Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Weapons and combat

As much as I like D&D, it many ways it is limited and could use polishing. After all, BG wasn't a direct 1:1 translation of D&D, so why should BG3 be? It's a CRPG, so things can be improved.

One thing that always irked me is how weapons and armor are handeled. They are terribly simplified an lack proper variatey and ... flare? Feel?

Anyone who is into medieval fighting knows that most weapons are not limited to 1 damage type. A sword CAN be a specialized thrusting weapons, but it can also be a thrusting, slashing and blunt weapon. Half-swording and the dreaded mordhau can be used to end your enemy rightly.
Something like a warhammer is primarily a blunt weapon...but most warhammers had a back and top spike, so you could do thrusting attacks.
So what I'm saying is give weapons damage values for different damage types based on a weapon.

A longsword might do 2d4 slashing, 1d6 thrusting or 1d8 blunt damage. Only one type of damage is done per attack, with damage type done either random, based on level/weapon skill(higher skills means a more favorable damage type is chosen more often) or the player can focus.

Armors would get different damage type damage resistance/reduction, with things like chainmail great against slashing, but poor against blunt, and things like field plate being great against everything.



Also adding weapons reach would add a lot. Anyone who ever trained with weapons can tell you just how big of a factor reach is. Having a shorter weapons makes it so much more difficult to get within striking range. So every weapon would have a reach value:
fists - 0
knives - 1
one handed mace/axe/hammer/shortsword - 2
sword - 3
longsword/two-handed mace/axe/hammer - 4
spear -5
greatsword - 6
pike/polearm - 7

The reach difference would basically give a penalty to hit to the one with shorter weapon, simulating the difficulty of getting within striking distance.


Doing these would both give even mundane weapons a lot more variance and character and make it more interesting. Now two different swords can have their own pros and cons and have something going for them even if not heavily enchanted.
That +1 hammer is nice, but it doesn't have spikes, so it's only blunt damage. On the other hand, this other hammer is normal, but has spikes. Do I go for a magical shortsword or a regular sword. Maybe that +1 reach could prove decisive?

Well, according to Wizards of the coast, BG3 is supposed to be cannon to 5e rules. So it would be a big stretch into the wrong direction to expect they will refine the combat system. But one can dream of course.

I thought there were already reach rules as well as hieght rules for weapons in 5e

Not sure I like the idea of it being random, but perhaps it could be done based on monster/enemy resistances, i.e. Skeletons take no pierce damage but bash damage, thus on a sword, It's bash value is the damage they take.

Not seen the monster manual for 5th, so can't comment if that's feasible, but IF anyone was to look at different attacks per weapon, this would be my choice, otherwise we would likely be looking at an XCOM type scenario whereby you have cooldowns on particular attacks.

I hope they stay very close to the D&D 5e rules.
Admittedly, they are far from perfect (Example: I hate that many classes can use shortbows but can't use longbows as if there was a huge difference).
But they have been tried and tested for years and have been very popular overall.

Once they start changing major rules, they'll open the box of pandora (like allowing to throw your boots as bonus action when it should only be allowed for offhand daggers in certain circumstances).
Changes will require changes that will require further changes.
In the end, we'll stray so far from the P&P ruleset that RtwP would seem like a minor cosmetic adjustment...

They should stick to changes that are absolutely necessary for the transition towards computers.
And maybe implement a few select balance changes that the community largely agrees on.

Everything else is for mods!

Sorry, but I do not think you will get those things.

- The game is based on DnD 5E, so weapons will probably be like in the manual.
Raze said somewhere that the game uses DnD items, not D:OS ones and I am happy about this change.
They did some changes to the PnP rules (shove and jump are bonus actions, for example) but I do not think they will change the general concept of items.
There may be some unique exeptions though, like BG1+2 had the staffspear+2, a weapon that dealt piercing damage but could be used with quarterstaff profiency.

- This is a fantasy game based on PnP rules, not a realistic simulation of anything.
So far I did not see a game that simulated realistic combat and was fun to play, but this does not mean such a game does not exist.
I would not expect much realism in a fantasy game anyway. The game must be immersive and fun, thats enough.

It does look like they added 'weapon properties' to weapons, I guess we'll see how that works out in practice. This was actually done in the 5e play-test years ago, but it was ultimately realized that it was always more efficient to simply do the damage and end the threat, as opposed to the the special attacks provided by a particular weapon due to its nature.

There are already weapons with the reach property in D&D5e, like lances and polearms. Shorter weapons do not get a penalty, but reach weapons get a bonus reach and can strike you from afar (like some attacks of huge creatures from example). Lances get a disadvantage to use them to strike creatures at 5ft, but I think it´s the only one. You also have weapons that you can use two or one-handed, and weapons that give penalties when you wield two weapons.

I prefer it that way, do not get penalties to shorter weapons but to give advantages to the weapons that have reach. Maybe it is not as realistic, but it is less messy and in the end, you have the same bonuses/penalties. Just remember that penalties and bonuses in attacks using numbers are fewer in 5e, they merged most of them in the "advantage/disadvantage" rules.

