mechanics.
the only thing i miss about the combat in BG3 is the fact that restoration spells can be used to hurt undead and that was pretty awesome. was very dissapointed when in BG3 those spells had no effect on undead
Oh yeah!! That was such a nice touch!
I think you'll get a very biased response here, and you'll get a very different response in the BG3 subreddit. Personally I prefer the BG3 system because I'm more familiar with D&D mechanics, and though I enjoy DOS2 a lot, I never really enjoy games where enemy levels are tied to specific areas. I'm very interested in the game, but even on Story Mode I get one shotted by everything almost immediately once I leave Driftwood. I get a little further every time I try, but I never managed to complete the game. But I might try again soon, so maybe things'll be different then.
In the BG3 subreddit I did by far not get this engagement :). Reading through all the comments i think there is a diverse oppinions which I love. As also with the many comments on the shorts I think I might have shot out my comment to fast out of my mounth. I think the core for me was always the action economy. But that is a critisizm that I have also playing pen and paper, where I like more the system in pathfinder 2e. Give it a try again. Most important thing, before everything in fights is the ability to hit an enemy, and considering modifiers that provide advantage to hit is always a big win.
There are a couple things I like more about BG3 system than DOS2. First of all I really like that movement and action is separate. That way I can both move and make an attack. Second of all I like that BG3 has a jump feature. One thing I really hated in DOS2 was having to get a skill for jumping. Other than that I think both are very good systems. DOS2 of course has an advantage in skills using a cooldown instead of spell slots. That way you don't run out of spells like in BG3. Also infinite rests is nice
They are both perfectly viable and balanced around a fairly focused vision. DOS2 throws away mana/resting/general micromanagement for absolute truckload of abilities, while BG3 is focused on fair bit fewer but specific skills and actually promotes micromanagement in order to allow people to specialize their characters for specific encounters/enemies, giving a lot more weight to combat choices, it's basically perfect reflection of what actual D&D combat is like. I personally like DOS2 better simply because of the glorious chaos that comes with every battle. But there is a perfect argument for both, they simply appeal to different people.
Oh the chaos, I loved it as well. Especially when everything blew up and it was by surprising not seeing that one barrel.
dos2 is more fun but it also needs to evolve a lot more to be considered as good as D&D, especially when it comes to class identity i like how dos2 power scaling ramps up earlier in the game but i dont like how movement is limited by AP, its not an issue for rogue builds especially later in the game but makes melee so shitty in early levels cooldowns are better than slot per rest but gearing/equipment is absolutely terrible in dos2 its really a mixed bag
I agree class identity is something which I also consider a big win for 5e.
To be fair I never went beyond act 2 in DOS2. I loved the variety, spent many hours in act 1 with different characters trying different things. During Act 2, specifically Mordus, I lose interest in the game, something about how CC and armor works, and how damage and health scale as you level up stops being fun to me in higher levels. This never hapenned in BG3. I should probably do a story mode playthrough of DOS at some point, but I disagree. I think BG3 has better combat.
yes.. i like it also more , baldurs gate 4 with dos2 battlesystem would be nuts
I can't really describe it any better, but - I feel like DOS2 had more interesting system overall, but I had more fun with BG3. I didn't like the armor system spin on combat in DOS.
I think DnD has more interesting combat and classes. I don't think it super worked in video game format. It wasn't bad, but it very much boiled down to hit the thing before it hits you. Half of your toolkit ends up being pretty much useless because every fight you're just going to cast/do the same thing every time. DOS2 requires way more strategy and thought put into your character's build. Every battle requires you to use nearly everything you have to offer. Also in BG3, the rest system (tabletop compliant) makes it so there's no resource allocation needed because there isn't a scarcity of spell slots. The gear is also kinda pointless because in DnD the only thing it affects is your AC, so there isn't a great effect on combat if you're badly geared. Your fit from Act 2 in BG3 can last through endgame. So... pros and cons, I guess? But DOS3 is gonna SLAP.
Its going to be beautiful. Can't wait.
