I would say Dragon Age almost avoided this problem, the scripting actions system the game gave ala gambits from ff12 was most definitely a step in the right direction. There is a mod to add even more functions to Dragon Age, that one makes the play quite good. Though Dragon Age is quite slow in-itself that there was never any issue of needing too many micro's per second and combat is rather streamlined.
Not arguing that,i was saying that the story itself is more of a contained personal one than some grand epic campaign to save the world. It is a story about some retard killing off your father figure and putting you on the path of adventure. The first game was about merchant guild trying their hand at stock fixing. While the second one is about a cucked elf's hissy fit. In the end the protag is just reacting to retards trying to kill him and thus amassing power.
Yes,after all half of the people that enjoyed it,maybe more. Did so because of it. If you take half of the sales away and two thirds of the mouth to mouth marketing....well it wouldn't have been such a hit. It was one of the first rpgs that i had played and loved,it did introduce me to a lot of similar games,and i didn't know shit about d&d for years after that. And i am not alone in those experiences
. Many people found rpgs because of BG. If it wasn't rtwp,only d&d nerds would have shown any real interest in it,and that wasn't a majority back then.
How is that a flaw? I have never played rtwp with full on active ai,especially on casters. The most i let them attack the closest and let fighters use their skills while i command the casters. The two systems are made to be played differently. I very rarely pause,even on harder fights and difficulty,most of the time i just let them auto attack and cast offensive spells. The things you dislike about the system is what it makes it good for me mate,i do like the faster pasted action and higher demand of situation/terrain perception and the complexity of the combat. In reality you could end up a boss fight in rtwp before you could end up your first round in tb fighting trash encounter. I believe rtwp to be more complex and combat diverse. While the TB system is becoming stale,you do know what you could do and what the ai will do,it is more of a minor puzzle to be honest. While in rtwp you could end up in situation because of how mobile the battle is. Some times your enemy might decide to pull back and your heroes ending up surrounded or having the wrong fighter in the place of the tank,or you could kill the right enemy at good time and end up running behind enemy lines with your rogue and going for that backstab. RTwP is superior in the tactical aspect hands down,also it demands more skills from the player,while TB needs you to just know the effects of the skills and not to be a retard.
In the end liking one system over the other is not the problem,the problem is trying impose your taste on to other people.
They should have done as owlcat,make a core of rtwp and add tb as an option.
How is that a flaw? I have never played rtwp with full on active ai,especially on casters. The most i let them attack the closest and let fighters use their skills while i command the casters. The two systems are made to be played differently. I very rarely pause,even on harder fights and difficulty,most of the time i just let them auto attack and cast offensive spells. The things you dislike about the system is what it makes it good for me mate,i do like the faster pasted action and higher demand of situation/terrain perception and the complexity of the combat. In reality you could end up a boss fight in rtwp before you could end up your first round in tb fighting trash encounter. I believe rtwp to be more complex and combat diverse. While the TB system is becoming stale,you do know what you could do and what the ai will do,it is more of a minor puzzle to be honest. While in rtwp you could end up in situation because of how mobile the battle is. Some times your enemy might decide to pull back and your heroes ending up surrounded or having the wrong fighter in the place of the tank,or you could kill the right enemy at good time and end up running behind enemy lines with your rogue and going for that backstab. RTwP is superior in the tactical aspect hands down,also it demands more skills from the player,while TB needs you to just know the effects of the skills and not to be a retard.
In the end liking one system over the other is not the problem,the problem is trying impose your taste on to other people.
In addition to this there is also the simultaneous "turn" resolution.
I like TB and RtwP, they both have their strengths and weaknesses and while I think it's pretty bad brand management to make a BG3 turn based I don't really care as long as its good TB. The issue for me is that I have little faith in Larian providing this and everything else looks like a complete Trainwreck.
Best case scenario, for me, given the limited information we currently have is that they make a relatively faithful implementation of 5e and provide good mod tools/license their engine to more competent developers.
They should have done as owlcat,make a core of rtwp and add tb as an option.
How is that a flaw? I have never played rtwp with full on active ai,especially on casters. The most i let them attack the closest and let fighters use their skills while i command the casters. The two systems are made to be played differently. I very rarely pause,even on harder fights and difficulty,most of the time i just let them auto attack and cast offensive spells. The things you dislike about the system is what it makes it good for me mate,i do like the faster pasted action and higher demand of situation/terrain perception and the complexity of the combat. In reality you could end up a boss fight in rtwp before you could end up your first round in tb fighting trash encounter. I believe rtwp to be more complex and combat diverse. While the TB system is becoming stale,you do know what you could do and what the ai will do,it is more of a minor puzzle to be honest. While in rtwp you could end up in situation because of how mobile the battle is. Some times your enemy might decide to pull back and your heroes ending up surrounded or having the wrong fighter in the place of the tank,or you could kill the right enemy at good time and end up running behind enemy lines with your rogue and going for that backstab. RTwP is superior in the tactical aspect hands down,also it demands more skills from the player,while TB needs you to just know the effects of the skills and not to be a retard.