That said it would be interesting that most weapons could use different types of damage like in reality, in previous editions and in games like Pathfinder or The Dark eye; because there are creatures that are resistant, immune or vulnerable to certain types of attacks (or even subclasses like the protection domain clerics) and only one type of damage per weapon is a little restrictive and unrealistic.

It also would be interesting if they do something different with the armours, especially the medium ones. Most armour is the same, even tho a plate armour or chainmail or scale have very different properties. I do not think they will diverge much on the core rules of D&D5e, but it would be nice if they allow modding support in the game so we can do that.

"Changing anything means more will change, means more will change."
That is the slippery slope fallacy.

I guess some people like at 5e as some holy grail. To me it is nothing more than a decent guideline. As long as I get a good game, I don't care for whatever ruleset is used.

That said, if 5e has reach rules, I didn't see any reach stat for the weapon in the demo. Actually, the little we've seen from the inventory shows a concerning lack of weapon data.

The reach system I described uses a single, easily understandable rule that both makes sense and is consistent with how weapons work in RL.
You described 3 different rules and special case scenarios. How is that less messy?





Back in the day I actually modded BG2 to alter how armor worked, by adding resistances/absorbtion. It was a very different experience, and at least for me far better. There was a big difference in how light and heavy armors felt and operated.
As it stands a high dexterity bonus from light armor and high AC from heavy armor amount to the same thing in the end - avoid getting hit. And yes, I know it's supposed to represent armor defleecting the hit, but you are never hit to begin with. Visually and mechanically it was unsatisfying.

One has to remember that much of D&D mechanics are so simple because players were the one doing all of the maths. To keep the game moving, it had to be as simple as possible. But in a CRPG, it's the PC that does the heavy lifting, and todays PC's have CPU to spare. You can go wild.

Ultimatively, when you're moving from one medium to another, the limitations of the origin medium may not apply anymore. No need to be constrained by them.

Interesting. Tough I don't know what specials they added.
Speaking of RL, there are moves with weapons that are designed as a set-up. Not to kill, but to open the enemy more to the next strike.




Ahh...but what is immersive?
Realism is a bad choice of word... versimilitude..believeability?

for example - what if humans acted non-human like? What if despite being humans, their biology was backwards? Or if you started a fire by rubbing two ice cubes together?Would that ruin your immersion? It would mine.

Which is kinda an issue. You cannot un-know things. Once you understand how some things work, seeing them work backwards is jarring. Even moreso, because you see missed opportunity/potential to deepen the experience. Reality is not the enemy of fantasy - all fantasy is grounded in reality to begin with, and can be used to even further strengthen the fantastical elements and immerse you deeper.

You mean like special attacks with cooldowns? Eeewwww, no.
There's nothing special about grabbing a sword by the blade and smashing your enemy with the pommel/guard like it's a hammer.

Tough you're not always in position to use a specific attack or grip. The enemy won't just stan there and wait for you - you will have to parry/block.
Having a preferred damage type switch option for a weapon (set it to blunt and the PC/NPC will prioritize dealing blunt damage) might be preferable, but my personal choice would be a weighted one. (you won't always do the optimal damage type, but most of the time)

You also have the option of doing all 3 damage types at once (not a fan) or only doing the most optimal type (ok I guess)

now we come into the old DND problem of realism vs utility.

The argument that restrictions for martial maneuvers are "Unrealistic" is the exact reason dnd doesnt have them.
Ive recently read through tome of battle again and had a good laugh about what grognards considered outlandishly "anime" (it includes things like distracting opponent sso they cant make opportunity attacks, it realy isnt what youve heard it is besides those classes that are obviously meant to be monk stand ins)

The argument always is the same, there should be no restrictions. the problem is that the way DnD is structured, if you do not restrict things, they are either better or worse.
That leads to the following situation

1. Either a maneuver is just a better combat option than a basic attack, then theres no reason no tto do it constantly. This so far has never happened.
2. a maneuver is a lot worse than a full attack -> this is how it is in most editions
3. you have to invest a massive ammount of feats to get a maneuver, which then leads to situation 1

Theres a reason the battlemasters maneuver require superiority dice. This gives it a form of ressource and risk management.
Thats why 4e had AEDU and why Tome of Battle had "Maneuvers Readied".

This knee jerk reaction of "but its unrealistic" is actually bad for having decent martials.

Thats it.

We will have this again in BG3.
Larian changed shove and jump to a bonus action with the argument: "Players will rather use the regular attack or cast a spell than using other actions. So they will never see the cool stuff we created. Lets just make it a bonus action so they can attack and see the funny stuff."
This will change the standard interaction with an enemy from "attack every round" to "attack and throw the enemy around every round", because an attack with a sword does more damage than shove, but attack+shove deals more damage than one of those actions alone.
With the normal DnD rules you would only shove when the enemy stands on a really high cliff or you can push him into a pit with spikes or even lava.