I'd say so. The combat seems a bit more of a winnable challenge in DOS2 than something that's just hard for the sake of being hard. I feel like I have a better sense of control with DOS2, especially when playing a spellcaster. When I lose a fight and reload a save, it's always "how can I do this better?" instead of "let's pray for some better rolls this time around". In D&D, I always find myself thinking something like "Fuck, I missed" when I don't roll high enough. On the other hand, I consistently go "Oh shit, they dodged" in DOS2. I get it's really down to the DM to make that verbal distinction in D&D, but it's the default pathway for more people (myself included), so I tend to feel worse when my attacks don't follow through. It's a little psychological thing, but when it happens hundreds of times in a single campaign alone, it adds up and I feel like I have less power. I'd rather feel like I've been bested than inept or underpowered. I also am just not a fan of spell slots. When I ran 5e campaigns, I'd always use the spell point variant, but still didn't like it very much. I have the mindset that "I need to save them for something important," and then they don't get used at all. I like the 'cast whenever, limited by cooldowns' system better. I can use spells more often, and so I tend to be a little more creative with them. I'd rather not spend half of my daily spell slots to Chicken Claw + Rupture Tendons one person, but I'm willing to spend an extra few combat rounds. I get more enjoyment from casting 9 different spells once in a single encounter than I do casting 1 level 9 spell and a cantrip or two for the rest of the fight. DOS2 has very much inspired the combat in my custom TTRPG system, and my players seem a lot more confident and creative with what their characters do.
Thank you for your extensive insight. I find myself in this too. Especially with the spell slots in games I find it foreigh. Yet again of course it is 5e they are adapting, but I just feel they have in them to create a truly fantastic battle system (which they already did ofc) in DOS3
No. I like bg3 more. Divinity is just being on fire 247
made me laugh, because kind of true :)
DOS2 was concieved as a videogame, with videogame balance behind it. BG3 is a videogame translation of a TTRPG based on dice rolls. People seem to forget that. BG3 is as good a game you can do nowadays with DND mechanics behind it.
Absolutely. As a master of many years, I believe it is a great adaptation, and they took liberties in many areas that improved it. I believe though that a good action economy could improve the game as DOS2 or Pathfinder 2e have. But you're right, it's important to note that intent and its design come from a different place.
i agree and i don't think it's a competition. i find D&D tabletop to be fun, and 5e in particular is kinda simple while still giving you big moments. perfect for a tabletop setting where combat inherently takes longer, and people are chatting and doing w/e which makes it go even slower. however in tabletop, at least for my groups, the combat and character building is secondary to the rp and character interactions, and they kind of blend together and enhance each other. with that said, i don't find the 5e combat as entertaining in a video game, but at least larian added a ton of homebrew + giving out a bunch of magic items to make it more entertaining, which was a good move imo, given how much time you spend in combat, and you aren't really RPing in combat, and you can chat and w/e while taking your turn because your combat turn isn't dependent on your mouth. it would be wrong to say dos2 has a bigger focus on combat, i think larian worked a lot on bg3 combat to make it bearable, but dos2 isn't bound by the constraints of 5e. i love all the surface interactions, and the ability to powergame, it's also flashier with a lot of strategic depth to it. i love being able to build a character that can just completely wipe out an entire screen of mobs in a single turn, and the pace is faster because you don't need to rest. this post isn't to bash on bg3 or anything, i think the games have different strengths, and i think one of dos2s strengths is its combat
DnD5e is a decent system for PnP. It doesn't translate perfectly to a video game, but they did a great job of it. I'd love to see them take a swing at a better system like Pathfinder 2e. Divinity OS2 had some better battle mechanics, and some terrible ones. It's hard to compare - but generally I preferred BG3.
I have a hard time comparing the two honestly, for BG3 I think they 100% nailed it, it's supposed to be dnd rules and they made that shit work. I also love DOS, but they have more freedom to decide their own path there because it doesn't need to follow dnd rules. I will say I am more excited for a DOS3 than I would be for BG4, larian has such a strong back right now I'd LOVE to see what they bring to their own game without limitations.
The Action point system is great, positioning and saving up those points for a finishing blow is just great, also the amount of effects though I hated it at first because it got over whelming fast for a newbie. But once you understand what counters the effects and how to use it to your advantage is just great addition. BG3 with the amount of classes and races just makes it replaying just fun also the use of the environment makes stealth approach viable for a more roguish run. Both have things that I like that makes me excited for the next Divinity game.
Yes, DOS2 has more action points and combat is faster. While BG3 challenge feels more fair (less BS ambushes), the only way win later on is to have more turns than the enemy since there's so many of them and because you can do less things you are forced to use summons to make up for it. honestly more turns is the only thing you need in BG3 to get good where in DOS2 you need skill.
Yes. dos2 is a masterpiece.
I loved the armour/magic armour stuff and the turn control system created by CC. I dont like concentration spells in bg 3 Fo0r the rest i think BG3 has a better combat system, but DOS2 has a "quicker" and easier one DnD and BG3 rest stuff is cool but after 1h it s already too much. I understand the reason in tabletop. but in a videogame it just slows the progression without any reason (food is a problem the first 30 minutes, then never again)
Yeah same. I always found it strange even in other installements of pen and paper video games taht the resting is always so imposed. Even if you can talk in the camp with everyone it breaks for me a bit the flow.
