Originally Posted by mahe4
I have a hard time understanding people, that argue against going closer to 5e.
Every time some one makes an argument, why it's good to go closer to a 5e rule system, he backs up his/her argument with a reason.
and all i hear against it is mainly, that people will always complain that it's not a perfect 5e simulator.
that is just a strawman argument that doesn't even address the actual issue, that these posts address.

I actually don't care if larian uses a 5e ruleset or not. they can use something totally different, or something that just takes bits and pieces from 5e. but they complicate their own development process by straying away from 5e. but if thats what they want so be it.

but to the actual complaints. the actual complaints, that people have, can also be solved by not using the 5e system. it is just easier to use an existing blueprint.
i will now list the most critical complaints (in my opinion), that would be easily solved by going closer to 5e. and i want to hear actual arguments why larian *shouldn't* change these issues, instead of strawmans and name callings.

1. Easy Advantage: Backstab and High ground are too easy to accomplish, and every battle is about getting in the back of the enemy in melee or getting high ground as ranged fighter. It's not fun, if you use the "strategy" every single combat. it makes combat just annoying, if it's just about, how to get in the back of the enemy without getting AoO's.

Oddly enough, I played a lot of DDO, and I do mean a lot. One of my favorite classes was Assassin. I'm going to toot my own horn here, I was pretty good at it. But my question is, why would I want to gimp my damage because you think it's "not fun"?

2. Rogue bonus actions: Making shove, jump, disengange and hide to bonus actions creates a high movement battlefield. in it's own that isn't a bad thing, but it bags the question, why make it so complicated, if you want a high movement battlefield? just remove attacks of opportunity, if you want to accomplish that.

3. Cantrips are too powerful: all cantrips, that create surfaces are better than most 1st level spells, by creating surfaces on their own. why even bother with 1st lvl damage spells? because of the high movement battlefield, often aoe spells area isn't big enough to hit multiple enemies at once. so it's better to cast said cantrips, instead of 1st level damage spells, because they are reource free. doesn't make sense from a game design perspective

those are the main 3 complains, that get up in every thread, that argues to go closer to table top.
all of the 3 can be solved by other means, yes. it's just easier to use the blueprint that already exists.

what i want to know is, what do people argue against these 3 issues? does anyone like to always run behind enemies, to get a better hit chance? isn't it annoying after the 15th time?
a want real arguments and no name calling!
and i don't want another debate about DOS3 vs 5e. that isn't helping anyone.

Nope, I don't find playing a thief as a thief annoying. I am confused as to why every class in the game gets my thief's abilities, but I'm hoping that will be fixed by release.