Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Ammunition management

I agree with you.
Breaking weapons made the first magic weapon you find feel very importent, even if it is just a dagger+1.
Managing ammo was importent because finding a weapon with infinite ammo felt great.
I admit that both things were importent for the feeling that this is a typical BG game.

Now comes the question: Does it make sense to add a system (e.g. breaking weapons, limited ammo) when the player tries to get rid of this system ASAP?
Or is it just the item equivalent of the story to get rid of the toadpole?

It is, because you are greatly rewarded when you can get rid of this... This is really not common. This is really legendary and not because it's orange and because this weapon over-increased your statistics or damages such it is in nearly all (not-old-school) RPG since the MMORPG golden age.

Of course the feelings you found something amazing is increased because you can't (easily/soon) find such weapons for all your team.

Why should it be "running back and forth ?

It's again all about choices/balance.
You have to adapt your strategy to your choices.
If your thief can't use his bow, he still has daggers or he can craft/find arrows. He can still put traps on the ground or stealth.

It's bad if you always NEED to go back, which shouldn't be the only solution (whatever we're talking about).
This is about balance and possibilities allowed by the game.

Meaning, they would pick up all they could carry, go back to town and sell it, run back to the dungeon and repeat.



Yes, and I like that. But in the case of arrows, I'm not so sure it would feel that way. For example, consider the special arrows in DOS2, or even the scrolls and potions for that matter. Because there is a limited supply of them, I can be hesitant to use them because of the possibility of a future scenario where I really might need them (unless I remember to shake myself out of it and just say "fuck it"). I generally end up hoarding them. I wouldn't want to have to consider if an opponent was "arrow worthy" (Seinfeld .. sponge worthy ... anyone?) for each and every attack. I could see the end result being a melee character that occasionally shoots, and never the true archer that exists in these fantasy settings.

And in case of BG1&2 that was never the case. While you are theoretically in danger of running out of space, thanks to careful design that never happens (at least not when you play with the full party). BG1 doesn't have enough unique items to fill your inventories, and BG2 has containers to carry pretty much whatever you want. By the time you get enough unique items, game gives you a bag of holding which will allow you to carry whatever you want till the end of the adventure. Running out of arrows was never an issue, as enemies would leave more arrows for you than you care to carry. Outside of very very early BG1 economy management is not an issue.

I dunno, I see the point in a way, but I also see the point of saying this is a handicap especially for archers and is not applied consistently; for example, the same argument could be made for mages having to buy mana potions to replenish their resources instead of them magically increasing over time, and warrior having to make regular trips to swordsmiths to get their gear fixed. Eventually it can do the opposite of being immersive and just becomes a never-ending chore.

I agree with Vometia. Most mechanics about broken weapons and armour to be fixed, sleep and eating mechanics, spell components, projectiles for your weapons, etc, sounds great at the start, but when you have 100h in a game and you are in the middle of a foreign plane in a deadly dungeon and you have to travel several days to the city to find some bread, a smithy or some arrow shafts because you cannot carry all the replacement supplies due to the carry limit the idea gets older really fast.
Most (good) campaign designers always come to a point in the endgame that gives you an option to do that without making it a chore (like bags of holding, mending items, travelling merchants, neverending waterskins, returning arrows, etc)

In D&D you gather a party when combined you should hopefully have a well balanced team. With that said every class has a weakness, this is why or one reason we look for comrades to go on these adventures, together we make up a balanced fighting / problem solving unit. I say no to unlimited ammo, its a weakness, but one that can be overcome with cleverness and preparedness.

-Doom

I agree, I vote Wizards and Sorc have unlimited spells per day, as to be balanced with the fighters ability to swing his axe unlimited times per day!! And now that were on the subject My paladin is feeling left out he wants unlimited lay on handS!! ....NOT

Some mecanics exists and can be a part of the game without breaking inventory minimum management, immersion/reality feelings.

As you said, taking back arrows on bodies you just pierced, specific bags, finding arrows on ennemies dead archers or on their armory, someone talked about crafting...