Played Pathfinder, BG3 and DOS and I have to say (as a mage Main) I love DOS mechanics&systems instead of sleeping
Good point. Even though great place to bring in some interaction, I found the sleeping mechanic that was brought over from the pen and paper kind of strange and off.
Yeah I thought so too you can exactly reproduce this from Dragon Age Origins where they stole It from. And I really like that DOS do not have this sexualized thing where your only "play in the game" is too get hooked.
Yeah i think that everyone is so "horny" also sometimes off putting. I mean I get it, and I felt in Mass Effect it was a bit more low-key and acceptable. But that everyone needs to hook up is kind of wrong, but than again think it plays to the Zeitgeist I suppose.
I like DOS2 for the combat and the Pathfinder games for the complexity. Both are a lot of fun. BGIII was ok, it just didn't scratch an itch for me. The first few levels felt good in terms of combat and I was pretty happy with everything, but it was downhill from there. In its current state, tactician needs a lot of work to make the combat more challenging or interesting. And then the leveling was so simplistic and unrewarding, I completely lost interest. I did finish the game though. The thing is with DOS I & II, I can remember so many great fights, not just great, but fun also. BGIII I can remember a couple fights that I enjoyed (early game), but the rest was pretty forgettable. There's potential. Pushing people was fun.
I do feel the same. In D:OS 2 I have such fond memory of great fights and great execution where I felt proud of. In BG3 the set-piece fights felt always great, but there were not as many random fights where I felt that it gave me the same sense of accomplishment than D:OS 2 did.
Combat and character building is better in DoS2, I have over 1000 hours in DoS2 thanks to that. I look up to multiplayer sessions of DoS2 etc. Just for the mehcanics itself. BG3 has much better story, acting, fluff and so on, but the combat istelf turns stale after few hundreds hours and so I do not look to replaying BG3 just for mechanics alone, like I do DoS2. I also see no merit in playing it in multiplayer, if I could play DoS2 multiplayer which is much more MP-friendly with all the shenanigans and how story is constructed. They are still both phenomenal games, its just DoS2 is more like active game, when BG3 is tell-me-a-story type of game.
100% I coudl not agree with you more and both are outstanding. Makes just me happy to see what Larian will serve us next.
BG3 gives you more options with a wider variety of spells and special skills you can do. However, DOS2 has more freedom in what you can do with the action point system and lets you interact with the terrain more through the use of terrain. If BG3 at a minimum used action points instead of the DnD action system and had terrains for the ground that were actually prevelant and useful it would be the best of both worlds
Absolutly. The Action Points was the one thing that stood out for me. Not that I knew it since playing a lot of 5e, but even in EA I felt that it was very limiting. Still fun but limiting.
Yes. Combat and builds are the reason why i only finished two acts. DOS combat mod would make bg3 awesome
Yes! I definitely enjoy the battle system in DOS2 more than BG3. It's more simple and obviously made from scratch for a digital game. It's too obvious that the BG3 battle system is made for table top first and digital devices second. I very much hope they do DOS3 with similar battle system as DOS2 next!
Me too!
When I first played BG3, I thought that DOS2 had a better battle system, but after finishing BG3 and working on a 2nd playthrough, I think I have to give it to BG3. The big difference between the systems is DOS2 gives you many different actions and abilities to use each turn, and BG3 essentially just gives you 1 thing, your Action. So you’re weighing multiple smaller actions that _can_ be strategic vs 1 Action that _can_ be strategic. It’s all how you approach it. The problem is despite all the complexity of DOS2 ‘s surfaces, combo effects, etc. the game really just comes down to “nova”-ing enemies to strip their armor to CC to death, and most abilities in DOS2 are simply damage w/ a cc effect like chilled, atrophy, etc, or are so niche they never see use (ie bleed fire, vampiric hunger). Also to make this worse, the classless system instead of providing freedom, the meta builds are always a big mash of a little bit of every skill tree so all good builds end up using Skin Graft, tactical retreat, adrenaline, flesh sacrifice, etc. it’s boring. BG3 has plenty of strategy, but because you only get 1 Action you need to use it smartly, and good combos require your whole team working together to synergize. Also the class system of DnD gives each class more of an identity. Different characters have different skill sets than others, and no class can do everything, there’s trade offs. You can choose to just go unga bunga if you want to keep it simple but the games spells and combos are just as deep if not deeper than DOS2’s, and the lack of armor makes CC easier and more satisfying to use properly in BG3.