You mentioned the battlemaster and you are correct. Its good special maneuvers need resources, else they are either useless or they become the standart action. Maybe Larian needs to make some restrictions for bonus actions or special abilities of weapons (no cooldown please, this is so much non DnD)

PS: If they keep shove and jump a bonus action, they should add a withdraw action and jump provokes AoO. It makes no sense to jump away from an enemy just like this.

honestly they should have a normal withdrawl action.
as for the other thing.

I still prefer this solution over vanilla because that way you at least do soemthing else each round and not just attack.
i think the sweet spot is give it a risk of doing something bad.

basically, any option you take in combat should be a consideration.
Do you use option A or B?
This ocnsideration in DnD is typically done with ressource management.

"Do i waste my spell slot for this?" "Do i waste my daylie rages for this?" "do i waste my suepriority dice for this?"
The problem is that DnD is terrible at options.
The only realy class that has them is Battlemaster since all his maneuvers draw from the same pool (superiority dice)
The wizard has something simmilar but the descision doesnt get made in combat, in combat you only decide wether or not to waste this ressource.

Larian is used to divinity where the balance is achieved by having multiple abilities per class that do different things but all require action points to do.
so you decide is crippling my opponent better or is hitting him once but also buffing myself better?
in DnD this doesnt work because it doesnt have active abilities and it doesnt have AP, it uses actions, so each action is equivalent to one another in "Time" investment, so it al comes down to either
1. ressources or 2. risks.
Maneuvers typically have been balanced with Risk, as in, they were more likeley to fail than a Full Attack and usually didnt do any damage, that resulted in them beeing shit.

So now youve got two options.
Either you buff stuff like Shove or jump to the point where they are as potent as a Full Attack, OR you make them less of an investment (minor action)
personally i think what Larian did is the only way to do it within the framework of 5e.
if shove teleports an enemy aroudn the battlefield it would be even more ridiculous.

Of course the obvious solution would be to give every class superiority dice, but i can arleady hear Mike Mearls screeching about his school bullies

You say DnD is balanced over resource management, but I do not think it will work in a computer game. In BG and most other games you can rest as much as you want. Many players would complain if you restrict resting too much and in some cases it could prevent players from getting forward ( I have used almost all my resources because the last fight was harder than expected, the boss waits behind the next door, I cannot rest and the path back to town is also very long and dangerous.)

so far I have seen 2 games who tried to solve this:
- In Pillars of Eternity1 you need camping supplies to rest, you can only have a small number of them and you have health and endurance, so at some point you cannot heal yourself anymore. But exept for the final dungeon its always save to go back the same way you came and go to the inn.
- In Pathfinder Kingmaker you need rations for every party member to rest and they are heavy, plus there is a time limit. This seems quite close to the PnP rules, at least for a computer game. In extreme situations it can kill you if you are in a dungeon you cannot leave or you are close to the time limit.

I think when its your turn DnD is mostly about opportunity costs. You can do a, b or c but you have only one action. So doing a means you cannot do b or c. Very often one options is much better than the others, so your choice is not very interesting often. A fighter with high strengh and a huge sword will probably attack most of the time, unless there is a really good reason to do something else.

Well yes, Resting is a big problem and ive talked about this in other threads aswell.
I dont know how theyll do it, but they have to find a way to figure it out.
Pathfidner had timed quests but this appears to be highly unpopular with people.

And yes, in DnD the whole "decide between two equally strong options" doesnt work because of how DnD works.
And because DnD refuses to do more mechanically coded abilities.
Its a flaw of the system that was fixed and then reitroduced because people wanted it.

realy i got no easy solutions for these.
For resting, remember that dnd was made for a dungeon, in a dungeon you probably wont be able to rest, so in my campaigns i ofthen try to either have stuff going on realy fast so the party cant rest or put them in an enviroment where they cant rest (like a dungeon)

Expeditions: Viking has an interesting camping system as well. You must assign the members of your party to different tasks like hunting, guarding, cleaning, cooking, making medicinal herbs, etc. And according to what resources you have assigned, the outcome of camping differs and may give you bonuses or malus (starving members etc.).

In Pathfinder you also had to give every party member a task when resting.
Usually that meant I reloaded the game when I was ambushed or the hunting was not successfull.

For general manouvers, no, there shouldn't be cooldowns or limits.
Weather you slash or stab with a sword, it's all natural. There's nothing special about it, nothing that requires special skill or breaking of the flow. There's no need to micromanage your fighter, otherwise, you might as well manually adjust edge aligment for every swing.

There are exceptions.

Like trying to hook/trip with an exe/halberd.
Switching the sword grip to reverse (holding by the blade) might qualify. Could work like a toggle between pierce/slash while in normal grip and blunt while in reverse.
Half-swording...I don't see it working as a special manouvere.
Attempting a disarm might work as an manouvre/ability, since it's not what you normally do.
Or throwing your pommel at an enemy (jk)