There are a lot of possibilities that can be designed for this specific gameplay element to be a part of the game with the minimum risks to have to travel to a town during a long dungeon.
And this is also sometimes, I guess in less dangerous situation to force players to play a bit another way with his characters (ranged characters are probably less effective without ammo, but they are never useless).

Can't see the link with mana potion, breaking weapons and so on... Yes it's another way to improve realism but it's not what we're talking about.

Too much realism on every points is not always good I agree... But I really wait to hear someone saying it's a HANDICAP in BG1&2 (which is not the same as saying "I don't like it" or "I don't find this mecanic usefull").

You cannot attack with a broken weapon, the same as you cannot shot without projectiles, so you need to repair it or find a replacement, the same as finding more projectiles or crafting more. If you do not fulfil this requirement you cannot attack the way you want, so it is related. Both can be annoying in the long run IMHO because we are not talking about spells, healing or shapeshifting or supernatural abilities, we are talking about basic attacks... for a warrior that seldom has other ways of intervening in the combat.

If we are talking BG-BG2 I think it was a handicap to have stacks of only 20 arrows like in the original game. Thankfully that was fixed.

The equivalent would be reagents for spellcasters and having to sharpen weapons after every few battles, not unlimited spells. Move along.

I totally agree with stacks of 20 ammo. This was really boring.
It's 80 in the EE editions and I don't find it's a real problem to have so many ammo. The fact is that it's NOT unlimited. You HAVE to think about it and manage it, even if it's not every hours.

Melee can use range weapons in BG1&2, and they can pick more than only one weapon so they always have something else...
Not saying this is fun but only to answer to the "they have nearly no other way of intervening" : take a look at the firsts chapters in BG1 during iron crisis... Your weapons break all the time...
Is that anoying ? Yes I think it is (because it's only random and you can do anything against or to prevent it).
Is it impossible for you to continue ? Do you always need to go back in town and forget everything you were doing ? Not really.

However, some games include weapon sharpening and durability...
I don't find it's the same because we can continue saying that the rope of your bow can also break... But anyway these mecanics exists and are not "handicap", it's just a part of the game.

This is one of those arguments with no real 'winner'.

People like having limited ammo for good reason.
People also like having infinite ammo for equally good reasons.

I'm in the 'unlimited normal ammo, but limit anything stronger (fire arrows, arrows +1 & up, etc)' camp. I feel it's annoying to have my ranged-focused Ranger run out of arrows, while the melee-focused fighter has 0 drawbacks.
I'm also glad Spellcasters don't have to buy and keep track of reagents. I don't even do that in my pen & paper games, unless they are very rare reagents. And even then, 1GP-cost-reagents may be allot at level 3, but at level 15, it's probably no problem to just have it. Unless the spell is VERY powerful.

The spirit of Baldur's Gate should probably be the winner for BG3 then^^
Oh wait, it's not about B...*ahem*

Don't really know why I'm still here with hopes^^
(just a feeling in my head, nothing to do with this conversation even if I know this is just one more thing that's going to be different^^)

I want arrows to be a manageable resource. However, having said that, in D&D 5e, if you are proficient with Woodcarver's Tools you can craft 5 arrows as part of a short rest (or 20 arrows as part of a long rest). Seeing as per short rest abilities refresh after every combat, I could see that after every combat, you automatically craft 5 arrows, while after every actual rest you automatically craft 20 arrows. This would make it much less of a resource that you would be forced to upkeep, while keeping true to the D&D 5e rules.

You are only allowed to get as many arrows as you can carry.

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit out a better statement than that.

I have not read one person post the obvious in regards to limitless bolts, the tactical advantage range has over melee. Melee you need to get up and personal, you will most certainly take damage. Ranged there is little risk... if your smart. So giving ranged unlimited arrows, is just OP, IMO

Not really. Arrows, on their own, don't do much. And a shortbow is the same as a longsword for damage.
The downside is that you incur an AOO if you shoot while in melee.

So Ranged = Can't do melee
Melee = Can't do ranged.

If you give players infinite base ammo, you're actually balancing the equation, since melee character don't 'use up' their 1d6 sword to attack.