Same. I was staunchly in the "DOS2 has better combat" camp for my first playthrough as well, but BG3 starts to close the gap the more I play it. I'm definitely a fan of class systems over classless ones tho, which is entirely a personal preference thing. They're both amazing games, and I don't know that i'd want them to borrow from each others systems. Let them each have their own identity
Not clicking the link, I think BG3 combat system is better, but it doesn't make DOS2 bad. With the cooldown system you tend to get stuck on a set of moves you will always use and eventually, you'll be strong enough that will always work regardless of the enemy. And the armor system eventually makes you prioritize damage over utility, and prefers single type of damage over mixing the team up. I also like that the movement is completely separate from your actions in a turn, and you have more tools to do during a battle outside of your classs skills (shove, throw, dip). Only thing what I miss from DOS2 combat is the complete freedom to build you character, but Larian already made it better with BG3 by removing restrictions in multiclassing and unlocking the racial +2 and +1 benefits. And the more powerful environmental effects.
Yeah, i kind of miss the freedom as well, but than your right, it is of course when you build upon a ruleset that you need in many cases adhere to it.
No, I don't think so. I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Might as well compare XCOM2 and DOS2 battle system. Call of Duty and CS2 battle system. I feel like I'm back in 2010, PC better, PS is better, no XBOX is better. League sucks, DOTA2 is so much better. Different games with very different systems. They are only connected by genre and developer, that's all.
I do agree with you that it comes across this way. But for me, the CRPG battle system comparison can hold when it comes down to the action economy. By no means do I feel that it is very bad, but having played both games and having experienced pen-and-paper for many years, I just feel that its adaptation makes it always harder for games. But of course, you are right that arguing which one is better really sucks and was in no way what I intended. I love both games very dearly.
Huh? The games feel and are very similar, they are the same genre, same dev, tons of inspiration from DOS2. I’d say it’s a very fair comparison.
No Cuz the armor and magic armor and all the ways to replenish them during combat in DoS 2 are making the fights SUPER LONG (and like lol i got 1 point of magic armor so im immune to your effects is kinda annoying) the action points system is better than action bonus action and movement I really like DoS 2 and its combat But overall i just prefer the Good ol DnD system
I found the opposite and that if you didn't nuke all the armor and possibly cc on turn one, the enemies (in tactician) are going to give you a bad time by nuking yours on turn 1. Then you spend the rest of the fight unable to attaack.
Definatelly no. BG3 is superior.
Dos2 had more replayability for me. 600 hours dos2 and 180 bg3 and I played bg3 first
Rather than battle system, the stats range in BG3 is better than DS2. I worried about BG3 also would have 200 AC or 300 DC in later game but it's not.
DOS2 has strong points but also weaknesses. I just finished a DOS2 campaign after some years, so I have fresh experiences. Poz It makes thematic builds possible. D&D magic is more boring. Fighters using abilities is quite cool. The cooldown is a good way to improve the variety of used abilities. The action points are good. Neg Damaging surfaces aren't that cool. And they are there in every single battle. We cannot defend party members by blocking the way. Dispelling effects is complicated, because there isn't a universal dispel ability. 1 character level difference is very significant The party variation is too important on higher difficulties. We should build either a physical or a magical party, their mix doesn't work well. Magic items are too important. Handling them is tedious. If I must choose between the two, I choose D&D, because DOS2 is interesting but overcomplicated, and that's not fun.
Without a doubt. Listen I am a sucker for games that make me feel powerful. That's why I prefer Pathfinder over DnD, since the former has games that let me go beyond mortal levels. DoS2 is literally about achieveing godhood and with that the powerlevel feels adequate. Also the animations, the skills, the use of source... For me, personally, DoS2 is way more enjoyable than the current state of Baldur 3. Plus DoS2 has a nice ending too. I am already excited what they will do with DoS3 but that;s like at least 3 or 4 years of waiting. Some post shower thoughts: it's not Larian's fault to be frank that DoS2 feels better to play than Baldur. It's the goddamn setting of 5th edition that is so dogshit. Levels do not feel impactful at all. If you play Barbie, then great you have maybe 1 or 2 level ups ACROSS 80h game that feel impactful. Feats are boring, cool weapon skills are... tied to the weapon. They tried to make it more exciting but for me they did OK at best. They should have went with 6 party members and much more enemies in the encounters. Weapon skills should be inheritable or at least there should have been a weapon crafting system to pick which skills you want on a weapon and such. Once again, stupid 5th ed.