In the end liking one system over the other is not the problem,the problem is trying impose your taste on to other people.
In addition to this there is also the simultaneous "turn" resolution.
I like TB and RtwP, they both have their strengths and weaknesses and while I think it's pretty bad brand management to make a BG3 turn based I don't really care as long as its good TB. The issue for me is that I have little faith in Larian providing this and everything else looks like a complete Trainwreck.
Best case scenario, for me, given the limited information we currently have is that they make a relatively faithful implementation of 5e and provide good mod tools/license their engine to more competent developers.
How is that a flaw? I have never played rtwp with full on active ai,especially on casters. The most i let them attack the closest and let fighters use their skills while i command the casters. The two systems are made to be played differently. I very rarely pause,even on harder fights and difficulty,most of the time i just let them auto attack and cast offensive spells. The things you dislike about the system is what it makes it good for me mate,i do like the faster pasted action and higher demand of situation/terrain perception and the complexity of the combat. In reality you could end up a boss fight in rtwp before you could end up your first round in tb fighting trash encounter. I believe rtwp to be more complex and combat diverse. While the TB system is becoming stale,you do know what you could do and what the ai will do,it is more of a minor puzzle to be honest. While in rtwp you could end up in situation because of how mobile the battle is. Some times your enemy might decide to pull back and your heroes ending up surrounded or having the wrong fighter in the place of the tank,or you could kill the right enemy at good time and end up running behind enemy lines with your rogue and going for that backstab. RTwP is superior in the tactical aspect hands down,also it demands more skills from the player,while TB needs you to just know the effects of the skills and not to be a retard.
In the end liking one system over the other is not the problem,the problem is trying impose your taste on to other people.
Sure buddy. Whatever you say. 
Because they were able to make a passable rtwp before that.They should have done as owlcat,make a core of rtwp and add tb as an option.
How is that a flaw? I have never played rtwp with full on active ai,especially on casters. The most i let them attack the closest and let fighters use their skills while i command the casters. The two systems are made to be played differently. I very rarely pause,even on harder fights and difficulty,most of the time i just let them auto attack and cast offensive spells. The things you dislike about the system is what it makes it good for me mate,i do like the faster pasted action and higher demand of situation/terrain perception and the complexity of the combat. In reality you could end up a boss fight in rtwp before you could end up your first round in tb fighting trash encounter. I believe rtwp to be more complex and combat diverse. While the TB system is becoming stale,you do know what you could do and what the ai will do,it is more of a minor puzzle to be honest. While in rtwp you could end up in situation because of how mobile the battle is. Some times your enemy might decide to pull back and your heroes ending up surrounded or having the wrong fighter in the place of the tank,or you could kill the right enemy at good time and end up running behind enemy lines with your rogue and going for that backstab. RTwP is superior in the tactical aspect hands down,also it demands more skills from the player,while TB needs you to just know the effects of the skills and not to be a retard.
In the end liking one system over the other is not the problem,the problem is trying impose your taste on to other people.
In addition to this there is also the simultaneous "turn" resolution.
I like TB and RtwP, they both have their strengths and weaknesses and while I think it's pretty bad brand management to make a BG3 turn based I don't really care as long as its good TB. The issue for me is that I have little faith in Larian providing this and everything else looks like a complete Trainwreck.
Best case scenario, for me, given the limited information we currently have is that they make a relatively faithful implementation of 5e and provide good mod tools/license their engine to more competent developers.
Nah, if they aren't even able to implement good TB why would they be able to make a game that is balanced for two game modes at the same time?
love the fiend folioGithyanki have a pact with a group of red dragons (see ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS MONSTER MANUAL - Dragon, ed) which, in return for shelter, food and treasure, assist the githyanki when on the Prime Material Plane by acting as steeds. The dragons transport 4-6 and 1-5 githyanki each according to sizelage (above sub-adult); thus a small young adult dragon could transport 5 githyanki (4 for size, 1 for age), an average-sized old dragon could transport 8 (5 for size, 3 for age) and a huge ancient dragon could transport 11 (6 for size, 5 for age). These red dragons will obey only githyanki when the latter are on the Prime Material Plane.
- Fiend Folio, 1981
If the DM allow it yes.
