samuraigaiden
Arcane
Turn-based is better, always, forever.
That is only because they are using an already established system that has been refined and playtested for 10-20 years now. When Owlcat comes up with a wholly new system, then we can talk.Kingmaker has it's fault, but at least it isn't a massive turd that climax's upon seeing barrels, and also likes to pretend that it's master tactician meteorologist.
5e is not DnD. It is a reskinned WoW on paper. So, yes, it will be shit whichever way you look at it.That is only because they are using an already established system that has been refined and playtested for 10-20 years now. When Owlcat comes up with a wholly new system, then we can talk.Kingmaker has it's fault, but at least it isn't a massive turd that climax's upon seeing barrels, and also likes to pretend that it's master tactician meteorologist.
Larian will be using an established system for their next game (BG3).
- Potion/shove and attack in the same turn
- Rogue's not having reactive abilities
- Changing turn-based mechanics to team-based
- Max party of 4
- Max level of 10
You can argue all you want that typical tabletop campaigns are usually for parties that go to level 10. But considering how many rules they've already broken, it's obvious they aren't aiming to create an accurate rendition of DND 5e rules. I wouldn't be surprised if they capped off summon limits to 1 like DOS. You'll get to see the difference between Owlcat using an established system vs Larian using one for yourself.
BG3 won't even have anywhere close to P: KM's build options, let alone it's sequel, because it's obvious already that Larian will be streamlining the hell out of the game. They'll add some interesting usages for abilities in combat, and simplify as many things as they deem necessary.
5e is not DnD. It is a reskinned WoW on paper. So, yes, it will be shit whichever way you look at it.That is only because they are using an already established system that has been refined and playtested for 10-20 years now. When Owlcat comes up with a wholly new system, then we can talk.Kingmaker has it's fault, but at least it isn't a massive turd that climax's upon seeing barrels, and also likes to pretend that it's master tactician meteorologist.
Larian will be using an established system for their next game (BG3).
- Potion/shove and attack in the same turn
- Rogue's not having reactive abilities
- Changing turn-based mechanics to team-based
- Max party of 4
- Max level of 10
You can argue all you want that typical tabletop campaigns are usually for parties that go to level 10. But considering how many rules they've already broken, it's obvious they aren't aiming to create an accurate rendition of DND 5e rules. I wouldn't be surprised if they capped off summon limits to 1 like DOS. You'll get to see the difference between Owlcat using an established system vs Larian using one for yourself.
BG3 won't even have anywhere close to P: KM's build options, let alone it's sequel, because it's obvious already that Larian will be streamlining the hell out of the game. They'll add some interesting usages for abilities in combat, and simplify as many things as they deem necessary.
And 5e hasn't been playtested.
I don't really find one to be better than the other.
Turn-based is inclined but D:OS is sort of like the McMansion of turn-based combat -- superficially imposing, but supported with unskillful architecture and cheap materials.
RtwP is mostly declined but PF:KM has solid systems and character development that are fun to use and develop through the decline -- it's not a mansion, but it is made with skillful architecture and expensive materials.
In the long run, the McMansion is a huge liability and the crafted house is a better investment overall.
On the other hand, D:OS has more elaborate environments to explore (beside a flat plane with optional areas gated behind skill checks) and superior physics for interacting with these environments.
Larian did good at the things they cared about and Owlcat did good at the things they cared about.